Why " evolution vs creationism"

[Subduction Zone]

I personally accept what you call evolution.

And what about "evidence"? I can supply more than one source for that definition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It depends on what you mean by creationism, and what do you mean by evidence.

Creationism is any hypothesis that posits an intelligent designer as the source of the universe, the life in it, or both. It varies from ideas like the Viking creation story to what is called theistic evolution, in which gentle pressure is posited to arise from an intelligent designer with a goal or purpose in mind.

Evidence is anything that is evident, that is, that can be known to the senses and reason, and which a makes a hypothesis more or less likely to be correct. The cosmic microwave background radiation was detected last century and helped establish Big Bang cosmology over steady state hypotheses. Evidence is also looking left and right for oncoming traffic before crossing the street and formulating a hypothesis about whether crossing just now is safe or unsafe.

In fact this argument was proposed by an evolutionist.

I don't see any relevance to that.

You neglected to answer the question asked, which was, "Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?"

We know that these mechanisms exist, we know that some genetic changes are not random and produce “small changes”, the only question is whether if these mechanisms can be extended and explain what one would call “big changes”

There is no known barrier preventing lesser changes occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing to larger changes over longer periods of time. Pluto has only been known to exist since last century, and has not yet completed even half of an orbit around the sun in that time. Yet we're pretty sure that Pluto has orbited the sun millions of time because we know of no barrier preventing micro-orbiting from becoming macro-orbiting given enough time. The process that causes change in Pluto's position continues for as long as Pluto, the sun, and the force of gravity continue to exist and act. Likewise with evolution.

we know that non random mutations exist and there are peer reviewed articles suggesting mechanism that are not based on random mutations. This is not a “creationists thing”

I think you're getting a little far afield. Bottom line - we have no evidence for an intelligent designer, nor any need for one at this time. No scientific theory contains a god or benefits by adding one. Furthermore, incredulity arguments - "I just can't imagine how it can be true that ..." - are fallacious arguments with no persuasive power.

 

[sealchan]

And my suggestion would be that an organism that “needs” better sight is more likely to receive a “variation” that would produce a better sight than an organisms that doesn’t “need” better sight. (non random)

Darwin would have said that both organisms are equally likely to receive this variation (random)

This is what I mean by random, please let me know if I should use some other word

I think that you are getting caught up in an intuition that science lovers may struggle to free you from.

While it is true that evolutionary scientists would say that mutations in themselves are not related to a need for the species harboring that mutation in one of its individuals to have that mutation, what often gets missed I think is that there is within any species a genetic propensity to create a variety within its members such that that variety enables that species to have already mutated in a subset of its population in advance of any environmental change that may act on that species' survivability.

The trick is to recognize that the survival of a species is really the property of the whole species and not really quite the sum of the survivability of each of the individual members of the species.

 

[leroy]

Then you would have to demonstrate that to be the case. That natural variation in a population will occur is easily shown. Those mutations appear to be just as likely in a population that could not benefit from them as in a population that can. The difference is that in a population that does not need them they would likely be lost, or even be negative in effect.

So far all you have is handwaving.

Well we know that there are mechanisms that produce non random changes, (Natural Genetic Engineering for example) in the same there are examples of random mutations,

So what is your position?

That these mechanisms do not exist? That these mechanisms can’t account for the diversity of life? Please help me to spot our point of disagreement.

 

[leroy]

And what about "evidence"? I can supply more than one source for that definition.

Just to be clear, based on your definition of evidence, what about “people who claim to have seen the Long Ness Monster”, would you consider that to be evidence for the existence of the long ness monster? Yes / No why? This is just for clarification this will help me to understand your definition of evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well we know that there are mechanisms that produce non random changes, (Natural Genetic Engineering for example) in the same there are examples of random mutations,

So what is your position?

That these mechanisms do not exist? That these mechanisms can’t account for the diversity of life? Please help me to spot our point of disagreement.

You are ignoring the obvious now. Natural selection makes changes that are non-random. NGE is based partially on a strawman, which harms its case from the start, and appears to be a weak attempt to introduce intelligent design into biology. The probably reason that such a weak attempt was used is because strong attempts are easily shot down. It does not appear to be an idea that has any traction at all.

What else do you have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to be clear, based on your definition of evidence, what about “people who claim to have seen the Long Ness Monster”, would you consider that to be evidence for the existence of the long ness monster? Yes / No why? This is just for clarification this will help me to understand your definition of evidence

No, not scientific evidence since it is the observations in science that need to be repeatable. Either through proper recording of a one time event or through others being able to make the same observation independently. As "evidence" it is extremely weak. I should have provided a quote and link:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Bear Wild]

With evolution I mean “the idea that the complexity and diversity of life was caused mainly by random mutations + natural selection.

Using this definition, evolution would be a controversial idea.

If we accept that the main mechanism is non random genetic changes, I would suggest only 2 possibilities (feel free to suggest a third option)

1 the mutations are guided by an agent

2 the mutations are guided by a complex natural mechanism

Up to this point, do you agree?

3. point mutations, are influence by chance and stresses from the environment. Frameshift mutations are another example

4. Alterations in genetic variation is not just from mutations.

5. Simple mutations do not need any agent and are not derived from a complex natural mechanism.

6. There are multiple factors affecting gene expression

7. Natural selection including sexual selection ultimately influence the genetic code that gets passed down.

 

[Astrophile]

take for example Haldane´s dilema:



Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com


I will paraphrase the dilemma with my own words,

Imagine a primitive ape that lived 5M years ago, this ape suffered from a genetic point mutation that was so positive that in just 100 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the population. Then another ape (descendent of the first ape) has another positive mutation and in just 100 years the mutation becomes fixed and dominant.

Repeat this process for 5M years and you will end up having an ape with 50,000 positive mutations that were not present in the original ape.

Ok, so Humans and chimps have 3 Billion base pairs in their genome, if we are suppose to share 99% of our genome with them, then we have a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs.

But even under this unrealistic scenario (because we are assuming abundant “very positive mutations”) you can only account for 50,000 base pairs. You can account for less than the 0.002% of the changes that would be required in order to produce a human and an ape from a common ancestor who presumable lived 5M years ago and had a 1% genetic difference with relation to modern chimps and modern humans.

To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes.

This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

Do you accept that chimpanzees and gorillas are descended from a common ancestor? What about chimpanzees and orang-utans, or chimpanzees and gibbons?

 

[leroy]

Do you accept that chimpanzees and gorillas are descended from a common ancestor? What about chimpanzees and orang-utans, or chimpanzees and gibbons?

Yes I accept that we share a common ancestor. What I would reject is the idea that random mutations and natural selection where responsable for transforming a chimp-like ancestor in to a human. To me it seems more plausible that mutations where not random

 

[leroy]

No, not scientific evidence since it is the observations in science that need to be repeatable. Either through proper recording of a one time event or through others being able to make the same observation independently. As "evidence" it is extremely weak. I should have provided a quote and link:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Ok I accept this definition

 

[leroy]

You are ignoring the obvious now. Natural selection makes changes that are non-random. NGE is based partially on a strawman, which harms its case from the start, and appears to be a weak attempt to introduce intelligent design into biology. The probably reason that such a weak attempt was used is because strong attempts are easily shot down. It does not appear to be an idea that has any traction at all.

What else do you have?

If evolution (your definition) is caused by non random genetic changes.(like NGE) Then it is fair to say that there is a complex mechanism that drives the process of evolution.

The implication would be that complex mechanisms would have to predate evolution. Which would be a problem for naturalism.

As for the evidence for non random mutations, there are many things that seem impossible to have happened by random mutations.

For example there are cases of convergent evolution at a genetic level, (same genetic material evolved independently in 2 or more organisms) the idea that 2 independent organisms suffered from the exact same random mutations houndrets of times seems to be very improbable.

But if mutations are not random, the any impossibility would vanish.

One example of convergent evolutioneat a genetic level would be bats and dolphins, they have a similar zonar system (same genetic material) which is absent in other organisms that are closed relatives. Bats and dolphins suffered from the same mutations in the same spot 200 times.

There are 3Billion possible genetic spots where a random point mutation could have occured. What are the odds of hitting the jackpot 200 times (even in 20,000,000 years?, Even assuming selective preassure)

But if mutations are not random, but biased towards producing ecolocating systems, you don't have to worry about improbability.

Source
Google Académico

 

[Subduction Zone]

If evolution (your definition) is caused by non random genetic changes.(like NGE) Then it is fair to say that there is a complex mechanism that drives the process of evolution.

The implication would be that complex mechanisms would have to predate evolution. Which would be a problem for naturalism.

As for the evidence for non random mutations, there are many things that seem impossible to have happened by random mutations.

For example there are cases of convergent evolution at a genetic level, (same genetic material evolved independently in 2 or more organisms) the idea that 2 independent organisms suffered from the exact same random mutations houndrets of times seems to be very improbable.

But if mutations are not random, the any impossibility would vanish.

One example of convergent evolutioneat a genetic level would be bats and dolphins, they have a similar zonar system (same genetic material) which is absent in other organisms that are closed relatives. Bats and dolphins suffered from the same mutations in the same spot 200 times.

There are 3Billion possible genetic spots where a random point mutation could have occured. What are the odds of hitting the jackpot 200 times (even in 20,000,000 years?, Even assuming selective preassure)

But if mutations are not random, but biased towards producing ecolocating systems, you don't have to worry about improbability.

Source
Google Académico

Nope. Natural selection is a "complex mechanism". And one could say that it probably began to work during abiogenesis. Starting out simple and getting more "complex" as time went by. No gods need apply.

 

[leroy]

Creationism is any hypothesis that posits an intelligent designer as the source of the universe, the life in it, or both. It varies from ideas like the Viking creation story to what is called theistic evolution, in which gentle pressure is posited to arise from an intelligent designer with a goal or purpose in mind.

Evidence is anything that is evident, that is, that can be known to the senses and reason, and which a makes a hypothesis more or less likely to be correct. The cosmic microwave background radiation was detected last century and helped establish Big Bang cosmology over steady state hypotheses. Evidence is also looking left and right for oncoming traffic before crossing the street and formulating a hypothesis about whether crossing just now is safe or unsafe.

You are raising the bar too low, for example according to your definitions the lack of a known natural mechanism that produces life from none life (abiogenesis) is evidence for creationism. The absence of this mechanisms makes creation more likely to be true, than if such mechanism where real.

Using your definitions at most you can claim that there is not “conclusive evidence” for creationism, but it is naïve to say that there is absolutely no evidence.

You neglected to answer the question asked, which was, "Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?"

I don’t know, I don’t deny “naturalistic evolution” ether I deny the specific claim that states that random unintended, unbiased mutations + natural selection are responsible for the diversity of life.

There is no known barrier preventing lesser changes occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing to larger changes over longer periods of time. Pluto has only been known to exist since last century, and has not yet completed even half of an orbit around the sun in that time. Yet we're pretty sure that Pluto has orbited the sun millions of time because we know of no barrier preventing micro-orbiting from becoming macro-orbiting given enough time. The process that causes change in Pluto's position continues for as long as Pluto, the sun, and the force of gravity continue to exist and act. Likewise with evolution.

The problem is that the burden proof is on you,

sometimes “small changes” can accumulate and produce “big changes” (like the example of Pluto) and sometimes they don’t, your burden is to show that the “small changes” caused by the mechanism of random mutations and NATURAL SELECTION do accumulate and produce “big changes”

For example there has been observed examples of Lamarkism at a small scale (what you would call micro-evolution) but this doesn’t necessarily mean that big evolutionary changes where also caused by a lamarkinian-like mechanism agree……?, the burden proof would be on the Lamarckism that affirms it.

The point is that small changes do not necessarily add up to produce big changes, aditionl evidence has to be presented.

 

[ecco]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits

Actually, it implies that the starter of this thread doesn't understand the term "evolution".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

according to your definitions the lack of a known natural mechanism that produces life from none life (abiogenesis) is evidence for creationism

Disagree. The lack of a known mechanism for abiogenesis is not evidence of creationism. Once upon a time, before the advent of the science of genetic, we had no understanding of how genetic traits were transmitted to offspring. That also wasn't evidence for creationism.

The absence of this mechanisms makes creation more likely to be true, than if such mechanism where real.

We have a mechanism for abiogenesis. What is lacking is a clear pathway from atoms and the simplest molecules to a living replicator. The mechanism is the laws of chemistry. Put certain chemicals together in a given environment conducive to the spontaneous formation of biomolecules under thermodynamically favorable conditions, and the larger molecules form spontaneously.

Gods will not be inserted onto any scientific hypothesis or theory until gods are demonstrated to actually exist, or the need for them is demonstrated. Right now, science is making excellent progress with its abiogenesis research without any need to resort to gods.

Adding a god adds an immense amount of unneeded complexity to any hypothesis, which is not justified if a simpler explanation suffices, and is in fact a gross violation of Occam's principle of parsimony. Does it really make sense to posit the existence of the least likely thing to exist undesigned and uncreated - a god - to explain what seems explainable without one?

Anybody who does so has made a few logical errors apart from the Occam violation. What reason is there for positing a god? Is it because you don't see how a godless universe could arise and organize itself in the manner we find our world in? If so, that's an incredulity fallacy. Have you posited a god because you think that the world and the life in it are too complex to have arisen without an intelligent designer, but that no such argument applies to the intelligent designer? If so, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. Have you dropped the possibility of undirected chemical evolution (naturalisitic abiogenesis) from your list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of the first life? If so, you have committed a non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it.

Using your definitions at most you can claim that there is not “conclusive evidence” for creationism, but it is naïve to say that there is absolutely no evidence.

What piece of evidence makes creationism more likely than naturalistic, undirected abiogenesis and biological evolution? What finding is better explained by a supernatural hypothesis?

I don’t deny “naturalistic evolution” ether I deny the specific claim that states that random unintended, unbiased mutations + natural selection are responsible for the diversity of life.

You posit supernatural intervention, do you not? If you do, then your belief is not in a naturalisitic hypothesis. If you don't, in what way is your idea different from the mainstream scientific ideas?

So, just to be clear, are you positing an intelligent designer - a sentient and sufficiently powerful source of intention and purpose - as the source of some of the genetic changes that are thought to have occurred over the eons, or are you suggesting something else that does not involve intelligence or intention? It's still not clear to me what factors you think are involved in evolution if not just undirected genetic variation and natural selection..

The problem is that the burden proof is on you,

I have no burden of proof when I say that I see no barrier preventing lesser changes occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing to larger changes over longer periods of time, as with biological evolution and Pluto's motion. I have no burden of proof to demonstratingly convince you or anybody else that to me, nothing appears to be in a position to stop Pluto from orbiting the sun indefinitely as long as the sun and Pluto continue to maintain their current relationship, which has probably been for billions of years and will probably continue for billions of years to come.

If you want to say that it can't, then it is you with the burden of proof.

Incidentally, it seems that you elected to ignore the question I have asked of you twice now, namely, "Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?" I'll assume that you found the question inconvenient and thought that ignoring it was a better choice for you than attempting to answer it.

sometimes “small changes” can accumulate and produce “big changes” (like the example of Pluto) and sometimes they don’t, your burden is to show that the “small changes” caused by the mechanism of random mutations and NATURAL SELECTION do accumulate and produce “big changes”

No, it is your burden to show that they cannot, once we amend random mutation to read undirected, naturalistic genetic variation within gene pools over geologic time. It's already been conceded that there is more to genetic variation than mutation.

The point is that small changes do not necessarily add up to produce big changes, aditionl evidence has to be presented.

Disagree for reasons already given. There is no evidence that Pluto will stop orbiting the sun or life will cease evolving for as long as the conditions for them to continue persist. That's in contrast to a self-limited process which does have barriers that limit its progression.

Consider an icicle growing downward from your eave to your doormat. That's an obviously self-limited process. Eventually, either the icicle breaks off due to its own weight, or it reaches the ground and ceases growing downward, or the spring thaw put an end to it. Although it may be, there is nothing to suggest that evolution is such a process, and there is no duty prove that it is. It's enough that it may be.

 

[leroy]

What piece of evidence makes creationism more likely than naturalistic, undirected abiogenesis and biological evolution? What finding is better explained by a supernatural hypothesis?

Irrelevant, according to your definition of evidence I don’t have to show that creationism is more likely to be true than “naturalism”

evidence is anything that is evident, that is, that can be known to the senses and reason, and which a makes a hypothesis more or less likely to be correct

The lack of a clear pathway makes creationism more likely to be true, than if such a pathway exists. (therefore the lack of such pathway is evidence for creationism) I am using your definitions

Or in other words, if such a pathway is discovered tomorrow, creationism would be less likely to be true than today.

You posit supernatural intervention, do you not?

I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention. My view is that random mutations + natural selection cant account for the diversity and complexity of life, I propose that the mechanism responsible for this are “non random bias genetic changes + natural selection” an example of such mechanism is natural genetic engineering.

Sure I believe that God is in charge of the whole business, but I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention.

Is my view clear?

I have no burden of proof when I say that I see no barrier preventing lesser changes occurring over shorter periods of time from accruing to larger changes over longer periods of time, as with biological evolution and Pluto's motion.

That is simply wrong, we do have positive evidence that suggests that Pluto will revolt around the sun, we have the mathematical equations and the laws that show that Pluto will follow an orbit around the sun.


We do have Lamarckism occurring at a small scale (micro evolution) but that doesn’t necessarily imply that Lamarckism is responsible for mayor evolutionary events right?

The mechanism that I propose (Natural Genetic Engeneering) is also capable of producing “micro evolution” so why can´t I do the same and arbitrary assume that all evolutionary history is caused by this mechanism?

Incidentally, it seems that you elected to ignore the question I have asked of you twice now, namely, "Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?"

To be honest I didn’t understand the question, I tried to translate it to Spanish (my language) but I can’t understand what you mean.

Consider an icicle growing downward from your eave to your doormat. That's an obviously self-limited process. Eventually, either the icicle breaks off due to its own weight, or it reaches the ground and ceases growing downward, or the spring thaw put an end to it. Although it may be, there is nothing to suggest that evolution is such a process, and there is no duty prove that it is. It's enough that it may be.

Can you show that the process that I propose (NGE) has a limit? Or a barrier? If not then why preferring your theory over mine?

Yes I would argue that the process of random genetic changes + natural selection is limited, for many reasons, including the one that I provided as an example (Haldines dilemma) the main point is that realistically speaking there is a maximum possible speed of evolution given by “the rate of positive mutations, the size of the population, and the frequency in which the organisms reproduce

The thing is that when talking about primates and other organisms with slow reproductive cycles, the maximum possible speed realistically speaking) is not enough to explain all the evolutionary changes required to produce a human or a modern Chimp from a common ansestor who lived 5M years ago.

For example it is statistically very unlikely to have 100 simultaneous beneficial random mutations that would produce larger brains and more intelligent creatures, (your model requires 1 mutation at the time) but if mutations are not random but biased, one can have those 100 mutations in 1 or few generations.


Nobody is invoking a God, I am simply proposing natural mechanisms that we know are real, and assuming (yes just an assumption) that these mechanisms can be extrapolated to a wider rage of evolutionary changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, according to your definition of evidence I don’t have to show that creationism is more likely to be true than “naturalism”

That is incorrect. Tell me, what reasonable test would show you to be wrong.

The lack of a clear pathway makes creationism more likely to be true, than if such a pathway exists. (therefore the lack of such pathway is evidence for creationism) I am using your definitions

Or in other words, if such a pathway is discovered tomorrow, creationism would be less likely to be true than today.

So amazingly wrong. If you are trying to make an "odds argument" the odds against a magical creator would be greater than anything natural.

I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention. My view is that random mutations + natural selection cant account for the diversity and complexity of life, I propose that the mechanism responsible for this are “non random bias genetic changes + natural selection” an example of such mechanism is natural genetic engineering.

Sure I believe that God is in charge of the whole business, but I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention.

Is my view clear?

Then you would need to show that. Please remember, don't use old failed arguments.

That is simply wrong, we do have positive evidence that suggests that Pluto will revolt around the sun, we have the mathematical equations and the laws that show that Pluto will follow an orbit around the sun.


We do have Lamarckism occurring at a small scale (micro evolution) but that doesn’t necessarily imply that Lamarckism is responsible for mayor evolutionary events right?

The mechanism that I propose (Natural Genetic Engeneering) is also capable of producing “micro evolution” so why can´t I do the same and arbitrary assume that all evolutionary history is caused by this mechanism?

Nope, try again. So nonsensical there is no point.

To be honest I didn’t understand the question, I tried to translate it to Spanish (my language) but I can’t understand what you mean.

You were being asked why scientists do not believe you.

Can you show that the process that I propose (NGE) has a limit? Or a barrier? If not then why preferring your theory over mine?

Yes I would argue that the process of random genetic changes + natural selection is limited, for many reasons, including the one that I provided as an example (Haldines dilemma) the main point is that realistically speaking there is a maximum possible speed of evolution given by “the rate of positive mutations, the size of the population, and the frequency in which the organisms reproduce

The thing is that when talking about primates and other organisms with slow reproductive cycles, the maximum possible speed realistically speaking) is not enough to explain all the evolutionary changes required to produce a human or a modern Chimp from a common ansestor who lived 5M years ago.

For example it is statistically very unlikely to have 100 simultaneous beneficial random mutations that would produce larger brains and more intelligent creatures, (your model requires 1 mutation at the time) but if mutations are not random but biased, one can have those 100 mutations in 1 or few generations.


Nobody is invoking a God, I am simply proposing natural mechanisms that we know are real, and assuming (yes just an assumption) that these mechanisms can be extrapolated to a wider rage of evolutionary changes.

There is no point. NGE appears to be mostly handwaving and trying to claim that natural selection is their method. There is a reason that real scientists do not pay any attention to it.

I am going to repeat this, since it is very important:

What reasonable test could show your ideas to be wrong?

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes I accept that we share a common ancestor. What I would reject is the idea that random mutations and natural selection where responsable for transforming a chimp-like ancestor in to a human. To me it seems more plausible that mutations where not random

Well the genetic code has many different mechanisms other than just random mutations. As for natural selection it is the driving and the creative force which leads to the progressive change and divergence of life on this earth. This is so clearly expressed in convergent evolution. You are looking too simple at genetics. Its ability to create variation is much more that just the random mutations and yet all explained by natural processes without the help of some mythical goddess or god.

 

[Bear Wild]

Irrelevant, according to your definition of evidence I don’t have to show that creationism is more likely to be true than “naturalism”



The lack of a clear pathway makes creationism more likely to be true, than if such a pathway exists. (therefore the lack of such pathway is evidence for creationism) I am using your definitions

Or in other words, if such a pathway is discovered tomorrow, creationism would be less likely to be true than today.






I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention. My view is that random mutations + natural selection cant account for the diversity and complexity of life, I propose that the mechanism responsible for this are “non random bias genetic changes + natural selection” an example of such mechanism is natural genetic engineering.

Sure I believe that God is in charge of the whole business, but I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention.

Is my view clear?






That is simply wrong, we do have positive evidence that suggests that Pluto will revolt around the sun, we have the mathematical equations and the laws that show that Pluto will follow an orbit around the sun.


We do have Lamarckism occurring at a small scale (micro evolution) but that doesn’t necessarily imply that Lamarckism is responsible for mayor evolutionary events right?

The mechanism that I propose (Natural Genetic Engeneering) is also capable of producing “micro evolution” so why can´t I do the same and arbitrary assume that all evolutionary history is caused by this mechanism?







To be honest I didn’t understand the question, I tried to translate it to Spanish (my language) but I can’t understand what you mean.





Can you show that the process that I propose (NGE) has a limit? Or a barrier? If not then why preferring your theory over mine?

Yes I would argue that the process of random genetic changes + natural selection is limited, for many reasons, including the one that I provided as an example (Haldines dilemma) the main point is that realistically speaking there is a maximum possible speed of evolution given by “the rate of positive mutations, the size of the population, and the frequency in which the organisms reproduce

The thing is that when talking about primates and other organisms with slow reproductive cycles, the maximum possible speed realistically speaking) is not enough to explain all the evolutionary changes required to produce a human or a modern Chimp from a common ansestor who lived 5M years ago.

For example it is statistically very unlikely to have 100 simultaneous beneficial random mutations that would produce larger brains and more intelligent creatures, (your model requires 1 mutation at the time) but if mutations are not random but biased, one can have those 100 mutations in 1 or few generations.


Nobody is invoking a God, I am simply proposing natural mechanisms that we know are real, and assuming (yes just an assumption) that these mechanisms can be extrapolated to a wider rage of evolutionary changes.

Random mutations are not the only way genetic material can cause variations. Yes they play a part but this view is very limited understanding of genetics. Lamarck tried to explain change without any understanding of genetics. He was incorrect and what is amazing is how perceptive Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were to see through this to discover the real mechanism It is fascinating that they discovered the mechanism for evolution independently during the same time period.

When you say god is charge how do you know it is god and not a goddess or some other god than the one in the bible. Again this line of thinking makes no sense when we try to explain the fossil record. You would have to explain how this god or goddess is intervening all of the time to change the genetic code. As for intelligence we have a much more rich understanding of how pliable the genetics in brain development is with small changes in the genetics causing what appears to be large changes in the expression of brains and intelligence. We also see how natural process without the need for a goddess or god being involved can cause convergent evolutionary changes of two different brain patterns to create the same outcomes. There is not just one way which makes the natural processes of the genetics so amazing.