Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pure unadultrated bolony. Environment does not affect the cof the offspring and neither does a stressed mother, and you have no evidence of either one.

Environmental Effects on Gene Expression Phenotype Have Regional Biases in the Human Genome | Genetics

 

[omega2xx]

Environmental Effects on Gene Expression Phenotype Have Regional Biases in the Human Genome | Genetics

I doubt if you have any evidence for that but it is irrelevant, even if true, it would not cause a change in the species.

 

[McBell]

I doubt if you have any evidence for that but it is irrelevant, even if true, it would not cause a change in the species.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la does not help your position any.
In fact, it merely reinforces the stereotype.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la does not help your position any.
In fact, it merely reinforces the stereotype.

Remember, Omega declared that he will not read anything from any scientific source. He did however hint that he would read something if it were copied and pasted, so perhaps someone should test that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I doubt if you have any evidence for that but it is irrelevant, even if true, it would not cause a change in the species.

Really, nothing more to say to you. A strong desire not to actually know anything that contradicts what you've already decided is something I'll never overcome -- nor do I care to.

I strongly desire knowledge and understanding, and so I will go pursue that in my own fashion. You strongly desire that everything that you believe, whether true or not, be "sacred truth," and so I leave you to it.

And I understand that at the antipodes, people have to cling tenaciously to the earth, for fear of falling "down." And if your understanding of the nature of gravity is as firm as your understanding of biological science, you'll never find a way to refute that. I leave you to it.

 

[gnostic]

And who are these "evos" that you think "put Darwin on a pedestal?" Because in reality, the people I mainly see harping on about Darwin are the people who don't accept evolution, rather than the "evos," whom I often see explaining that evolution goes far beyond Darwin.

I don't think JB understand the word "progress" in science.

Biology is not stuck in the late 19th century biology, nor are they so fixated on Darwin's Natural Selection. This mechanism has long been amended and updated, while other mechanisms have been discovered.

Yes, you are quite right, creationists can't seem to move on with the rest of the world. They are so obsessed with proving Darwin wrong, but biologists have already gone beyond Darwin's original works.

Guy Threepwood have similar obsession with Lemaitre (expanding universe or big bang model, 1927) vs Hoyle (steady state model, 1948).

Guy seemed to ignorantly think that ALL ATHEISTs followed Hoyle's refuted model because Hoyle is an atheist and Lemaitre is a Christian. This stereotyping ignored the facts that atheists, like

• Russian Alexander Friedmann (1922) and George Gamow (1948-1949),
  
• American Ralph Alpher (1948)
  
• and British Edwin Hubble (1929)

- have all contributed to Lemaitre's model.

Guy, like james bond, have a blindspot when it come to science: they can't see beyond their narrow-mindedness, because they refused to see the progress or updates that have been made since Darwin or since Lemaitre.

 

[omega2xx]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la does not help your position any.
In fact, it merely reinforces the stereotype.

And yak, yak, yak with no evidence lets everyone recognize all you do is talk, and reinforces your stereotype.

 

[omega2xx]

Really, nothing more to say to you. A strong desire not to actually know anything that contradicts what you've already decided is something I'll never overcome -- nor do I care to.

I strongly desire knowledge and understanding, and so I will go pursue that in my own fashion. You strongly desire that everything that you believe, whether true or not, be "sacred truth," and so I leave you to it.

When you evos can't offer evidence for what you believe, you always accuse me of basing what I believe on religion. Science is true, but it is not sacred. Stick to the subject.

And I understand that at the antipodes, people have to cling tenaciously to the earth, for fear of falling "down." And if your understanding of the nature of gravity is as firm as your understanding of biological science, you'll never find a way to refute that. I leave you to it.

Thanks for admitting you have no evidence that mutations cannot cause a change of species.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When you evos can't offer evidence for what you believe, you always accuse me of basing what I believe on religion. Science is true, but it is not sacred. Stick to the subject.



Thanks for admitting you have no evidence that mutations cannot cause a change of species.

I'm going to assume that you are actually intelligent enough to realize that I admitted absolutely no such thing, and have pointed to much of it. What you really mean is that if I don't personally retype all of the science right here, you yourself are not going to be bothered looking where you're pointed. You are welcome not to, but do not, please, accuse me falsely. As I understand what Jesus said, that's not the sort of thing that He might do.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm going to assume that you are actually intelligent enough to realize that I admitted absolutely no such thing, and have pointed to much of it. What you really mean is that if I don't personally retype all of the science right here, you yourself are not going to be bothered looking where you're pointed. You are welcome not to, but do not, please, accuse me falsely. As I understand what Jesus said, that's not the sort of thing that He might do.

If you think what you said about mutation proves they can change a species, you don't understand even basic genetics. I have not accused you of anything.

You don't understand what Jesus said,

 

[gnostic]

If you think what you said about mutation proves they can change a species, you don't understand even basic genetics. I have not accused you of anything.

You don't understand what Jesus said,

What does bloody Jesus have to do with anything?!

He didn't write anything, let alone teach people about biology or genetics. Jesus didn't say anything about genes, genetics or species.

Have you taken leave of your senses?

 

[sayak83]

one generation is propagated from the previous, by selection and reproduction of the most successful designs, under our very eyes. Cars or animals?

So we know without doubt that this process is used by intelligent agents, we know it works where survival of the fittest is already first granted an arrival of the fittest to select from.
Whether nature can accidentally, by pure blind chance, create significantly fitter designs for nature to choose from- to the extent that a single cell can fully morph into a human being-
this is NOT something we can verify, no way around that, it's a very interesting question.

Oh, we have verified that evolutionary processes can and do increase the fitness of organisms in nature through adaptations. I have provided multiple examples from cichlid fish to pesticide resistance to DDT in mosquitoes.

Yes, another good analogy of the algorithm, just like car design-

I have used them regularly myself for many years, in fact this is precisely what lead to the first cracks in my previously staunch belief in evolution. I got the same results everyone else did, including Dawkins:

....The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:
Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins demonstrates that random processes can be used to create a pre-determined outcome.
And I agree entirely, it can be a very efficient way to do so. As you note, we know for sure that this method is utilized by intelligent agents. Whether or not nature can do the same accidentally- the jury is still out, but more and more we recognize the distinct fingerprints of ID v blind chance

This is completely wrong. If we knew what design or code we wanted, we would not be using iterative evolutionary and genetic algorithms and optimization schemes at all. We would just code or design it directly. Actual usage of Genetic and Evolutionary algorithms seek to find solutions to design and optimization problems that are unknown.

if a die keeps rolling a six, is this evidence that random chance prefers the number 6? or that the die is loaded?

'beneficial' is a subjective term, one of the great problems is that the benefit needs to be significant- nobody will select a car that gets .01% better gas mileage. The analogy doesn't fit too well for life, because it gets much much more difficult.

In evolution through natural selection, a mutation with 0.01% selection advantage will certainly be chosen over neutral variants with a high probablity. Another way in which natural selection differs from human selection. It can identify and choose and fix even very small improvements in phenotype. Here is the math.

On the Fixation Process of a Beneficial Mutation in a Variable Environment | Genetics

Here is some interesting homework

if a female gorilla has an average of 4 offspring in a lifetime, what competitive advantage, as a percentage, does that gorilla need to have acquired over the others, by accidental mutation, in order for that mutation to increase her offspring from 4 to 5?

an insignificant mutation cannot significantly alter the gene pool, and this is borne out in life, observation, experiment, simulation, you name it. 'nature' would have no means of specifically preserving insignificant benefits for a rainy day.

\
Made irrelevant by previous considerations. A mutaant allele that increase the mean number of offsprings from 4 to 4.04, will also be selected for over the generations.

In general of course,, we agree, a random pile of bricks is arguably a more 'complex' pattern to describe than a neat brick wall right?.

No. Both are simple, though the random pile is simpler as random distribution produces simple statistical measures that capture the "group" distribution of the bricks more easily than a well arranged brick wall. You need to understand what complexity is and how to measure it.
Centre for Complexity Science

In a word, entropy- deterioration, decline, collapse,- not superior functionality of design- car or animal again

entropy

1. 2.
   lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
   synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse; More

If you are going to use the second law then you have to use the scientific definition of entropy, as the layman dictionary definition does not follow the second law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy .

In statistical thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) (Greek:Εντροπία, εν + τρέπω) is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations Ω that a thermodynamic system can have when in a state as specified by certain macroscopic variables. Specifically, assuming that each of the microscopic configurations is equally probable, the entropy of the system is the natural logarithm of that number of configurations, multiplied by the Boltzmann constant kB (which provides consistency with the original thermodynamic concept of entropy discussed below, and gives entropy the dimension of energy divided by temperature). Formally,
S = K * Ln (Omega)

Specifically scientific entropy measures the amount of hidden information present in the microscopic states of a system. Thus the second law basically states:- "For a system completely disconnected from the outside world, the amount of hidden information in the microscopic states of the system tends to increase with time."

 

[omega2xx]

What does bloody Jesus have to do with anything?!

He didn't write anything, let alone teach people about biology or genetics. Jesus didn't say anything about genes, genetics or species.

Have you taken leave of your senses?

Stick to science if you can.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pure unadultrated bolony. Environment does not affect the cof the offspring and neither does a stressed mother, and you have no evidence of either one.



Not true either. All characteristics MUST be in the gene pool of the parents.

Environmental stress and epigenetic transgenerational inheritance
Epigenetic Influence of Stress and the Social Environment | ILAR Journal | Oxford Academic
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/pd/2016/6438783/



You should bone up on epigenetics, my friend.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Remember, Omega declared that he will not read anything from any scientific source. He did however hint that he would read something if it were copied and pasted, so perhaps someone should test that.

Been there, done that. It went no where.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you evos can't offer evidence for what you believe, you always accuse me of basing what I believe on religion. Science is true, but it is not sacred. Stick to the subject.



Thanks for admitting you have no evidence that mutations cannot cause a change of species.

He gave you evidence. You should maybe pay closer attention.

 

[McBell]

Stick to science if you can.

What difference does it make?
It isn't like you are going to even look at it.

 

[gnostic]

Stick to science if you can.

Bringing up Jesus is not "sticking to science".

 

[omega2xx]

Environmental stress and epigenetic transgenerational inheritance
Epigenetic Influence of Stress and the Social Environment | ILAR Journal | Oxford Academic

https://academic.oup.com/ilarjourna...Epigenetic-Influence-of-Stress-and-the-Social
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/pd/2016/6438783/

Evidently you are one of those who accepts by faith alone, whatever is presented. Stress and social evironment cannot cause a change of species. As usual, you link did not provide any evidence, They just said it could and since that is hwt you want to believe, you believed it. Evolutionists have to find some cause for a change of species, lland since thnere is not, they invent sdomething.

You should bone up on epigenetics, my friend.

You should bone up on basic genetics, my friend.

 

[omega2xx]

He gave you evidence. You should maybe pay closer attention.

No he didn't. Post what he offered as evidence and prove me wrong.