What is Evolution? Lets define it

[leroy]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

What is the supposed evidence against a common ancestor? And what evidence is there against Darwinian mechanisms? You do realize that you all but admitted that you were wrong by using the word "speculative". There are certain words that creationists should never use and that is one of the big ones. By making such an accusation you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Not is the theory of evolution controversial. Only the ignorant and a handful of loons in the scientific community deny it.

 

[Windwalker]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

If you agree with point two, which you seem to for the most part, then is your issue with point three the actual mechanics of speciation? That sounds like a scientific disagreement. What other mechanics do you propose, and what is your supporting evidence that could be investigated scientifically? I'm certainly game to understand different ways in which this occurs, both past, present, and future. How do you see speciation occurs, if not through genes?

 

[Marcion]

How do you see speciation occurs, if not through genes?

You could also suppose that gene-change has another factor involved instead of random mutations in the genome that are selected out.
I have my thoughts on that but it will not be easy to do experiments to prove it.
I was thinking of mutations to the genome through genetic information that comes from outside the organism in the form of virus-DNA which is added on the the genome of the "infected" organism.

This type of evolution would only be possible if certain viruses (perhaps also floating in space) are somehow attracted to the organism in need of the mutation.
Considering the present materialistic paradigm in scientific thought most scientist will not even consider such a possiblity.
But someone like biologist Rupert Sheldrake would consider it I'm sure.

 

[wellwisher]

Evolution is process of change. Even if you assume the earth is 6000 year old, once the earth was in place, things change, with this process of change called evolution. If there was a forest fire and all the plants are burned and the animal are displaced, the forest is gradually restored, beginning as a meadow. The sequence of change draws in various species of bugs and animals, which help and harm some plants, further changing the landscape. Ecosystem eventually form, which are typically healthy and integrated as though nature has a plan; natural selection process. Evolution has nothing to do with the political divide between religion and atheism, although it is used like a weapon.

Where evolution gets a bad name is connected to the atheists fixating on evolution as a way to create a distinction based on politics, instead of trying to show the process of evolution was at work after 6000 years ago, unrelated to the religious or philosophical divide.

Noah's Ark is an example of how evolution could work. If there as a giant flood and we selected 2 of each animal, after the world wide destruction, life would begin again as the plants spout from the mud and the animals repopulate the earth, until new ecosystems appear. God does not have to direct this, personally, due to natural selective processes that are built into creation; potentials.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good thread, @leroy .

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions.

And it is sometimes flat out abused. I have had Spiritist interlocutors who hoped me to conflate biological evolution with their doctrine of irreversible evolution of spirits. And there are those who seem to believe that biological evolution somehow includes some form of statement about the origin of life, or even of the Universe.

In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

I am not quite so certain, but fair enough, let's run with it.

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

I wonder if you would feel that way about the diversity of life if you had access to the specialized findings. It is my understanding that, if anything, it is very difficult to attempt to deny or propose alternate explanations for diversity.

 

[HonestJoe]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

I think all of your definitions are flawed. The word "evolution" describes some kind of process by which something or other changes. The definition of the word itself doesn't assert any conclusion as your examples do, regardless of the context.

What you're referring to could be termed "evolutionary theories" (not the plural) though they'd be much more than that, with some definition of evolutionary processes only being one part of them. Theories would need to be described in much more detail than you have (or probably could) here before you can declare any of them true or false.

You can legitimate ask about the three statements you've made here but I see no reason to mucky the waters with the word evolution. Of course, you could have cut thorough all of that and just cut straight to the entire point of your post and declare that you don't accept "Darwinism". As you said, the three statements you made are (relatively) independent so the first two aren't really necessary.

 

[leroy]

What is the supposed evidence against a common ancestor? And what evidence is there against Darwinian mechanisms? You do realize that you all but admitted that you were wrong by using the word "speculative". There are certain words that creationists should never use and that is one of the big ones. By making such an accusation you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Not is the theory of evolution controversial. Only the ignorant and a handful of loons in the scientific community deny it.

Why is it that atheist seem to be more interested in avoiding the burden proof rather than showing that their view is correct?

Can you quote a single scientific article that concludes that number 3 is true? Can you provide your own testable evidence for number 3?

As for the evidence against common ancestry I'll Gene tree discordances, with this I mean genetic material present in 2 distant organisms that is absent in closer relatives. For example dolphins and bats bave genetic material in common (related to echolocation) that is absent in other mammals.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00008.2013
Note that I don't deny common ancestry, I am just saying that there is room for reasonable doubt.

As for number 3 "the idea that Darwinian mechanisms can account for the diversity of life" my objections are:

Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.

Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.

In some cases a single benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes. For example even a "simple eye" that can only detect light would be useless if there is not an other mechanism that causes a reaction in the organism when light is detected. Any of them is useless without the other. Both have to appear at the same time

Haldane Dilema this provides a limit to the speed of evolution. Even in the best possible scenario that one can imagine. organisms with slow reproductive rates (peimates for example) could have not evolve.

Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia​

Pretend that an ancient ape (the ancestor of humans and chimps) received a beneficial mutación , this mutation is so beneficial that in just 1 generation (10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the population.

Repeat the process for 500,000 generations (5 million years) and you end up with an ape who accumulated 500,000 mutations.

We are suppose to share 99% of our genetic material with chimps. This represents 30,000,000 base pairs (given that our genome is 3B base pairs long.)

In other words as an evolutionist you need to explain how 30,000,000 benefitial mutations took place and became fixed in the genome in just 5,000,000 years.

Even in the best possible (and unrealistic) scenario one can imagine at most account for 500,000 differences...... You need to explain 30,000,000 genetic differences between chimps and humans.

 

[PureX]

Let's start with a proper label: as in the theory of the evolution of life forms. This is important because it does NOT include a theory of how life originated. We still don't know how life originated, or where it originated, or even where all it currently exists. So that what we refer to in shorthand as "Evolution" is only a theory about how the life forms that we know to exist developed the physical characteristics that they currently possess.

 

[David T]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

We dont need science or religion to understand life interconnected.

Science cant "contain it" into a narrarive that be life interconnected without being reductive fantasy, and clearly you are adressing an aspect in religion that is confused in reductive fantasy driven ways. Which reductive fantasy must one accept as fact!?

 

[suncowiam]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

It's not about adaptation. It appears to be but it's actually just random mutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is process of change. Even if you assume the earth is 6000 year old, once the earth was in place, things change, with this process of change called evolution. If there was a forest fire and all the plants are burned and the animal are displaced, the forest is gradually restored, beginning as a meadow. The sequence of change draws in various species of bugs and animals, which help and harm some plants, further changing the landscape. Ecosystem eventually form, which are typically healthy and integrated as though nature has a plan; natural selection process. Evolution has nothing to do with the political divide between religion and atheism, although it is used like a weapon.

Where evolution gets a bad name is connected to the atheists fixating on evolution as a way to create a distinction based on politics, instead of trying to show the process of evolution was at work after 6000 years ago, unrelated to the religious or philosophical divide.

Noah's Ark is an example of how evolution could work. If there as a giant flood and we selected 2 of each animal, after the world wide destruction, life would begin again as the plants spout from the mud and the animals repopulate the earth, until new ecosystems appear. God does not have to direct this, personally, due to natural selective processes that are built into creation; potentials.

now you are just embarrassing yourself. Evolution disproves that myth, along with every other sccience.

if that story was true we would see a universal population bottleneck more extreme than that of the cheetah. We don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that atheist seem to be more interested in avoiding the burden proof rather than showing that their view is correct?

Can you quote a single scientific article that concludes that number 3 is true? Can you provide your own testable evidence for number 3?

As for the evidence against common ancestry I'll Gene tree discordances, with this I mean genetic material present in 2 distant organisms that is absent in closer relatives. For example dolphins and bats bave genetic material in common (related to echolocation) that is absent in other mammals.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00008.2013
Note that I don't deny common ancestry, I am just saying that there is room for reasonable doubt.

As for number 3 "the idea that Darwinian mechanisms can account for the diversity of life" my objections are:

Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.

Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.

In some cases a single benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes. For example even a "simple eye" that can only detect light would be useless if there is not an other mechanism that causes a reaction in the organism when light is detected. Any of them is useless without the other. Both have to appear at the same time

Haldane Dilema this provides a limit to the speed of evolution. Even in the best possible scenario that one can imagine. organisms with slow reproductive rates (peimates for example) could have not evolve.

Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia​

Pretend that an ancient ape (the ancestor of humans and chimps) received a beneficial mutación , this mutation is so beneficial that in just 1 generation (10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the population.

Repeat the process for 500,000 generations (5 million years) and you end up with an ape who accumulated 500,000 mutations.

We are suppose to share 99% of our genetic material with chimps. This represents 30,000,000 base pairs (given that our genome is 3B base pairs long.)

In other words as an evolutionist you need to explain how 30,000,000 benefitial mutations took place and became fixed in the genome in just 5,000,000 years.

Even in the best possible (and unrealistic) scenario one can imagine at most account for 500,000 differences...... You need to explain 30,000,000 genetic differences between chimps and humans.

you can't refute the science with bogus dishonest sources.

 

[exchemist]

You could also suppose that gene-change has another factor involved instead of random mutations in the genome that are selected out.
I have my thoughts on that but it will not be easy to do experiments to prove it.
I was thinking of mutations to the genome through genetic information that comes from outside the organism in the form of virus-DNA which is added on the the genome of the "infected" organism.

This type of evolution would only be possible if certain viruses (perhaps also floating in space) are somehow attracted to the organism in need of the mutation.
Considering the present materialistic paradigm in scientific thought most scientist will not even consider such a possiblity.
But someone like biologist Rupert Sheldrake would consider it I'm sure.

I had thought it was already well established that viral DNA has become incorporated into the genome of organisms.

There is nothing about this that would invalidate the principle of Darwinian evolution, so far as I can see. It would simply represent one of the mechanisms by which variation is introduced into a population, surely? Darwin simply observed that variation occurs. He made no stipulations as to how it takes place. There seem to be several mechanisms.

As for a "materialist paradigm" in science, there is certainly a constraint in science that it seeks explanations of natural phenomena in terms of nature, rather than in terms of supernatural influence. But that has always been and will always be true of science: it is intrinsic to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that atheist seem to be more interested in avoiding the burden proof rather than showing that their view is correct?

We already have. But you were spreading lies in the OP, you may not have known that you were lied to. One gets tired of that. When you claim that someone else speculated you have to prove that they did. Also do not conflate atheism and evolution. I don't make the foolish mistake of conflating creationism with Christianity. Most Christians do not believe that myth.

Can you quote a single scientific article that concludes that number 3 is true? Can you provide your own testable evidence for number 3?

Since number three is poorly worded probably not. Also that is not what is covered in peer reviewed journals. They do not answer very general questions You will find that in almost any book on biology.

As for the evidence against common ancestry I'll Gene tree discordances, with this I mean genetic material present in 2 distant organisms that is absent in closer relatives. For example dolphins and bats bave genetic material in common (related to echolocation) that is absent in other mammals.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00008.2013
Note that I don't deny common ancestry, I am just saying that there is room for reasonable doubt.

That is not what that article says at all. Why did you even link it? It is an example of convergent evolution of a common trait. It is not an example of "Gene tree discordances"

Would you care to try again?

As for number 3 "the idea that Darwinian mechanisms can account for the diversity of life" my objections are:

Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.

Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.

Sanford? Are you kidding me? His work never passed peer review and has been refuted countless times since.

In some cases a single benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes. For example even a "simple eye" that can only detect light would be useless if there is not an other mechanism that causes a reaction in the organism when light is detected. Any of them is useless without the other. Both have to appear at the same time

Haldane Dilema this provides a limit to the speed of evolution. Even in the best possible scenario that one can imagine. organisms with slow reproductive rates (peimates for example) could have not evolve.

Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia​

Read your sources. This is why Sanford is not taken seriously. He got Haldane's dilemma wrong. Your own source tells you at the end that the 'dilemma' was solved long time ago. This is the last sentence from the article that you linked:

"In 1967 J. A. Sved found that the dilemma was based on wrong calculations.[4]"

Pretend that an ancient ape (the ancestor of humans and chimps) received a beneficial mutación , this mutation is so beneficial that in just 1 generation (10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the population.

Repeat the process for 500,000 generations (5 million years) and you end up with an ape who accumulated 500,000 mutations.

We are suppose to share 99% of our genetic material with chimps. This represents 30,000,000 base pairs (given that our genome is 3B base pairs long.)

In other words as an evolutionist you need to explain how 30,000,000 benefitial mutations took place and became fixed in the genome in just 5,000,000 years.

Even in the best possible (and unrealistic) scenario one can imagine at most account for 500,000 differences...... You need to explain 30,000,000 genetic differences between chimps and humans.

And a restatement of your Haldane's dilemma error.

Instead of relying on dishonest people and poor sources you should be trying to learn how we know that we are the product of evolution.

 

[Jumi]

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Are you sure? It probably wasn't like that say 30 years ago. Maybe the conservative YECs have come to accept that they can't get over this one. Remember that a lot of folks opposed atomic theory too.

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

What kind of bits of evidence are against it and why has no one ever showed it?

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.

I assume you mean the modern theory of evolution by mechanisms. There's no evidence that shows its wrong or probably wrong.

 

[ecco]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

Instead of "evolution", let's just use ToE. That way there is no confusion.

 

[leroy]

Also do not conflate atheism and evolution. I don't make the foolish mistake of conflating creationism with Christianity. Most Christians do not believe that myth.

I am not conflating atheism and evolution.

I simply pointed the fact that atheist almost always try to avoid the burden proof regardless if they are commenting on evolution or some other topic.

That is not what that article says at all. Why did you even link it? It is an example of convergent evolution of a common trait. It is not an example of "Gene tree discordances"

Would you care to try again?

Convergent evolution is not expected to occurre at a genetic level. 2 separate clades are not expected to suffer from the exact same mutations 200 times as in the case of echolocation.

Honest scientist openly admit that these was not expected and are trying to find an explanation.

Fanatic atheist like yourself ignore this facts.

Sved found that the dilemma was based on wrong calculations

Care to provide the "correct" calculations.

There where some mistakes in the original calculations. But the problem is still there.

Sanford? Are you kidding me? His work never passed peer review and has been refuted countless times since.

Care to provide 1 refutation ? (One that doesn't misrepresent his argument)

 

[exchemist]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

You know perfectly well the whole science community disagrees with your views. Don't be disingenuous. Furthermore, just about anyone with a science education disagrees.

What baffles me about posts like yours is what you think goes on in science. Do you really think that a theory like that of evolution has no evidence to support it?

It seems to me that someone who thinks that must believe in a massive conspiracy theory, by which the whole world has been brainwashed, for some undisclosed reason, into believing a theory that is merely "speculative", i.e. lacks corroborating evidence. Is that what you think? If not, how do you account for the universal adoption of this theory by the science community? Is everyone just stupid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not conflating atheism and evolution.

I simply pointed the fact that atheist almost always try to avoid the burden proof regardless if they are commenting on evolution or some other topic.

You are simply wrong. Atheists never dodge the burden of proof, at least not here. You made a claim that put the burden of proof upon you. I pointed that out. Did you not understand your error?

Convergent evolution is not expected to occurre at a genetic level. 2 separate clades are not expected to suffer from the exact same mutations 200 times as in the case of echolocation.

Honest scientist openly admit that these was not expected and are trying to find an explanation.

Fanatic atheist like yourself ignore this facts.

Correct, convergent evolution is not expected to do that. And guess what? That is not the case here. The article you linked does not support that claim at all. And watch the name calling. I am not the fanatic here.

Care to provide the "correct" calculations.

There where some mistakes in the original calculations. But the problem is still there.



Care to provide 1 refutation ? (One that doesn't misrepresent his argument)

No need to. Your source, the one that you chose, told you how Haldane's dilemma was incorrect. Haldane himself realized it later. If you can be honest I will gladly support my claims, but sice I have been using your sources so far to show that they do not support your claims there is no need to.

Can you be honest? That is a simple question that for some reason riles creationists. That means you need to use proper sources, Source that have at the very least gone through the process of peer review (which leaves out Sanford's claims by the way). I will gladly help you if you can at least promise to try to be honest.