Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Those articles did not make the claims that you thought that they did. And natural selection's role has been tested countless times. Grasping at straws that only expand on how evolution occurred will not help you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Evolution? Lets define it
Please follow @Thermos aquaticus posts on demonstrated randomness of mutations in the thread below,
The Evidence for Random Mutations
Another common objection has been the emergence of sexual reproduction. But there is now excellent experimental evidence that natural selection gave rise to sex. See below,
Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)
Can you give any irreducibly complex structures? Every example that Behe proposed has been shown to *not* be irreducibly complex. One big thing Behe missed is that earlier forms of complex structures do not need to perform the same job as the current versions, nor do so as well.
The case of the bacterial flagellum was already dealt with. The immune cascade is another that has been shown to have evolved from a series of ancestors in a way that is NOT irreducibly complex. So have the variety of different types of eyes.
And, in court, Behe wasn't able to give a *single* actual example that is IC. Nobody else has either.
ecco
Veteran Member
There ya go again. What does YEC have to do with anything? Why throw YEC into the conversation. Behe is a Creationist. You imply you are not.
The following is unanswered...
exchemist
Veteran Member
No they wouldn't. Where do you get that idea from? I quote from Wiki on Neutralist Theory:
"According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin. The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive "neutralist-selectionist" controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, much evidence has been found for selection at molecular level."
OK? What it means is there is not a controversy over the dominance of natural selection in determining the characteristics of organisms (phenotypes) . The controversy is, or was, about how the individual molecular changes occur and whether most of the changes that initially survive though inheritance are actively beneficial to the organism, or whether most are merely "neutral", i.e. only the positively disadvantageous ones are initially removed by natural selection.
There is no school of "Neutralists" that denies natural selection takes place and is opposed to "Darwinists", or something. This is a rarefied debate about the mechanics of the processes that cause genetic variation at the molecular level. Darwin pointed out that for evolution you need variation and then selection. This is about how the variation occurs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would categorize both the OP and Behe as believers in theological evolution. They accept the fact that life evolved, but "God did it". What they can't seem to find is any evidence that a god had a hand in evolution at all. That is why Behe and others tried to make the claim of "irreducible complexity". They claimed an impossible step in evolution, though all of those claims that I am aware of have been refuted since they were brought up. It seemed like a bright strategy at the time. Find some unanswered questions in evolution that look particularly gnarly and claim that are impossible therefore God. The problem is like many creationists when their arguments are thoroughly refuted in later discoveries they have to pretend that those answers do not exist. Though dramatized there was a very nice clip of Behe taking the stand in the Dover trial claiming that for the case of the immune response cascade that there was no explanation for it in evolution and being surrounded by publications explaining it while still on the stand.
Let me see if I can dig it up.
That only took about 8 minutes:
Start at the 1:15:00 mark to hear the dramatization of Behe's failure on the immune system.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
I'll check out the video later. Thanks for the link.
Actually, I read the trial transcript some years ago. Behe and the whole school board got their aA$$e$ handed to them. If I recall, the judge came very close to citing some of them for contempt.
Most absurd was them denying any relationship between Creationism and Intelligent Design. A review of documentation showed older Creationism texts identical to newer Intelligent Design texts except for the words "Creationism" being changed to "Intelligent Design".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The creationists wanted to try to discredit the theory of evolution. So even though people like Behe and Dembski accept common descent their pseudoscientific attacks on the theory of evolution made them "useful fools" for the creationists.
ETA: The entire video is worth watching. But if you read the transcripts of the trial you already know more about it than the video can get across, though it is nice to see some of the important parts be reenacted. It is such a pity that actual video of the trail could not be taken.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
What Darwin proposed has over and over been proven to be the primary concepts in evolution. There have been new discoveries that may modify his original theory but there has been even more discoveries that confirm his Ideas. Like all earlier ideas proposed they get modified as new knowledge develops but they continue to have conceptual validity.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes, cf. "cdesign proponentists".
This is rather funny. It was claimed by the ID people that ID was science and not creationism, and specifically that the "revised" edition of their favoured textbook, "Of Pandas andPeople" no longer advocated creationism. However in the trial it was noted that this new edition had identical text to the previous one, save that every reference to "creationism" or "creationist" had been replaced by "intelligent design" or "design proponent". At one point there had been some careless proof-reading, leading to the above hybrid word appearing. There was, in effect, a transitional fossil, showing the evolution from one to the other! Credibility? Nul points.
Yet another example of the dishonesty with which the ID movement is riddled.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is completely wrong.
See my post 125 for explanation of what "neutralism" actually is, or was.
And see Polymath's post 114 re epigenetics.
It is hard to know whether you have genuinely misunderstood the science, or whether you are repeating lies about it from some propaganda source. My instincts tell me the latter, given the penchant of ID for rank dishonesty, but I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt pro tem.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Just realised I left your first question unanswered in my previous reply to this post of yours.
What I mean by the modern theory of evolution is the current state of the art. I'm not a specialist but according to my understanding that would comprise the so-called "modern synthesis" (which is quite old now) plus a number of important subsequent additions, notably key concepts from evo-devo and epigenetics. The whole field has become massively more complex and detailed in the 150yrs that have elapsed since Darwin wrote his seminal work, a lot of it driven by the science of molecular genetics, which did not exist in his day and in which new discoveries are being made all the time.
I find evo-devo particularly intriguing. For instance the parallel evolution of the eye in molluscs, insects and vertebrates. I quote the relevant passage from the Wiki article:
"Using such a technique, in 1994 Walter Gehring found that the pax-6 gene, vital for forming the eyes of fruit flies, exactly matches an eye-forming gene in mice and humans. The same gene was quickly found in many other groups of animals, such as squid, a cephalopod mollusc. Biologists including Ernst Mayr had believed that eyes had arisen in the animal kingdom at least 40 times, as the anatomy of different types of eye varies widely.[7] For example, the fruit fly's compound eye is made of hundreds of small lensed structures (ommatidia); the human eye has a blind spot where the optic nerve enters the eye, and the nerve fibres run over the surface of the retina, so light has to pass through a layer of nerve fibres before reaching the detector cells in the retina, so the structure is effectively "upside-down"; in contrast, the cephalopod eye has the retina, then a layer of nerve fibres, then the wall of the eye "the right way around".[39] The evidence of pax-6, however, was that the same genes controlled the development of the eyes of all these animals, suggesting that they all evolved from a common ancestor.[7] Ancient genes had been conserved through millions of years of evolution to create dissimilar structures for similar functions, demonstrating deep homology between structures once thought to be purely analogous.[40][41]"
Isn't that amazing? First the extra dollop of evidence for common descent, across a wide range of creatures. Second, the ability of organisms to draw on a common stock of "tools" which avoid the need to develop the biochemistry to support a feature from scratch each time.
It does not seem fanciful to suppose that this may shorten the time for evolutionary change, compared to what one might intuitively expect on the basis of an ab initio evolutionary process.
Cool stuff. But none of this contradicts the basic idea of variation and selection: it just adds depth to our understanding of how these things take place.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
leroy said: ↑
Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?
Random genetic change makes no sense in terms of the drive of evolution. A statistical analogy is playing a slot machine. You pull the lever and the machine cycles. Sometimes you win a jackpot, but over time the house always wins, and you will lose. Random tweaks in the internal DNA slot machine would cause life to regress backwards into debt. Forward progress requires a logical plan.
Has there ever been experiment where humans take bacteria DNA and induce a long series of random changes, to see if this makes then system better or worse?
As a home experiment, an ecosystem is loosely similar to an integrated cell where all the parts mesh. Make various random changes to the ecosystem and see if it gets better or whether it suffers. From the lessons of history, adding stuff that was not there originally, can be devastating, causing extinctions. Random does not promote the order essential to life.
Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?
Random genetic change makes no sense in terms of the drive of evolution. A statistical analogy is playing a slot machine. You pull the lever and the machine cycles. Sometimes you win a jackpot, but over time the house always wins, and you will lose. Random tweaks in the internal DNA slot machine would cause life to regress backwards into debt. Forward progress requires a logical plan.
Has there ever been experiment where humans take bacteria DNA and induce a long series of random changes, to see if this makes then system better or worse?
As a home experiment, an ecosystem is loosely similar to an integrated cell where all the parts mesh. Make various random changes to the ecosystem and see if it gets better or whether it suffers. From the lessons of history, adding stuff that was not there originally, can be devastating, causing extinctions. Random does not promote the order essential to life.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Hi Wellwisher, it's been rather more peaceful on sciforums since you were banned.
I see your obsession with water continues. I await with confident expectation the arrival on the scene of the other bees in your bonnet, including hydrogen bonding and entropy.
I will try to leave you alone, unless you garble physical science too grossly.
You mean it has been boring and you have decided to move on, too. My problem on that site was nobody would challenge my logic. Instead the discussion regressed to a gang of name callers and trolls, crying wolf to the staff. It was supposed to be science discussion site and not a political action site, like you are trying to make it. Address my theory and my logic show us you have science skills instead of gossip skills.
Show me an example of where you can randomly change anything, over a period of time, and expect it to work better than the original. Take you car, and make a random change to the engine or to the onboard computer. The less sense the change makes, the more random it will be.
A random genetic change theory of evolution would make sense if the random changes were designed to eliminate aspects of the population, so the other aspects, without random change, would become better in comparison, so they are selected easier. After you change the onboard computer on your car, in a random way, I'll buy the other car. Your action helped me to select.
I do not deny the importance of genetics and genetic changes. However, random never made any sense, since in the practical world more can go wrong than right. The compromise is to figure out how to make genetic mutations, have a logical basis, that fits into the larger plan. The current theory has not been able to do this. It needs help.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is moronic.
Why do you suppose evolution speaks of variation and natural selection? To ignore the second element is to miss the entire point. Obviously.wellwisher
Well-Known Member
This is moronic.
In my last post I did address it. Random makes no sense, unless it is use as a way to eliminate certain members of the population, to make the final selection easier. For example, virus insert DNA into host DNA, to create a random mutation. How often does this make the host better off than before? Improvements, like a casino jacket, might occur every now and then, but in the mean time it has killed millions to make the selection process easier.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No you did not address it. The only comment you made about anything other than random processes was where you asserted that "forward progress requires a logical plan", thus completely missing the point about how evolution works, which it does without a plan of any kind.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Eliminate certain members? Like, natural selection?
"Killed millions". Odd way to look at it. Everything that
lives, dies. Some leave more offspring.
It is not that hard to understand, if you dont keep trying
to invent your own versions with no knowledge base
to work from.