What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You have made some assertions and I would say the burden of proof is on you to back them up.

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

That's a sort of hairy statement. Evidence can support natural selection, but no theory can technically be called true. There is by the way, a volume of evidence to support natural selection. This doesn't preclude other mechanisms. I don't have sources available, but most of Darwin's Origin of Species went to providing such evidence. There are studies on coat color in mice relating to habitat substrate, the co-evolution of newts and water snakes in the Northwest, Lenski's experiment with E. coli, the development of resistance to pesticides by insects and plants and bacterial resistance all offer examples of natural selection. Though we could pick nits over the latter two examples regarding whether it should be called natural or not, but it still supports the theory of natural selection.

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.

Genetic discordance is a problem for creating phylogenies, but it doesn't falsify common ancestry. There are examples of convergent evolution too numerous to cite here. If it were simply a matter of that falsifying the theory, it would be falsified. Convergent evolution is about mutation and the conditions selecting the mutations and not about the relationship of the species that those traits arise in.

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.

Proven to be meaningless. There are limits to natural selection, but that is not one of them.

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

A debunked concept. Trying to wash away that debunking by bringing in a Scotsman is not going to make it all better. IC is like immortality. How would you support it? An organism that is 3 billion years old could die tomorrow. Thus, it is not eternal. Every example of IC as proposed by Behe has been debunked.

The mechanism for response exist in organisms that are primitively without eyes. That pretty much refutes the idea that eyes and a response mechanism must arise fully formed, coordinated and in conjunction.

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.

Firstly, the base pair difference between humans and chimpanzees is not entirely composed of beneficial mutations. Secondly, the difference is not one sided. Mutations continued to occur in both groups once divergence occurred. Thirdly, mutational differences between man and chimpanzee are not limited to single point mutations.

I am unconvinced by your argument regarding the differences between man and chimps and that we could not evolve based on Haldane's dilemma and consider the current understanding to remain the best explanation.

I don't think you fully grasp the concepts that you are using as evidence to support your argument. You may want to do some further research. Perhaps you have and I have not gotten to those posts yet.

Thanks for the very interesting posts.

 

[Audie]

But since both organisms have the same nervous system they would not react differently

Not so.

 

[leroy]

OK, why not? It already was able to move when the amount of light changed. The difference is that now the eyespot detects more light from one direction than the other. So, the amount the eyespot reacts is different, so the signal from the eyespot to the nervous system is different. Or, from a different perspective, given the same lighting conditions, the eyespot now sends a different signal. The nervous system reacts the same way to what the eyespot sends it. But that is now a different signal, so the behavior is now different.

Why would it not?

The problem is that you are trivializing and oversimplifying the situation.

We are starting with an organism with a photosensitive spot, this organism can detect light, and can tell the difference between day and night, since food is abundant during the day he "wakes up " when it detects light and goes to sleep and rest when it is dark


And then vualah !! This organism gets a depression and he suddenly has the ability to detect and react to moving objects (potencial predators)

Things are not that simple, in order to go from point A to point B you need more than just a depression, optical nerves would have to rewire, the brain has to learn how to interpret the new information, the nervous system has to learn to react with this new stimuli. Etc..........(ok we are dealing with simple organisms so perhaps they didn't had, actual brains, and actual optical nerves but you would need something equivalent) ...

If you what to "evolve" a bike in to a tricycle you need more that just an extra wheel, you would need re wire , modify the tubes, move the pedals, etc.

If things where as simple as you seem to believe, we would have houndrets of examples where something like the first organism evolved in something like the second, ...observing this examples would be very common.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that you are trivializing and oversimplifying the situation.

We are starting with an organism with a photosensitive spot, this organism can detect light, and can tell the difference between day and night, since food is abundant during the day he "wakes up " when it detects light and goes to sleep and rest when it is dark


And then vualah !! This organism gets a depression and he suddenly has the ability to detect and react to moving objects (potencial predators)

Things are not that simple, in order to go from point A to point B you need more than just a depression, optical nerves would have to rewire, the brain has to learn how to interpret the new information, the nervous system has to learn to react with this new stimuli. Etc..........(ok we are dealing with simple organisms so perhaps they didn't had, actual brains, and actual optical nerves but you would need something equivalent) ...

If you what to "evolve" a bike in to a tricycle you need more that just an extra wheel, you would need re wire , modify the tubes, move the pedals, etc.

If things where as simple as you seem to believe, we would have houndrets of examples where something like the first organism evolved in something like the second, ...observing this examples would be very common.

No, that is NOT the situation. The organism has an eyespot. When it suddenly gets light, it changes its direction of movement. When it gradually gets light, it moves in a direction of that light. Moving towards or away from predators isn't the key thing (yet). Already, if something blocks the light suddenly, it will stop and move in a random direction.

Now, there is a depression (as part of normal variance). That means that the signal from the eyespot is slightly different: stronger when the light comes from a certain direction than before. That means that when light is blocked *from that direction*, the organism will stop and move in a random direction. But, since the effect of light from a different direction is less, it *won't* stop and move if light is blocked from a different direction.

There is no rewiring needed. In fact, it is *exactly* the same wiring as before, but with a different signal and a different effect. The same circuitry can deal with the new setup. But now it can detect things better from one direction than another.

 

[sayak83]

The problem is that you are trivializing and oversimplifying the situation.

We are starting with an organism with a photosensitive spot, this organism can detect light, and can tell the difference between day and night, since food is abundant during the day he "wakes up " when it detects light and goes to sleep and rest when it is dark


And then vualah !! This organism gets a depression and he suddenly has the ability to detect and react to moving objects (potencial predators)

Things are not that simple, in order to go from point A to point B you need more than just a depression, optical nerves would have to rewire, the brain has to learn how to interpret the new information, the nervous system has to learn to react with this new stimuli. Etc..........(ok we are dealing with simple organisms so perhaps they didn't had, actual brains, and actual optical nerves but you would need something equivalent) ...

If you what to "evolve" a bike in to a tricycle you need more that just an extra wheel, you would need re wire , modify the tubes, move the pedals, etc.

If things where as simple as you seem to believe, we would have houndrets of examples where something like the first organism evolved in something like the second, ...observing this examples would be very common.

An animal is not a machine. An animal is a society of cells who are relatives of each other. As a dynamic community they have immense ability to adapt and respond to changes in the behavior of their neighbors. If you are going to understand these dynamics at this level, you have to start, first, with what a single cell can do. Start with the simplest example, a single celled bacteria and what its capabilities are. They we will look at an amoeba and its capabilities. Only then can we understand the capacity of a society of cells, i. e. animals like us.

The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is NOT the situation. The organism has an eyespot. When it suddenly gets light, it changes its direction of movement. When it gradually gets light, it moves in a direction of that light. Moving towards or away from predators isn't the key thing (yet). Already, if something blocks the light suddenly, it will stop and move in a random direction.

Now, there is a depression (as part of normal variance). That means that the signal from the eyespot is slightly different: stronger when the light comes from a certain direction than before. That means that when light is blocked *from that direction*, the organism will stop and move in a random direction. But, since the effect of light from a different direction is less, it *won't* stop and move if light is blocked from a different direction.

There is no rewiring needed. In fact, it is *exactly* the same wiring as before, but with a different signal and a different effect. The same circuitry can deal with the new setup. But now it can detect things better from one direction than another.

I would not even go quite that far. With a new stimulus, light with a direction, then some organisms would move towards the light, and some away. If moving away from the change in light increases the odds of escaping predation and moving towards the light increases the odds of being eaten then over time the organisms that move away from the change will be selected for. No need of complex thought at all.

 

[leroy]

No, that is NOT the situation. The organism has an eyespot. When it suddenly gets light, it changes its direction of movement. When it gradually gets light, it moves in a direction of that light. Moving towards or away from predators isn't the key thing (yet). Already, if something blocks the light suddenly, it will stop and move in a random direction.

Now, there is a depression (as part of normal variance). That means that the signal from the eyespot is slightly different: stronger when the light comes from a certain direction than before. That means that when light is blocked *from that direction*, the organism will stop and move in a random direction. But, since the effect of light from a different direction is less, it *won't* stop and move if light is blocked from a different direction.

There is no rewiring needed. In fact, it is *exactly* the same wiring as before, but with a different signal and a different effect. The same circuitry can deal with the new setup. But now it can detect things better from one direction than another.

Ok that sounds plausible.

Is there a plausible path that would explain the origin of the fistf organism with a photosensitive spot?

 

[Audie]

Protozoans with are sensitive to light whether there is
an eye spot or not

 

[Polymath257]

Ok that sounds plausible.

Is there a plausible path that would explain the origin of the fistf organism with a photosensitive spot?

Well, the point here is that most molecules in biology react to light to some degree. Light can, for example, stimulate catalysis of important reactions. All that is required is a molecule that changes conformation when hit by a photon (and there are a lot of such) where that conformational change induced a change in other chemical reactions. Then, if the production of that chemical is localized to one part of the cell, you have an eyespot.

 

[Polymath257]

Protozoans with are sensitive to light whether there is
an eye spot or not

Precisely. Biologically active molecules are sensitive to light.

 

[Audie]

Precisely. Biologically active molecules are sensitive to light.

I sure have photosensitive skin! I get tanned from
just looking outside!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok that sounds plausible.

Is there a plausible path that would explain the origin of the fistf organism with a photosensitive spot?

Yes, but that was not the subject. Thanks for admitting that you were wrong by trying to move the goal posts.

 

[sayak83]

Ok that sounds plausible.

Is there a plausible path that would explain the origin of the fistf organism with a photosensitive spot?

Hopefully this scientific article is open to view and reasonably easy to understand. Please read and see if it answers your question.
Phototransduction and the Evolution of Photoreceptors

 

[sayak83]

Yes, but that was not the subject. Thanks for admitting that you were wrong by trying to move the goal posts.

There is no reason for being rude. If someone asks a new followup question, that is always welcome.

 

[Audie]

There is no reason for being rude. If someone asks a new followup question, that is always welcome.

And right you are!
Like, seriously Dude, what is with that?
And worse than merely rude!
I have spoken elsewhere of one or another Vice,
such as the (grim and tawdry) Vice of Equivocation.

The Vice of "Thanks for (admitting, proving
my point, etc)" should have it's own sort
of Godwin law.

 

[sayak83]

Ok that sounds plausible.

Is there a plausible path that would explain the origin of the fistf organism with a photosensitive spot?

FREE SCIENCE BOOK ON EYE EVOLUTION!
Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye - Webvision - NCBI Bookshelf

@Polymath257
@Subduction Zone
@Audie

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no reason for being rude. If someone asks a new followup question, that is always welcome.

I recognize the technique of moving the goal posts. If he is honest enough to admit that he was wrong about how the eye could have evolved then I will gladly take follow up questions. Any bets on an admission of error on his part?

 

[sayak83]

I recognize the technique of moving the goal posts. If he is honest enough to admit that he was wrong about how the eye could have evolved then I will gladly take follow up questions. Any bets on an admission of error on his part?

I am not much into "I was right and you were wrong" type of games. Seems pointless and petty. I share what I know, try to learn what I don't from others, and move on.

 

[Polymath257]

FREE SCIENCE BOOK ON EYE EVOLUTION!
Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye - Webvision - NCBI Bookshelf

@Polymath257
@Subduction Zone
@Audie

Wonderful reading! This may take some time.

 

[Audie]

I am not much into "I was right and you were wrong" type of games. Seems pointless and petty. I share what I know, try to learn what I don't from others, and move on.

We find that a creationist will essentially
never admit to any error, so it is a fools
game trying for it.