Evidence For And Against Evolution

[shunyadragon]

I believe the Bible. God cares. He is going to make things better. Humans did not evolve from bonobos or whatever scientists say. Adam was to be in subjection by will, or intelligence, to His Maker. But he failed to do that deliberately, and so Adam's offspring suffer, since they inherited sin. Genetically and environmentally. But God can change that and will when He makes new heavens and new earth soon to come. (Revelation 21.)

I prefer the 'objective verifiable evidence' and the progressive advancement of science in hundreds of years of science. Ancient writings do not reflect contemporary science.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly, sometimes genotypic convergence occurs, like the article that presented shows..... So what is your deal about the article? As far as I can understand we don't have any points of disagreement

Your extrapolation of it.

Still waiting for you to identify the human-chimp ancestor, what traits it had such that ReMine's calculations are relevant, and your demonstration that you know how many fixed, beneficial traits would have been needed to get from the unidentified ancestor's traits to modern human ones.

 

[tas8831]

I provided 2 quotes from 2 different sources, 1 from the reaserch article and the other from the news article. I personaly don't see anything wrong with that.

So do we agree that bats a dolphins had convergent evolution at a the level of the genotype? In some posts you seem to agree and in others you seem to disagree

That is because it is difficult to follow your argument.
What is your overall point? That this convergence means Design/Creation? even when only about 8% of the protein coding sequences show this?
Are they just 8% designed by Jesus, and 92% evolved?


Still waiting for you to identify the human-chimp ancestor, what traits it had such that ReMine's calculations are relevant, and your demonstration that you know how many fixed, beneficial traits would have been needed to get from the unidentified ancestor's traits to modern human ones.

 

[tas8831]

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc..

I don't know the answer to those questions... Do you?

No - but I am not the one making arguments premised on having to have answers to them.

Do you not understand that?

If your position is that some number of fixed beneficial mutations is not enough to explain human evolution from an apelike ancestor, you HAVE TO HAVE answers to those questions, otherwise, you are just spewing nonsense.

The argument is based on 2 premises

1 that even assuming optimal circumstances at most humans could have accumulated a few thausand positive mutations (say 500,000 assuming the best scenario) after they diverged from the LCA 5M years ago

2 that 500,000 benefitial mutations are not enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans

This premises seem to be true and reasonable at least at a superficial level..

How so??? EXPLAIN, and be as specific as possible. You see, to draw such a conclusion, you MUST know 1. how many fixed beneficial mutations ARE needed to get from A trait to B trait, and 2. WHAT trait we started from - and you already admitted that you do not know!!!

Can you really not see how crazy your position is?

... I would be the first one to admit that I don't have conclusive evidence to support any of them, they simply seem to be true.

So you admit that you have no evidence.

I do not care one whit what "seems" to be true to you when you cannot provide the necessary information for drawing those conclusions.

So do you agree with premise 1, do you have conclusive evidence against premise 1?

I do not agree with premise 1, there is no evidence presented that this is the case. You provide an arbitrary time frame and a mere assertion regarding the number of fixed, beneficial mutations. That premise subsumes the notion that some large number of such mutations are needed to alter phenotype, but this is not the case. That ReMine and Batten do not tell this to their target audience is evidence of their conscious deception, not of some major scientific discovery by them.

do you agree with premise 2 do you have conclusive evidence against premise 2?

I do not agree with premise 2 for the reasons I have provided to you over the course of many months and you seem intent to simply ignore.

And even more important....

Can you show that the assertion "humans and chimps evolved from a last common ancestor 5M ago mainly trough a process of random mutations and natural selection (and genetic drift) is true? Can you show that humans (" or living things in general) evolved mainly through a process of random mutations and natural selection?

I can - and have, many many times for you - provide evidence that their comparative genetics using tested methods indicates that they have, indeed, arisen from common ancestors.
I have presented this evidence to you here , for example. You apparently just ignored it.

You dont have to show evidence for the existance of a common ancestor because we both agree with common ancestry, all you have to do is show that humans (or life) evolved mainly by the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection (and genetic drift and sexual selection)

Done. Using tested methods. See above.

Still waiting for you to present something other than regurgitated paraphrases from ReMine and Batten.

It is a good opportunity to show that you can prove your assertions with true scientific, testable, and falsifiable evidence.

Pot kettle.

Although in this case, you are both pot and kettle, seeing as how I have presented evidence, and you just keep presenting assertions that are without evidence or even foundation.

Obviously it could be the case that I am making a strawman, perhaps you don't claim that life evolved mainly by the process of random genetic mutations and natural selection...

You are making a strawman, because you cannot provide necessary information to make your assertions meaningful.

STILL waiting:

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc.
If you do not know what traits the ancestor had, and you have no idea how many mutations would have been "required" to alter those traits into the traits modern humans have, how on earth can you or Donny Batten or electrician ReMine possibly declare that number - or ANY number of mutations - to be 'too few' and be taken seriously?

 

[tas8831]

As I said before digesting nylon doesn't require CSI..

That seems a rather ad hoc position.

From what I have read, Digesting Nylon seems to be caused by Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + natural selection)

No CSI required. Funny how that works - the arbitrariness with which ID concepts are employed indicates more that ID is just window dressing for creationism than a serious scientific concept.

My claim is that somethings are better explained by design, not that every thing is explained by design

So, your "designer" (for who's existence there is no evidence) only acts when no direct/obvious roles for natural processes have yet been enumerated.

Quaint.

 

[tas8831]

Again what is your point with nylonaise?


Given that you only need 2 mutations, nylonaise would not fit the definition of specified complexity therefore one can't infer that nylonaise is a product of design

This is like typing 2 random letters, and actually type a meaningful word. This is possible, chance can do it.

Right - I forgot that genetics is exactly like typing words in English....

That is because as happens so often in typing, one can randomly stick a part of a word into another word in a sentence and alter the meaning of the sentence.

Like what happened here:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."​

 

[tas8831]

I'll say that you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.

ID supporters simply use the same methods used in other sciences to detect design, (forensic science, archeology, SETI, etc.) and apply those methods to life and the universe.

"detect design."
Really? is that what is done in forensic science? It seems to me more like it is looking for human activity, not "design." Same with archaeology - do archaeologists really, upon finding some pottery shards, or some hieroglyphs, set out to determine whether or not 'some intelligence' was behind it all?

Even in SETI, they are looking for what humans think would be sings of alien life activities, premised on what humans might do, not trying to measure "CSI" (which has no objective definition or measure).

The employment of analogies only shows how foundationless IDC is.

 

[YoursTrue]

I prefer the 'objective verifiable evidence' and the progressive advancement of science in hundreds of years of science. Ancient writings do not reflect contemporary science.

In many cases concerning the Bible they do. I figure many will argue with that, as one example the flat Earth round type idea, I guess, rather than a ball, but there are many indications of the Bible's wisdom. Which I'll get back to later.

 

[Skwim]

In many cases concerning the Bible they do. I figure many will argue with that, as one example the flat Earth round type idea, I guess, rather than a ball, but there are many indications of the Bible's wisdom. Which I'll get back to later.

It isn't that the Bible gets points of science correct---considering it's said to be authored by god one would expect as much---but that it gets any point of science wrong.

Leviticus 11:20-23 (NIV):
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

​

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

In many cases concerning the Bible they do. I figure many will argue with that, as one example the flat Earth round type idea, I guess, rather than a ball, but there are many indications of the Bible's wisdom. Which I'll get back to later.

Nothing here indicates that the ancient scriptures are scientifically relevant to today's science any more than the scripture so other ancient religions.

I could argue that the Baha'i Faith contains reveleaction for the advancement of science:

The Valley of Knowledge

". . . and come out of doubt into certitude, and turn from the darkness of illusion to the guiding light of the fear of God. His inner eyes will open and he will privily converse with his Beloved; he will set ajar the gate of truth and piety, and shut the doors of vain imaginings. 12 He in this station is content with the decree of God, and seeth war as peace, and findeth in death the secrets of everlasting life. With inward and outward eyes he witnesseth the mysteries of resurrection in the realms of creation and the souls of men, and with a pure heart apprehendeth the divine wisdom in the endless Manifestations of God. In the ocean he findeth a drop, in a drop he beholdeth the secrets of the sea.
Split the atom’s heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun."

Seven Valleys and four Valleys - Baha'u'llah

. . . the Revelation of the knowledge of science evolves through and beyond all Revelations of God through the minds of humans.

 

[Bear Wild]

Right - I forgot that genetics is exactly like typing words in English....

That is because as happens so often in typing, one can randomly stick a part of a word into another word in a sentence and alter the meaning of the sentence.

Like what happened here:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."​

It is amazing how much we know and have learned from about a tiny insects DNA.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure but the difference is that Christians provide arguments for the existence of God that would exclude Hindu gods

No doubt, but perhaps Hindus provide arguments for the existence of their gods that would exclude the God of Israel and would also exclude Jesus from being His Son. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[shunyadragon]

No doubt, but perhaps Hindus provide arguments for the existence of their gods that would exclude the God of Israel and would also exclude Jesus from being His Son. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Maybe better said: Three in one or many doen others in one.

 

[leroy]

Right - I forgot that genetics is exactly like typing words in English....

That is because as happens so often in typing, one can randomly stick a part of a word into another word in a sentence and alter the meaning of the sentence.

Like what happened here:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."​

Cool, so what is your point?

 

[leroy]

That seems a rather ad hoc position.

No CSI required. Funny how that works - the arbitrariness with which ID concepts are employed indicates more that ID is just window dressing for creationism than a serious scientific concept.

So, your "designer" (for who's existence there is no evidence) only acts when no direct/obvious roles for natural processes have yet been enumerated.

Quaint.

Noooo

Behe did provide a testable limit, something that would require 3 coordinated mutations in order to get a selectable trait, can't be explained by natural selection.

 

[leroy]

"detect design."
Really? is that what is done in forensic science? It seems to me more like it is looking for human activity, not "design." Same with archaeology - do archaeologists really, upon finding some pottery shards, or some hieroglyphs, set out to determine whether or not 'some intelligence' was behind it all?

Even in SETI, they are looking for what humans think would be sings of alien life activities, premised on what humans might do, not trying to measure "CSI" (which has no objective definition or measure).

The employment of analogies only shows how foundationless IDC is.

Well my inability to explain CSI in words that you can personally understand does not invalidate the argument.

What testable mechanism would you use to determine if a bunch of letters where randomly typed or if they where typed by an intelligent mind?

Then apply that mechanism to life (DNA) and let us know if it passes the test if design

 

[Bear Wild]

Noooo

Behe did provide a testable limit, something that would require 3 coordinated mutations in order to get a selectable trait, can't be explained by natural selection.

The mutations do not have to be coordinated to occur and ultimately be matched up to create all of the complex proteins that exist. Genetic material has multiple ways of creating new combinations without random mutations. Accumulated mutations can occur with no direct consequence and through multiple ways of recombination create what has happened. There is no other explanation that has any evidence to explain this. Just because Behe thinks it is complicated has nothing to do with the reality of the ability of the genetic material to change over time.

 

[leroy]

No - but I am not the one making arguments premised on having to have answers to them.

Do you not understand that?

If your position is that some number of fixed beneficial mutations is not enough to explain human evolution from an apelike ancestor, you HAVE TO HAVE answers to those questions, otherwise, you are just spewing nonsense.

How so??? EXPLAIN, and be as specific as possible. You see, to draw such a conclusion, you MUST know 1. how many fixed beneficial mutations ARE needed to get from A trait to B trait, and 2. WHAT trait we started from - and you already admitted that you do not know!!!

Can you really not see how crazy your position is?

So you admit that you have no evidence.

I do not care one whit what "seems" to be true to you when you cannot provide the necessary information for drawing those conclusions.

I do not agree with premise 1, there is no evidence presented that this is the case. You provide an arbitrary time frame and a mere assertion regarding the number of fixed, beneficial mutations. That premise subsumes the notion that some large number of such mutations are needed to alter phenotype, but this is not the case. That ReMine and Batten do not tell this to their target audience is evidence of their conscious deception, not of some major scientific discovery by them.


I do not agree with premise 2 for the reasons I have provided to you over the course of many months and you seem intent to simply ignore.


I can - and have, many many times for you - provide evidence that their comparative genetics using tested methods indicates that they have, indeed, arisen from common ancestors.
I have presented this evidence to you here , for example. You apparently just ignored it.


Done. Using tested methods. See above.

Still waiting for you to present something other than regurgitated paraphrases from ReMine and Batten.


Pot kettle.

Although in this case, you are both pot and kettle, seeing as how I have presented evidence, and you just keep presenting assertions that are without evidence or even foundation.

You are making a strawman, because you cannot provide necessary information to make your assertions meaningful.

STILL waiting:

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc.
If you do not know what traits the ancestor had, and you have no idea how many mutations would have been "required" to alter those traits into the traits modern humans have, how on earth can you or Donny Batten or electrician ReMine possibly declare that number - or ANY number of mutations - to be 'too few' and be taken seriously?

Things are very simple, if you claim that the math and the premises that Batten used where wrong, please feel free to provide an accurate model with correct math and correct premises and show that 5M years is enough time to evolve a human and a chimp from a common ancestor.

 

[shunyadragon]

Noooo

Behe did provide a testable limit, something that would require 3 coordinated mutations in order to get a selectable trait, can't be explained by natural selection.

No, Behe did no such thing.

 

[leroy]

The mutations do not have to be coordinated to occur and ultimately be matched up to create all of the complex proteins that exist. Genetic material has multiple ways of creating new combinations without random mutations. Accumulated mutations can occur with no direct consequence and through multiple ways of recombination create what has happened. There is no other explanation that has any evidence to explain this. Just because Behe thinks it is complicated has nothing to do with the reality of the ability of the genetic material to change over time.

Granted, Behe's claim presupposes that mutations are random, if you remove the assumption of random mutations, the critique would no longer apply