• 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!

Evolution My ToE

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
You are of course mistaken. That's like saying, "I wonder why you hate counterfeit money so much?" No I don't hate science, nor money. ;)
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. To maintain your mythical beliefs you do have to deny all of the sciences. Like it or not you do hate science.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
nPeace said:
You are of course mistaken. That's like saying, "I wonder why you hate counterfeit money so much?" No I don't hate science, nor money. ;)
Click to expand...
It's hard for me to tell that. If you are paying attention, surely you've noticed that I am actually working very hard to present to you the science of ToE, and to do so in ways that help to make it easier to understand. I'll grant you that I'm long-winded, and tend to use big words sometimes. I'll grant you that I'm not good at drawing pictures on forums such as these -- but I am trying very hard. And you seem to be resisting every step of the way, in a way that suggests, at least to me, that you don't really want to know, you want to have your opinion accepted.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
nPeace said:
How does that help, Fly?
The erosion is acting on something else - the river bank, not the water.
Click to expand...
And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population.

I accept natural selection, and it works fine, but not like the magic being proposed in many cases.
So yes, misleading statement, are a big thing to me.
Click to expand...
So we both agree that natural selection is a real thing. That's good.

Do we also agree that natural selection is a process by which individuals that are better fit to their environment are more likely to survive and produce offspring, than those less fit to the environment?

Okay. I never disagreed. I just though it was kind of careless not to mention how they add us up, as it can be misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
So we agree that beneficial mutations occur, and can accumulate in a population, correct?

Because it seems you missed the point, or you are ignoring it... it seems.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not ignoring the point, I'm just not sure what it is. From what you've posted, I see scientists doing what they're supposed to do....adjusting their models in light of new and better data. Why you find that problematic is a mystery to me.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
It's hard for me to tell that. If you are paying attention, surely you've noticed that I am actually working very hard to present to you the science of ToE, and to do so in ways that help to make it easier to understand. I'll grant you that I'm long-winded, and tend to use big words sometimes. I'll grant you that I'm not good at drawing pictures on forums such as these -- but I am trying very hard. And you seem to be resisting every step of the way, in a way that suggests, at least to me, that you don't really want to know, you want to have your opinion accepted.
Click to expand...
You have every opportunity to present the "science of ToE", in a very simple way. Simply show me that it is not based on subjective opinions of the circumstantial evidence. You have not done that, so it would seem that you are happy with the opinions of men... maybe because they fit your worldview.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population.


So we both agree that natural selection is a real thing. That's good.

Do we also agree that natural selection is a process by which individuals that are better fit to their environment are more likely to survive and produce offspring, than those less fit to the environment?


So we agree that beneficial mutations occur, and can accumulate in a population, correct?


No, I'm not ignoring the point, I'm just not sure what it is. From what you've posted, I see scientists doing what they're supposed to do....adjusting their models in light of new and better data. Why you find that problematic is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...
Okay. Please explain in detail, your very first comment,
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
...then we can step through the rest.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
nPeace said:
You have every opportunity to present the "science of ToE", in a very simple way. Simply show me that it is not based on subjective opinions of the circumstantial evidence. You have not done that, so it would seem that you are happy with the opinions of men... maybe because they fit your worldview.
Click to expand...
Now, let me hold up the mirror to show you what you are -- you are asking me, in the space of the few characters I have available to me in a post on this forum, to reproduce the millions of words and images, the uncounted effort of thousands upon thousands of researchers, and to boil it all down nice and tidy in a 12 word sentence that you will accept!

Guess what -- I've done the reading. I've done the studying. But I'm not a freakin' magician that can condense all that nice and tidy so you don't have to.

This will be my last post on this thread. What you do not wish to learn, I cannot teach you. And what you truly do wish to learn, you won't need me for.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
nPeace said:
Okay. Please explain in detail, your very first comment,
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
...then we can step through the rest.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll put it in terms of an experiment I did when I was an undergrad.

We took a population of E. coli (a bacteria) and cultured them on a petri dish that was half neutral medium (agar), and half agar infused with an antibiotic. At first, no bacteria grew on the half with the antibiotic. We repeated the process several more times until eventually we started seeing bacteria growing on the half with the antibiotic. We then took swabs from the bacteria growing on the neutral half and from those growing on the antibiotic-infused half, and cultured them in a petri dish that was entirely composed of antibiotic-infused agar. After incubation, there was a mat of bacteria covering the dish.

We then ran genetic tests on the original population of bacteria we started with, the later population that grew on the neutral half, and the population that grew on the antibiotic-infused agar. The results showed that neither the original population, nor the later population that grew on the neutral half, did not have the genetic sequences that conferred resistance to the antibiotic. But the results showed that the population that grew on the antibiotic-infused half did have the genetic sequences that conferred resistance to the antibiotic.

So, we started with a population that couldn't exist in an environment that had antibiotics in it, and we ended with a population entirely composed of individuals that could exist in an antibiotic-infused environment. The question is......how?

With each new generation of bacteria, new variants are introduced into the population (via reproduction and mutation). At some point, one individual acquired a mutation that allowed it to live in the antibiotic environment. Eventually that individual passed that new trait on to its offspring. Once those offspring encountered an environment with an antibiotic, they thrived and spread rapidly because they basically had the place to themselves. And once the environment changed to 100% antibiotic-infused, the population became 100% composed of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

That's how selection acts on variability in a population. The "variability" is all the diversity (genetic and phenotypic) in a population, and selection is the process by which some are more "fit" (better able to survive and reproduce) than others. The ones that are better fit are more likely to survive and reproduce and the ones who are less fit are less likely to survive and reproduce. Play that out over a period of time and you end up with a population that is better fit to the environment in which it exists.

I hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Oh my! Someone still has no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

First off, even if your claims were true, and they are not, this would not be evidence for creation. Creation is not the default position. You keep shooting yourself in the foot by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the terms that you use.

1. You would need to define what you mean by "simple to complex". But this is clearly not true. We can see in the lab today how multicellular organisms may have evolved. Also you appear to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". Evidence is support for an idea. And there is plenty of it out there. In the sciences nothing is "proven". The fact that a rock falls is not "proof" of gravity. It is evidence for it since it agrees with the theory. The same applies to evolution. There are all sorts of observations that agree with the theory. That therefore is evidence for the theory. Having said that here is some reading material for you:

The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all | Science | AAAS

2. You really have no clue when you say this. For example the earliest "vertebrate" is arguably not a vertebrate since it has no actual bones:

Myllokunmingia - Wikipedia


" It appears to have a skull and skeletal structures made of cartilage. There is no sign of biomineralization of the skeletal elements."

Early fossils had to rely on extremely rare casts, such as we rarely have of jellyfish.

Again, this observation is what the theory predicts. It agrees with the theory. It is therefore evidence for the theory.

3. Fully formed? What the frack does that mean? Please don't use garbage terms they make your arguments self refuting. And no, they do not "appear suddenly" at any point. Vertebrates start with critters with no mineralized bones, but those develop as times goes on.

4. What? Almost all fossils are thought to be transitional today. It appears that your knowledge of fossils is over one hundred years out of date. Here is an educational video for you:


5. Simply wrong and unjustified. Even "living fossils" are often very different than their predecessors. Coelacanth is an excellent example. Creationists think that coelacanth is a species. It is not. It is an order. Think of it this way, when you think that all coelacanths are the same you just said that man is the same as a lemur.

6. That is because there is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You for example are still an ape. You are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, etc. and so on. There was no change of kind (except for perhaps when the first eukaryote formed from two cells developing a mutually beneficial relationship. You cannot refute a concept with a terribly flawed strawman.
Click to expand...
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
You show me an experiment where single celled organisms grouped together, and they refer to that as a multi-cellular organism!!!? Please don't make me laugh.
You guys are really working hard at this philosophy, I'll give you that. At least it demonstrates how much it means to you.
What next? Ah. Abiogenesis.

At least they were honest enough to say they don't know, but it may have been.

Same with the next... thought to be a vertebrate although this is not conclusively proven.
Keep working.

Then comes the remaining subjective opinions on what identifies a transitional, and we are back to the debate table, where it is a case of, "May the best opinion win".

Can you please tell me... Why are you happy with scientists using the same method they accuse the religious of - subjective evidence?
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
nPeace said:
You show me an experiment where single celled organisms grouped together, and they refer to that as a multi-cellular organism!!!?
Click to expand...
Experimental evolution of multicellularity

"We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."​

There it is, right before our eyes.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
You show me an experiment where single celled organisms grouped together, and they refer to that as a multi-cellular organism!!!? Please don't make me laugh.
You guys are really working hard at this philosophy, I'll give you that. At least it demonstrates how much it means to you.
What next? Ah. Abiogenesis.

At least they were honest enough to say they don't know, but it may have been.

Same with the next... thought to be a vertebrate although this is not conclusively proven.
Keep working.

Then comes the remaining subjective opinions on what identifies a transitional, and we are back to the debate table, where it is a case of, "May the best opinion win".

Can you please tell me... Why are you happy with scientists using the same method they accuse the religious of - subjective evidence?
Click to expand...
Your inability to understand science does not refute it.

And all they can do is to replicate what may have happened. When there is very little in the way of empirical evidence then one shows that it could have happened. And it appears that there was more than on route to it. All of this is evidence for the concept.

You really should learn what is and what is not evidence. Do you remember your failure with the incorrect Wiki article? We are discussing the sciences so the standard is scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Wikipedia is not the only source with that definition. I can find others if you wish. Would you like to discuss this concept? It will seriously make you a better debater.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Okay, I'll put it in terms of an experiment I did when I was an undergrad.

We took a population of E. coli (a bacteria) and cultured them on a petri dish that was half neutral medium (agar), and half agar infused with an antibiotic. At first, no bacteria grew on the half with the antibiotic. We repeated the process several more times until eventually we started seeing bacteria growing on the half with the antibiotic. We then took swabs from the bacteria growing on the neutral half and from those growing on the antibiotic-infused half, and cultured them in a petri dish that was entirely composed of antibiotic-infused agar. After incubation, there was a mat of bacteria covering the dish.

We then ran genetic tests on the original population of bacteria we started with, the later population that grew on the neutral half, and the population that grew on the antibiotic-infused agar. The results showed that neither the original population, nor the later population that grew on the neutral half, did not have the genetic sequences that conferred resistance to the antibiotic. But the results showed that the population that grew on the antibiotic-infused half did have the genetic sequences that conferred resistance to the antibiotic.

So, we started with a population that couldn't exist in an environment that had antibiotics in it, and we ended with a population entirely composed of individuals that could exist in an antibiotic-infused environment. The question is......how?

With each new generation of bacteria, new variants are introduced into the population (via reproduction and mutation). At some point, one individual acquired a mutation that allowed it to live in the antibiotic environment. Eventually that individual passed that new trait on to its offspring. Once those offspring encountered an environment with an antibiotic, they thrived and spread rapidly because they basically had the place to themselves. And once the environment changed to 100% antibiotic-infused, the population became 100% composed of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

That's how selection acts on variability in a population. The "variability" is all the diversity (genetic and phenotypic) in a population, and selection is the process by which some are more "fit" (better able to survive and reproduce) than others. The ones that are better fit are more likely to survive and reproduce and the ones who are less fit are less likely to survive and reproduce. Play that out over a period of time and you end up with a population that is better fit to the environment in which it exists.

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but no, I don't think that was a simple and detailed explanation.
You see how you made me break down what I was saying, in order for you to understand? I'll like you to break it down simply, that a child can understand.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Experimental evolution of multicellularity

"We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."​

There it is, right before our eyes.
Click to expand...
Well, duh. Try to be a single-celled organism, in sheer fright. What would you do. You depend on your allies - you group. You do everything together, including reproduce. Everything working out fine? Tadah multiple groups of single-celled organisms. :confounded:
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
Okay, what specifically are you struggling with?

Is it that the population changed?

Is it how the population changed?

Is it why the population changed?
Click to expand...
Wait. You can't explain simply what you said?
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
Then forget it.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
nPeace said:
Well, duh. Try to be a single-celled organism, in sheer fright. What would you do. You depend on your allies - you group. You do everything together, including reproduce. Everything working out fine? Tadah multiple groups of single-celled organisms. :confounded:
Click to expand...
You're ignoring much of what was directly observed and how it relates to your argument that there's "No evidence of simple organism to complex". As the researchers noted, they observed the organisms evolve reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death.....none of which was in the original population.

If that's not an increase in complexity, then you'll have to explain precisely how you're defining and measuring "complexity", and then explain how the above isn't an increase of it.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
You're ignoring much of what was directly observed and how it relates to your argument that there's "No evidence of simple organism to complex". As the researchers noted, they observed the organisms evolve reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death.....none of which was in the original population.

If that's not an increase in complexity, then you'll have to explain precisely how you're defining and measuring "complexity", and then explain how the above isn't an increase of it.
Click to expand...
I watched the video. Did the video miss something important in the text?
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
nPeace said:
Wait. You can't explain simply what you said?
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
Then forget it.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm trying to help here, so please keep that in mind.

In the most simple of terms, every population has variability (no two organisms are exactly alike). And not every individual in the population is equally likely to survive and reproduce. Are we good so far?

If so, what then determines which individuals in the population are more likely to survive and reproduce? It comes down to a simple concept.....the ones that are better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than the ones that are less suited to the environment. The process of some individuals surviving and reproducing more than others is natural selection.

That's how selection acts on variability in a population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top