• 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: Just A Reminder *sigh*

sealchan

Well-Known Member
But evolution doesn't have anything to say about origins, Period! Just as automobile manufacturing has nothing to say about highway infrastructure.

HERE:
View attachment 34638


Now if people want to talk about origins then perhaps they should make a thread in the Science and Technology or General Religious Debates forums. :shrug:


*sigh* Evolution neither knows or cares.


Not that we can't, but that it's simply irrelevant to evolution. However, if this is what someone wants to do then make a thread in the Science and Technology or General Religious Debates forums.



Well, we have the science to deal with issues of a physical/material nature. The divine or spiritual or metaphysical? No.

.

I believe your efforts to restrict discussion of evolution to not origins artificially cuts off it's useful extension to all other physical systems.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Is it a scientific theory or is it just made up, unsubstantiated nonsense?

I mean, the flat earth theory is a competing idea to a round earth, and that idea has been published in PR articles. It doesn't mean that there is a legitimate scientific "controversy" about the roundness of the earth.

Flat earth theory is beinign discussed in the scientific literature ? is that what you are saying? Care to provide an example?

Natrual Genetic Engeneerignis is just an alternative model (hypothesis) just like the neodarwinian model that states that all the diversity of life is the product of a process of random mutation + natural selection is also just a hypothesis that may or may not be true
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Why would that indicate ID?


And why would that similarity indicate ID?


No, it doesn't, because that's not how evolution works.

Firstly, your language here needs fixing. They didn't "suffer" mutations. Mutations arise naturally and are not always detrimental, so to say that they are "suffered" seems to be misleading language.

Secondly, they don't have to have "the same mutations hundreds of times". They are already different forms with different DNA arrangements, and the forms that can result from these arrangements may produce similar traits.

For starters, your comparison of the two fails because both sonar in bats and dolphins function entirely differently - they don't use the exact same biological mechanism. Bats emit sound-waves from their mouths and noses which bounce back and hit their ears. Dolphins emit clicks from their forehead which travel back and hit fat-filled cavities in their jaws. The two processes are completely different, they just happen to have similar functions.

This isn't indication of anything other than the fact that a particular function may be beneficial to two separate organisms in two separate environments, and the fact that both evolved entirely differently to each other means that they do not require "the same mutations". Clearly, they were completely different mutations giving rise to completely different forms that simply happened to have a similar (although, functionally quite different) traits.


How is that any different to what evolution predicts? What could be found that would falsify ID?


It's also very easy to explain if you believe a wizard did it with magic.


And none of it indicates anything about ID whatsoever.


You entire answer was based on a strawman, we are not talking about 2 organisms with echolocation and period. We are talking about 2 organisms that have a similar system caused by the SAME genetic material. It really is like finding a mammal with feathers.

One question

Would a mammal with feathers be a problem for evolution? I am assuming that your answer would be yes, because it would be very unlikely for a mammal to evolve feathers (with the same genes that birds use for feathers)…well we have the same situation here.


Assuming that this genetic material arose by random mutations, one would have to assume that bats and dolphins received the exact same mutations in the exact same genes 200 times.

This is a problem for Darwinism and not FOR ID, because we are dealing with statistical improbability, it would be improbable if we are dealing with random mutations, but if mutations where somehow guided of predetermined by an intelligent designer, then any statistical improbability becomes irrelevant.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I believe your efforts to restrict discussion of evolution to not origins artificially cuts off it's useful extension to all other physical systems.
Don't know what you mean by "physical systems," but when discussing evolution, cosmology, tractors, or breast augmentation I expect people to stick to talking about evolution, cosmology, tractors, and breast augmentation, and not bring in subjects irrelevant to evolution, cosmology, tractors, and breast augmentation.

And it isn't only me, but at least the 22 people who commented by clicking on either "Winner," "
clear.png
Like," or "funny" in the reply function.

If you want to discuss origins be my guest, but in some other forum.


clear.png


.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Don't know what you mean by "physical systems," but when discussing evolution, cosmology, tractors, or breast augmentation I expect people to stick to talking about evolution, cosmology, tractors, and breast augmentation, and not bring in subjects irrelevant to evolution, cosmology, tractors, and breast augmentation.

And it isn't only me, but at least the 22 people who commented by clicking on either "Winner," "
clear.png
Like," or "funny" in the reply function.

If you want to discuss origins be my guest, but in some other forum.


clear.png


.

My apologies...I thought this post was in the Evolution vs Creationism forum so I came at the thread from that context.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
Earlier you made a comment "first comes the theory, then comes the evidence". You then asked if that was begging the question.

You have a theory that "our father is in heaven". When are you going to begin posting evidence to support that theory?

Actually the evidence is there all the time. Mostly, it's misinterpreted though. I've posted before my personal views about easy proofs in the past. We all die: ridiculous. We are aware of each other even communicate with each other.: preposterous.
J.C..was pretty good with the showy stuff. Caught a lot of attention. Proved what I'm talking about. Still mostly misinterpreted. Rats. Boy would I like to have the words. Maybe, Maybe.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I already gave an example “Natrual Genetic Engeneering” as explained by James Shapiro , the fact that his work has been published in PR articles + the fact that his work has never been refuted (nor proven) shows that there are competing theories
Natural Genetic Engineering isn't a competing theory of evolution, nor does it refute the classical model. It's just a new hypothesis about a particular protein-DNA pathway. It doesn't fundamentally change the ToE any more than epigenetics.
Shapiro himself is confused about why the ID crowd is embracing NGE.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You entire answer was based on a strawman, we are not talking about 2 organisms with echolocation and period. We are talking about 2 organisms that have a similar system caused by the SAME genetic material.
But that's demonstrably not true. How can it be the same "genetic material" if the forms are completely different?

Again, dolphins evolved the ability to emit directional clicks from their forehead and fatty cavities in their jaws that can detect them; whereas bats evolved the ability to emit high-frequency noises from their nose and mouths, and ears capable of picking up the direction of that noise.

How could they possibly be the same "genetic material" or "mutations" if the forms that resulted from those mutations are entirely different?

It really is like finding a mammal with feathers.
No, it is not. A feather is a very specific form with a specific function. Dolphins and bats both use sonar, but the forms they use to do so are entirely different. It's more like saying that flight in bees and flight in hawks developing independently is inexplicable, despite the fact that how both fly is entirely different.

One question

Would a mammal with feathers be a problem for evolution? I am assuming that your answer would be yes, because it would be very unlikely for a mammal to evolve feathers (with the same genes that birds use for feathers)…well we have the same situation here.
No, we do not, because the forms are not the same. They are a similar feature, but they use entirely different - and functionally very different - forms.

Assuming that this genetic material arose by random mutations, one would have to assume that bats and dolphins received the exact same mutations in the exact same genes 200 times.
I already explained this in my previous post! Did you even read it??

They were not the same mutations
. They were entirely different forms. How, exactly, can the "exact same mutations" result in fatty cavities and clicking noises emitted from the head in dolphins, and high-frequency noises from the mouth and nose and powerful ears in bats?

They are demonstrably and provably not the same mutations.

This is a problem for Darwinism and not FOR ID, because we are dealing with statistical improbability, it would be improbable if we are dealing with random mutations, but if mutations where somehow guided of predetermined by an intelligent designer, then any statistical improbability becomes irrelevant.
Same if a magic man did it with magic. It still isn't an explanation, and much less an explanation with any reasonable evidence behind it. To say that it "is not a problem for ID" is meaningless, because literally NOTHING is a problem for ID, because absolutely ANY arrangement of genes or forms can be explained by ID. You only have to assert "it was designed that way".

This is why it is not a scientific hypothesis - it's untestable and unfalsifiable.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually the evidence is there all the time. Mostly, it's misinterpreted though. I've posted before my personal views about easy proofs in the past. We all die: ridiculous. We are aware of each other even communicate with each other.: preposterous.
J.C..was pretty good with the showy stuff. Caught a lot of attention. Proved what I'm talking about. Still mostly misinterpreted. Rats. Boy would I like to have the words. Maybe, Maybe.
I am pretty sure that the evidence is not there. Most creationists do not even understand the concept. To keep people from making silly ad hoc arguments or to keep people from denying obvious evidence there are some rules for evidence in the sciences. To even have evidence one must have a testable model to start with. Or in other words a scientific hypothesis. If your idea cannot be refuted by a reasonable test then it is not a scientific idea and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it. But if you have a scientific hypothesis and you do have observations that support it then you do have evidence.

So what is your testable model. And what observations support it? And one note. Your model needs to be testable on its own merits. You cannot assume that because another model does not meet some artificial requirement that means your model is true. That would be a logical fallacy.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Natural Genetic Engineering isn't a competing theory of evolution, nor does it refute the classical model. It's just a new hypothesis about a particular protein-DNA pathway. It doesn't fundamentally change the ToE any more than epigenetics.
Shapiro himself is confused about why the ID crowd is embracing NGE.

It all depends on how you personally what to define evolution.

NGE is compatible with evolution 1 (change over time) and it is compatible with evolution 2 (common ancestry) but it is incompatible with evolution 3 (the idea that all the diversity of life was mainly caused by a process of random mutations and natural selection (well and genetic drift)

---
Obviously the correct thing to do is to respect the definition /description of “evolution” provided by the author of this thread, which includes “EVOLUTION 3” why is this so hard to understand?




" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It all depends on how you personally what to define evolution.

NGE is compatible with evolution 1 (change over time) and it is compatible with evolution 2 (common ancestry) but it is incompatible with evolution 3 (the idea that all the diversity of life was mainly caused by a process of random mutations and natural selection (well and genetic drift)

---
Obviously the correct thing to do is to respect the definition /description of “evolution” provided by the author of this thread, which includes “EVOLUTION 3” why is this so hard to understand?
Except definition 3 is not a definition given by the OP. You've just made it up.

The singular definition given in the OP is "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
But that's demonstrably not true. How can it be the same "genetic material" if the forms are completely different?

Again, dolphins evolved the ability to emit directional clicks from their forehead and fatty cavities in their jaws that can detect them; whereas bats evolved the ability to emit high-frequency noises from their nose and mouths, and ears capable of picking up the direction of that noise.

How could they possibly be the same "genetic material" or "mutations" if the forms that resulted from those mutations are entirely different?


No, it is not. A feather is a very specific form with a specific function. Dolphins and bats both use sonar, but the forms they use to do so are entirely different. It's more like saying that flight in bees and flight in hawks developing independently is inexplicable, despite the fact that how both fly is entirely different.


No, we do not, because the forms are not the same. They are a similar feature, but they use entirely different - and functionally very different - forms.


I already explained this in my previous post! Did you even read it??


They are demonstrably and provably not the same mutations.



This is why it is not a scientific hypothesis - it's untestable and unfalsifiable.

You still don’t understand the argument, please make an honest effort and try to understand the argument, here is the thing

1 All mammals share proteins (genes) , there are genes that are present in all mammals

2 Even thought the share the same genes, this doesn’t mean that the genes are identical, there are a few “letters” that are different, this is because when 2 species diverge in to different branches, each branch evolves independently and therefore each line “evolves” his own version of that gene

3 The reason why genes are not identical is because each line gets different random mutations in different areas of the gene.

4 Bats and dolphins share some of the same genetic variation in some of the genes related to echolocation. This variants are not present in organisms that closer related , implying that these variations arose, after dolphins and bats diverged.

5 This implies that Bats and dolphins got the same mutations in the same genes independently multiple times (around 200 times)

Source

In bats and whales, convergence in echolocation ability runs deep

do you agree with this 5 statements yes or no?

Same if a magic man did it with magic. It still isn't an explanation, and much less an explanation with any reasonable evidence behind it. To say that it "is not a problem for ID" is meaningless, because literally NOTHING is a problem for ID, because absolutely ANY arrangement of genes or forms can be explained by ID. You only have to assert "it was designed that way".

the evidence for “magic” (supernatural powers) is overwarming, some humans like myself have the supernatural ability to predict the future, for example I can predict that you will not answer to my previous question with a simple yes or a simple no, you would rather avoid a direct answer, and try to circumvent the issue.

They were not the same mutations. They were entirely different forms. How, exactly, can the "exact same mutations" result in fatty cavities and clicking noises emitted from the head in dolphins, and high-frequency noises from the mouth and nose and powerful ears in bats?

The argument is not that echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical, the argument is that bats and dolphins share genetic material that is absent in organisms that are closely related. Implying that these similarities can not be explained by common ancestry, implying that bats and dolphins got the same mutations independently.

The claim is that it would be very unlikely for 2 independent clades to have suffered from the exact same random mutations in the exact same location multiple times, but if mutations where not random but rather intended, then any “statistical improbability” becomes irrelevant.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Except definition 3 is not a definition given by the OP. You've just made it up.

The singular definition given in the OP is "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

this sentence was included in the OP
"It is this process of evolution (random mutation, genetic drift, natrual selection) that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

What is wrong with fanatic atheist and their obsession with word games and semantics? the fact is that NGE is an alternative model to what I defined as evolution 3, weather if you what to call it evolution 3 or give it an other name is irrelevant.

the fact is that what I call "evolution 3" is controvertial, feel free to give it an other name rather than evolution 3, it is still a fact that the idea is controvertial (agree? answer yes or no)

 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You still don’t understand the argument, please make an honest effort and try to understand the argument, here is the thing

1 All mammals share proteins (genes) , there are genes that are present in all mammals

2 Even thought the share the same genes, this doesn’t mean that the genes are identical, there are a few “letters” that are different, this is because when 2 species diverge in to different branches, each branch evolves independently and therefore each line “evolves” his own version of that gene

3 The reason why genes are not identical is because each line gets different random mutations in different areas of the gene.

4 Bats and dolphins share some of the same genetic variation in some of the genes related to echolocation. This variants are not present in organisms that closer related , implying that these variations arose, after dolphins and bats diverged.

5 This implies that Bats and dolphins got the same mutations in the same genes independently multiple times (around 200 times)
No, it does not. Again, look at how differently dolphins and bats USE echolocation. The individual ways they function demonstrates that they are NOT all the same mutations that lead to the use of the same function.

Your source does not say that they would need hundreds of "the same mutations", just that both carry the same hearing gene necessary for echolocation. That doesn't mean the same thing.

Again, you were comparing this to feathers in mammals, but it is nowhere near the same thing, because the form both take is specialized in different ways and functions entirely differently. As I said before, all this demonstrates is that similar traits can evolved independently. It doesn't indicate anything about ID.

EDIT: Looking into this even further, to say this study showed that 200 mutations were "the same" is a misrepresentation. The study says that 200 genes had independently changed in the same ways, which isn't quite the same thing. Essentially, what's it's saying is that both dolphins and bats evolved the ability to "hear" echolocation using a similar set of genes that evolved in a very similar way - but that doesn't really indicate anything other than that independent selective pressure can give rise to similar structures. It's a intriguing example of convergent evolution, but to posit that it indicates (or necessitates) and hand in the process beyond natural selection and random mutation is baseless.
SOURCES: Bats and Dolphins Evolved Echolocation in Same Way
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature

do you agree with this 5 statements yes or no?
Obviously no, as I have said and explained this repeatedly.

the evidence for “magic” (supernatural powers) is overwarming, some humans like myself have the supernatural ability to predict the future, for example I can predict that you will not answer to my previous question with a simple yes or a simple no, you would rather avoid a direct answer, and try to circumvent the issue.
Oh look, you're wrong.

The argument is not that echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical,
Your argument was that the EXACT SAME MUTATIONS occurred in both. Since the forms they take are entirely different, obviously they cannot be the exact same mutations, can they?

the argument is that bats and dolphins share genetic material that is absent in organisms that are closely related. Implying that these similarities can not be explained by common ancestry, implying that bats and dolphins got the same mutations independently.

The claim is that it would be very unlikely for 2 independent clades to have suffered from the exact same random mutations in the exact same location multiple times, but if mutations where not random but rather intended, then any “statistical improbability” becomes irrelevant.
Okay then. Please show exactly what mutations occurred and the likelihood of them evolving independently. Show your working.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
this sentence was included in the OP
"It is this process of evolution (random mutation, genetic drift, natrual selection) that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Actually, that sentence is NOT included in the OP and you have deliberately added the part in parenthesis in order to misrepresent the OP because I suspect you now realize the error in your reading of it and are trying to save face. What the OP actually says is this (emphasis mine):

"Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Notice how it doesn't DEFINE evolution as "random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection" as you assert here. It clearly states that "evolution occurs when evolutionary processes SUCH AS random mutation etc... act on this variation". Notice how the definition doesn't PRECLUDE the possibility of there being other evolutionary factors, as you appear to be asserting it does.

What is wrong with fanatic atheist and their obsession with word games and semantics? the fact is that NGE is an alternative model to what I defined as evolution 3, weather if you what to call it evolution 3 or give it an other name is irrelevant.

the fact is that what I call "evolution 3" is controvertial, feel free to give it an other name rather than evolution 3, it is still a fact that the idea is controvertial (agree? answer yes or no)
You have no idea if I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not even remotely related to this discussion, so your childish rant here is both baseless and unnecessary.

Control yourself better in future.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, it does not. Again, look at how differently dolphins and bats USE echolocation. The individual ways they function demonstrates that they are NOT all the same mutations that lead to the use of the same function.


Your source does not say that they would need hundreds of "the same mutations", just that both carry the same hearing gene necessary for echolocation. That doesn't mean the same thing.

Again, you were comparing this to feathers in mammals, but it is nowhere near the same thing, because the form both take is specialized in different ways and functions entirely differently. As I said before, all this demonstrates is that similar traits can evolved independently. It doesn't indicate anything about ID.

EDIT: Looking into this even further, to say this study showed that 200 mutations were "the same" is a misrepresentation. The study says that 200 genes had independently changed in the same ways, which isn't quite the same thing. Essentially, what's it's saying is that both dolphins and bats evolved the ability to "hear" echolocation using a similar set of genes that evolved in a very similar way - but that doesn't really indicate anything other than that independent selective pressure can give rise to similar structures. It's a intriguing example of convergent evolution, but to posit that it indicates (or necessitates) and hand in the process beyond natural selection and random mutation is baseless.
SOURCES: Bats and Dolphins Evolved Echolocation in Same Way
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature


Obviously no, as I have said and explained this repeatedly.


Oh look, you're wrong.


Your argument was that the EXACT SAME MUTATIONS occurred in both. Since the forms they take are entirely different, obviously they cannot be the exact same mutations, can they?


Okay then. Please show exactly what mutations occurred and the likelihood of them evolving independently. Show your working.
Ok but the evidence shows that bats and dolphins got the same mutations in the same genes and in the same location multiple independent times……….agree?

Your source does not say that they would need hundreds of "the same mutations", just that both carry the same hearing gene necessary for echolocation. That doesn't mean the same thing

The “hearing gene” is present in all mammals, but a variation of this gene allows for echolocation, both bats and dolphins have the same variation of that gene………this variation is absent in the rest of the mammals including those that are closely related to bats and those that are closely related to dolphins……this implies that dolphins and bats got the same mutations in the same location independently multiple times, Agree?
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
Actually, that sentence is NOT included in the OP and you have deliberately added the part in parenthesis in order to misrepresent the OP because I suspect you now realize the error in your reading of it and are trying to save face. What the OP actually says is this (emphasis mine):

"Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Notice how it doesn't DEFINE evolution as "random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection" as you assert here. It clearly states that "evolution occurs when evolutionary processes SUCH AS random mutation etc... act on this variation". Notice how the definition doesn't PRECLUDE the possibility of there being other evolutionary factors, as you appear to be asserting it does.


You have no idea if I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not even remotely related to this discussion, so your childish rant here is both baseless and unnecessary.

Control yourself better in future.

Ok but what I call “evolution 3” is controversial agree? Scientists are discussing on weather if evolution 3 is true or not? Agree?

Evolution 3 is not an uncontroversial fact nor theory (agree?)

This is true regardless if you what to call it evolution 3 or if you what to give it a different name
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
I hope we haven’t veered too far from the intent of the OP. Oh well.

I am pretty sure that the evidence is not there.
Well “…the stone the builders rejected…”
silly ad hoc arguments
Aren’t most, if not all, scientific hypotheses “ad hoc” (for this)?
To even have evidence one must have a testable model to start with.
My model is us. We are communicating. Irrational from a separate entity standpoint, but not from a singular mental reality standpoint. “Our father who art in heaven…”: mental genesis.
If your idea cannot be refuted by a reasonable test then it is not a scientific idea and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it.
So, if something is always true, there can be no scientific proofs of it. Awkward.
 
Top