Evidence For And Against Evolution

leroy said:

1 Prove your asertion, how do you know that morals aid for the survival of the population?

2 how do morals evolved in the fist place? Did some gene(s) got a mutation and vualah we became moral agents? Or how did it happened

3 what about moral values that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction, like not raping, or caring about and helping infertile humans, or carrying about other animals, etc.

There are certainly some behaviors that we would consider wrong, that would not affect the survival of our specie. Raping woman like most animals do, would produce more babies, and the chances of passing your genes to the next generations will increase. So why did the moral value of not rapping evolved?

Click to expand...

I am not going to repeat the work of others. Did you not read the article that I linked?

Perhaps your problem arises largely from your inability to define morals. Ask a clearer question and you may get a clearer answer.

And though I do share your opinion about rap music, rape is another matter. You are taking a very short sighted approach to evolution. A mother by herself would be less likely to be able to raise a child to adulthood than a family. Rape may seem to be a short term fix, but those children are less likely to survive and the rapist himself is a threat to a population. It is pro-survival to weed them out.

leroy said:

Ok what would the correct probability be?

Pretend that you need 3 mutations in order to have a selective benefit, (1 or 2 mutations would be useless) if behe is wrong with his numbers, what would the correct probability be?

So mutation 1 would be useless meaning that the mutation would be neutral, so it will only get fixed by chance (genetic drift) the same is true with mutation 2,....... But the combination of 1+2+3 will result in a benefit that would be selected by natural selection

So please provide the correct calculations and show that it is possible to have 3 mutations that together would produce a benefit, but by themselves would be neutral. Acoording to Behe such an event can't happen.

For the record, observations support Behes affirmations.

When an organism (say a bacteria) requires 1 mutation to gain a selective benefit such mutation is likely to occure

When it requires 2 mutations it is unlikely but possible but only under optimal conditions and in microbes that reproduce fast.

When it requires 3 mutations or more, well that has never been observed

Click to expand...

As stated, the probability can't be determined. It depends on much more than simply the mutations required.

Well, what is the probability of each mutation? What is the size of the population? What is the overall rate of mutation? Are you wanting a specific protein, or just one that work (for which there may be several).

Once again, the 'multiply probabilities' is only correct if you want a single protein to spontaneously appear with no precursors and with all three mutations all at once. Anything that allows sequential steps drastically increases the probability. Anything that allows fixation in a population drastically increases the probability.

Let me give another example. Suppose I had 20 dice and asked you to throw all 6's. The probability for each throw would be one in 6^20, which is about 4 quadrillion, So you would expect to make about this many throws before you are successful.

Now, suppose that I asked you to throw 20 dice and keep all the 6's that appear. Then throw the remainder and keep all the 6's that appear. And then throw the remainder and keep all the 6's that appear. Now, how many throws, on average, will it take to get all 20 dice to show 6's? I think it quite easy to see that the number of throws is less than 6*20=120.

I don't feel like computing the exact probability even for this one, but I think that it is easily seen that the 'multiply probabilities' calculation is simply wrong and badly so.

In your scenario, if it takes an average of, say, 1000 generation for each mutation to appear on average and if, once it appears it stays fixed, then for three mutations, you would need an average of less than 3000 generations. In other words, instead of multiplying the probabilities, you simply divide the value by the number of required probabilities and this is an *underestimate* for the actual probability.

A complete probability calculation, like I said, would be incredibly difficult. It would need to take into consideration population size, mutation rate, deal with both mutations producing the needed changes and other mutations changing away from them, notice that the order the mutations occur may not be fixed, etc.

But you are simply wrong that three neutral mutations would be effectively impossible.

YoursTrue said:

I am not sure what you mean by Young Earth Creationist. Please explain. Thank you.

Click to expand...

A YEC is a creationist that believes that the Earth is less than 20,000 years old. Most point to the Bible and the dates mentioned there to support this belief.

YoursTrue said:

Behe is wrong because certain ones want him to be wrong.

Click to expand...

No, he is wrong because the examples he proposed for irreducible complexity are NOT irreducibly complex by his definition. And, in fact, no examples of IC have ever been found.

YoursTrue said:

I know you don't believe in the truthfulness of the Bible. But I have come to realize that it is true, a message from God transmitted to human writers, compiled and put together over a thousand years. The evidence is twofold: the Bible and life. Romans 1:20 speaks of this: "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." But as the one conversation with the preacher led me to understand, it is God alone that can give you this faith.

Click to expand...

Well, then, I am among those not given faith. I'm OK with that.

But again, this is a *story*you have decided to believe. I choose instead to believe what the actual evidence says. And that evidence disagrees with the statements in your Bible in many ways.

YoursTrue said:

If I have to explain the term 'life form' to you, lol, I believe we're finished.

Click to expand...

But a *big* part of the issue of abiogenesis is definional: what does it mean for a certain chemical system to be alive?

For example, are viruses alive? They have DNA or RNA and can certainly cause a lot of havoc unless 'killed', but they don't reproduce on their own and, in many ways have more the characteristics of crystals.

Do you consider viruses a 'life form'?

Going further: since abiogenesis only needs to deal with single-celled life, what, specifically, do these cells need to be able to do? Reproduce? Respond to changes in the environment? Move?

it really can be helpful to ask specifically what makes something alive as opposed to not alive. If we have cell-like structures that can grow and reproduce, is that enough to be alive? Because, guess what? We *have* done that in the lab.

leroy said:

My interest is and has always been to share opinions with someone who claims to have a better explanation than design. I have no interest in "debating" someone who doesn't want to make any claim.

Click to expand...

Doesn't every educated person have a better explanation? Do you understand the mechanisms of evolution? They make sense. What fault do you find in them that millions of biologists haven't noticed?

"Design" = magic poofing, does it not? Does this seem reasonable? Has anyone ever witnessed such a thing? What possible mechanism could account for it?
But it's not even a mechanism, is it? It's magic. You're claiming magic is the better "explanation."

leroy said:

How do you explain morality through evolution?

Click to expand...

How do you explain it in monkeys, and how do you explain it's shallowness and flaws in humans?

We're a social species. Pro-social features were naturally selected for.
Natural selection doesn't just select for gross anatomy. It selects advantageous psychological features, as well. How would you explain maternal altruism in, well.... just about everything?

leroy said:

Pretend that you need 3 mutations in order to have a selective benefit, (1 or 2 mutations would be useless) if behe is wrong with his numbers, what would the correct probability be?

Click to expand...

Why would one or two mutations be useless? Can't single mutations produce major changes in anatomy or physiology?

YoursTrue said:

The Holocaust shows what misery both secular and religious thinking has done to the state of mankind. But God is true, and He will release His people, just as He did when Moses led them out of Egypt. By God's people, I don't mean only Jews. More than Jews died in the Holocaust. And WWI and WWII. The Bible is an absolutely amazing story, and the more I think about it, the more wonderful it becomes in the sense of the time it took to write the Bible, to compile the scriptures, and the history recorded. The Scriptures offer a hope for mankind, as well as a resurrection from the dead, and the end of evil, wicked actions. Revelation 21 speaks of new heavens and a new earth which righteousness will be forever. It will happen just as God promised.

Click to expand...

Polymath257 said:

But a *big* part of the issue of abiogenesis is definional: what does it mean for a certain chemical system to be alive?

For example, are viruses alive? They have DNA or RNA and can certainly cause a lot of havoc unless 'killed', but they don't reproduce on their own and, in many ways have more the characteristics of crystals.

Do you consider viruses a 'life form'?

Going further: since abiogenesis only needs to deal with single-celled life, what, specifically, do these cells need to be able to do? Reproduce? Respond to changes in the environment? Move?

it really can be helpful to ask specifically what makes something alive as opposed to not alive. If we have cell-like structures that can grow and reproduce, is that enough to be alive? Because, guess what? We *have* done that in the lab.

Click to expand...

Any organic thing that can reproduce should be considered life in this context

leroy said:

S

Sure I don't have an argument, the argument is not mine, the argument is widely available on various sources,

My interest is and has always been to share opinions with someone who claims to have a better explanation than design. I have no interest in "debating" someone who doesn't want to make any claim.

Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous. You made a claim, then spent weeks convulsing in diversions as you avoided all requests to support that claim. Since you gave no reason your claim had validity, there was nothing to debate.I

It is gratifying to see you concede that your claim is failed, despite all the deceitful tactics.

leroy said:

Ok what would the correct probability be?

Pretend that you need 3 mutations in order to have a selective benefit, (1 or 2 mutations would be useless) if behe is wrong with his numbers, what would the correct probability be?

So mutation 1 would be useless meaning that the mutation would be neutral, so it will only get fixed by chance (genetic drift) the same is true with mutation 2,....... But the combination of 1+2+3 will result in a benefit that would be selected by natural selection

So please provide the correct calculations and show that it is possible to have 3 mutations that together would produce a benefit, but by themselves would be neutral. Acoording to Behe such an event can't happen.

For the record, observations support Behes affirmations.

When an organism (say a bacteria) requires 1 mutation to gain a selective benefit such mutation is likely to occure

When it requires 2 mutations it is unlikely but possible but only under optimal conditions and in microbes that reproduce fast.

When it requires 3 mutations or more, well that has never been observed

Click to expand...

Are you aware that the argument Behe put forth in The Edge of Evolution was so odd, that he had to concede that if he was right, it meant God deliberately "designed" malaria to resist our treatments?

Is that what you believe?

leroy said:

Oooo I will love to see how you support your assertions. As @YoursTrue said there are many attributes that seem to be unique to humans like morality

How do you explain morality through evolution?

Click to expand...

It will be refreshing to see honesty in response to requests someone support their assertions, than what we have seen from creationists.

leroy said:

1 Prove your asertion, how do you know that morals aid for the survival of the population?

2 how do morals evolved in the fist place? Did some gene(s) got a mutation and vualah we became moral agents? Or how did it happened

Click to expand...

Natural selection.
Had certain "moral," co-operative behaviors not evolved we couldn't function as social animals. We'd be solitary species like bears, and, as rather slow, feeble, defenseless creatures, solitary humans would probably have died out.

3 what about moral values that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction, like not raping, or caring about and helping infertile humans, or carrying about other animals, etc.

Click to expand...

Some "morals" are innate, others learned.

There are certainly some behaviors that we would consider wrong, that would not affect the survival of our specie. Raping woman like most animals do, would produce more babies, and the chances of passing your genes to the next generations will increase. So why did the moral value of not rapping evolved?

Click to expand...

What makes you think not raping isn't a learned behavior?

leroy said:

Any organic thing that can reproduce should be considered life in this context

Click to expand...

So an RNA strand that can catalyze its own formation is alive? Then we have created life in the lab.

YoursTrue said:

I didn't like it when the minister gave me that answer. I kept telling him I don't believe in God, so how can God give me faith. And he rather kindly repeated that no one can give me that faith but God. And I realized that it was then a circle. I didn't want to get rude with him, so I terminated the conversation. Well anyway, here I am. With faith.

Click to expand...

So you don't like the answer either, and yet you gave it.

Hmmm
What should that tell us?

leroy said:

Any organic thing that can reproduce should be considered life in this context

Click to expand...

That is end point of abiogenesis and the beginning of evolution. By the fossil evidence the first single celled life is bacteria in colonies found about 3.22 billion years ago. Indirect evidence goes back about 4 billion plus.

SkepticThinker said:

So you don't like the answer either, and yet you gave it.

Hmmm
What should that tell us?

Click to expand...

That you didn't understand what I was saying.

ImmortalFlame said:

Yes, they can. Because evolution doesn't "just happen".

Click to expand...

You guys can't even figure your own understanding. Or lack of it.

ImmortalFlame said:

What reason do you have to believe that these things cannot come about as a natural result of a developed brain?

Click to expand...

If I have to explain that your response just now means you're saying they came about by themselves, there's nothing I can say to make your answer clearer.

leroy said:

1 Prove your asertion, how do you know that morals aid for the survival of the population?

2 how do morals evolved in the fist place? Did some gene(s) got a mutation and vualah we became moral agents? Or how did it happened

3 what about moral values that have nothing to do with survival and reproduction, like not raping, or caring about and helping infertile humans, or carrying about other animals, etc.

There are certainly some behaviors that we would consider wrong, that would not affect the survival of our specie. Raping woman like most animals do, would produce more babies, and the chances of passing your genes to the next generations will increase. So why did the moral value of not rapping evolved?

Click to expand...

Good question.