Lungfishes vs Creationism

Jacques de Molay said:

You already posited that evolution is NOT random. You claim that's a "creationist strawman."

Now you conveniently assert that mutation IS random "with respect to fitness".

How cool!

So...To sum up your position...Evolution is NOT random...Unless it supports the view of evolutionists...Then, if need be (as in survival of the fittest), it is random. Until it's not...

Click to expand...

Read carefully. *Mutations* are random *with respect to fitness*. In other words, which mutation shows up is not determined by what would be nice for the organism to have,

BUT, natural selection is NOT random: it selects those mutations that promote survival in the environment.

The net result is that evolution is always directed towards increased survival. So it is not random. Neither is it directed by a sentient being.

Jacques de Molay said:

The similarities do NOT prove evolution. Point of fact - and with all due respect - they disprove it.

Click to expand...

And how, precisely, do they disprove it? The DNA results certainly show our relatedness with chimps.

Jacques de Molay said:

You already posited that evolution is NOT random. You claim that's a "creationist strawman."

Now you conveniently assert that mutation IS random "with respect to fitness".

How cool!

So...To sum up your position...Evolution is NOT random...Unless it supports the view of evolutionists...Then, if need be (as in survival of the fittest), it is random. Until it's not...

Click to expand...

You should stop and try to learn a little bit. By the way, intelligence is not needed to guide something. Gravity has no intelligence, and yet it guides objects all of the time.

Jacques de Molay said:

The similarities do NOT prove evolution. Point of fact - and with all due respect - they disprove it.

Click to expand...

Denial will not get you anywhere.

Perhaps learning the basics of evidence will help?

Jacques de Molay said:

The similarities do NOT prove evolution. Point of fact - and with all due respect - they disprove it.

Click to expand...

No they prove a Common Ancestor, which backs up the claims of Evolution. Nice try though. (Not)

Edit: also, stop WADR-ing me, it's rude.

The Hammer said:

No they prove a Common Ancestor, which backs up the claims of Evolution. Nice try though. (Not)

Edit: also, stop WADR-ing me, it's rude.

Click to expand...

It took me a second to figure out WADR-ing. Ergo the funny rating.

Jacques de Molay said:

With respect, none of this proves evolution in any way, shape or form.

All it proves is the similarities inherent in the DNA code, which is not itself indicative of evolution, either.

It's similar to when people say that chimps and humans are definitely related/ancestors because they share x-millions of base pairs of DNA, completely forgetting (or ignoring, purposely) that the "x-millions" of base pairs is only a 2% similarity, and that the 98% of base pairs remaining are dissimilar.

DNA is a code. Codes don't appear through random chance.

Click to expand...

Hey wait a minute! Upon first reading of your post, I thought it was me speaking. But you went into more detail, so I knew it wasn't me. Thanks! (I totally agree.) That little percentage makes a whole lot of difference.

Jacques de Molay said:

Neat answer. Sorry, but it explains nothing.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps you simply don't understand how it explains everything.

The "environment" is not sentient being

Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise?

The word "directed" implies a conscious control, as in:

Click to expand...

It does not.

So, in essence, you are asserting that the non-sentient entity known as "the environment" is responsible for DIRECTING evolution?

Click to expand...

It's what natural selection does.
Selection pressures are dictated by environmental conditions.

If it is "directing," then it is controlled...Ergo, you have posited a conscience (a creator, in other words).

Click to expand...

No.

If a creator is removed from the equation, the evolution MUST be a random event.

Click to expand...

No. Natural selection isn't random, as selection pressures are dictated by environmental conditions.

It is not "random", for example, that polar bear have white fur instead of brown like their Grizzly cousins.

You can't have it both ways. That's not logical.

Click to expand...

I don't need to have it both ways. Your misrepresentations and strawmen don't determine how evolution actually works.

Jacques de Molay said:

You already posited that evolution is NOT random. You claim that's a "creationist strawman."

Click to expand...

Yes.

Now you conveniently assert that mutation IS random "with respect to fitness".

Click to expand...

Mutation is just one aspect of evolution.
A process can have random input and non-random output.
In fact, this is the case most of the time.

Evolution is such a process.
The input is mutation random to fitness.
This random input is then processed by non-random natural selection.
Giving us a non-random output of species optimized for the niche they inhabit.

It's not rocket science.

Consider a coin sorting contraption.
There are coins of 1 cent, 2 cents, 5 cents, 10 cents, 20 cents, 50 cents, 1 euro and 2 euro.
Each has a different size. I can (and have actually, when I was bored ) create a simple mechanism where coins slide through and have different holes of the various sizes so that each coin falls in the right place.




The input would be random. As in: the coins aren't sorted and the way they are inputted into the device is thus random.

So since the input is random, is it then also "random" that all the 5 cent coins find themselves in the 5 cent box? That all the 1 euro coins find themselves in the 1 euro box?


So to conclude: just because the input of a process is random, does not mean in any way that the output is going to be random as well.

So...To sum up your position...Evolution is NOT random

Click to expand...

Indeed. The process of evolution isn't random.

...Unless it supports the view of evolutionists.

Click to expand...

No. The process of evolution isn't random.
The input of the process is random.
The process itself is not.

..Then, if need be (as in survival of the fittest), it is random. Until it's not...

Click to expand...

Nope, it never is random.
The input is random.
The process is not random.

Jacques de Molay said:

The similarities do NOT prove evolution.

Click to expand...

They support it.
More specifically, the pattern of similarities support it.
So much so that it comes as close as it gets to "proving" it.

See, evolution doesn't just predict "similarities". Instead, it predicts a very specific pattern of similarities.
Incidently, this very specific pattern of similarities is also the very last one one would expect if species do NOT share ancestry and instead have their own unique origin story (be it creationism or something else).

So this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species. And in fact not just "expected" but literally predicted. To the point that if this pattern does not exist: then evolution is disproven.

And that pattern is - drumroll - the nested hierarchy.

We find exactly that pattern not only in the DNA, but we also uncover it in comparative anatomy. And that in both extant as well as extinct creatures (the fossil record). Furthermore, this pattern also matches the data we collect from geographic distribution of species (again both extant as well as the fossil record).

This pattern is in fact so exact and verifiable that we are even able to literally find fossils of previously unknown species by prediction. Like in the case of Tiktaalik. Or the "fishapod" like it is sometimes called, because it has features of both fish as well as terrestial animals. This species was unknown. And yet, using evolution theory, paleontologists were able to find it by prediction. They predicted when it would have had to live and where and what its anatomy must have had been like. They were correct on all counts.

This is the power of accurate testable explanatory models.

Point of fact - and with all due respect - they disprove it.

Click to expand...

Not even in your wildest dreams.

Polymath257 said:

Read carefully. *Mutations* are random *with respect to fitness*. In other words, which mutation shows up is not determined by what would be nice for the organism to have,

BUT, natural selection is NOT random: it selects those mutations that promote survival in the environment.

The net result is that evolution is always directed towards increased survival. So it is not random. Neither is it directed by a sentient being.

Click to expand...

"Selecting," like "directing," implies sentience/consciousness. That "having it both ways" paradigm keeps getting in the way.

Natural selection actually "selects" nothing. It can't.

Random mutations occur. IF those mutations prove to be beneficial (an incredible coincidence, given that a mutation is rarely - if ever - beneficial), then the organism thrives and survives.

Sounds great...Except it still posits control, AND it's mathematically and biologically impossible for random mutations to keep occurring that just happen to be beneficial...In millions of species...Over and over...Again, and again, and again.

TagliatelliMonster said:

They support it.
More specifically, the pattern of similarities support it.
So much so that it comes as close as it gets to "proving" it.

See, evolution doesn't just predict "similarities". Instead, it predicts a very specific pattern of similarities.
Incidently, this very specific pattern of similarities is also the very last one one would expect if species do NOT share ancestry and instead have their own unique origin story (be it creationism or something else).

So this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species. And in fact not just "expected" but literally predicted. To the point that if this pattern does not exist: then evolution is disproven.

And that pattern is - drumroll - the nested hierarchy.

We find exactly that pattern not only in the DNA, but we also uncover it in comparative anatomy. And that in both extant as well as extinct creatures (the fossil record). Furthermore, this pattern also matches the data we collect from geographic distribution of species (again both extant as well as the fossil record).

This pattern is in fact so exact and verifiable that we are even able to literally find fossils of previously unknown species by prediction. Like in the case of Tiktaalik. Or the "fishapod" like it is sometimes called, because it has features of both fish as well as terrestial animals. This species was unknown. And yet, using evolution theory, paleontologists were able to find it by prediction. They predicted when it would have had to live and where and what its anatomy must have had been like. They were correct on all counts.

This is the power of accurate testable explanatory models.



Not even in your wildest dreams.

Click to expand...

The "pattern of similarities" proves only (as already explained) that the DNA code is sufficient, and was well designed to support life.

You are engaging in metaphorical "reverse engineering" when you say "this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species."

Yes...Especially if that's what you're looking for. It's called a predetermined conclusion.

It's not called "scientific evidence."

In regards to anatomy, since anatomy is coded from DNA...You're talking in circles.

As an aside, "accurate testable explanatory MODEL" is an oxymoron. If it's still a model, it's accuracy is only assumed. And anyone who has taken a rudimentary class in statistics can tell you that "models" are easily manipulated.

Jacques de Molay said:

"Selecting," like "directing," implies sentience/consciousness. That "having it both ways" paradigm keeps getting in the way.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. What makes you think that? You constantly are making Equivocation Fallacies. Nature "selects" when superior specimens survive and reproduce, That is all.

Natural selection actually "selects" nothing. It can't.

Random mutations occur. IF those mutations prove to be beneficial (an incredible coincidence, given that a mutation is rarely - if ever - beneficial), then the organism thrives and survives.

Click to expand...

I love how you post a claim and immediately refute yourself, even though you are incorrect in your assumption on positive mutations being rare.

Sounds great...Except it still posits control, AND it's mathematically and biologically impossible for random mutations to keep occurring that just happen to be beneficial...In millions of species...Over and over...Again, and again, and again.

Click to expand...

Why is it impossible? Do you want to go over the math? It is not that hard to do. Making a statement and refusing to support it allows others to rationally reject it.

Jacques de Molay said:

"Selecting," like "directing," implies sentience/consciousness. That "having it both ways" paradigm keeps getting in the way.

Click to expand...

But you are *wrong* in this. Directed motion happens all the time. For example, gravity pulls things *down*. It isn't random. It is also not directed by an intelligence.

Chemistry isn't random. And, more importantly for evolution, survival isn't random.

But that doens't mean there is an intelligence directing things.

YOU have set up the false dichotomy of 'random' versus 'intelligently directed'. There is a third possibility: directed by natural laws.

Natural selection actually "selects" nothing. It can't.

Click to expand...

The selection occurs automatically: those things with mutations allowing survival get to pass on their genes. Those with mutations not helpful for survival do not. That means that the next generation is more adapted to the environment.

Random mutations occur. IF those mutations prove to be beneficial (an incredible coincidence, given that a mutation is rarely - if ever - beneficial), then the organism thrives and survives.

Sounds great...Except it still posits control, AND it's mathematically and biologically impossible for random mutations to keep occurring that just happen to be beneficial...In millions of species...Over and over...Again, and again, and again.

Click to expand...

No control is required. Both beneficial and harmful mutations occur. But those with harmful mutations are not as likely to pass them on to the next generation. Beneficial ones don't have to happen all that often (remember that most are neutral).

And that means that there is a 'direction' from generation to generation: the population gets more adapted over the generations. The population is 'selected' to be more adapted to the environment.

TagliatelliMonster said:

They support it.
More specifically, the pattern of similarities support it.
So much so that it comes as close as it gets to "proving" it.

See, evolution doesn't just predict "similarities". Instead, it predicts a very specific pattern of similarities.
Incidently, this very specific pattern of similarities is also the very last one one would expect if species do NOT share ancestry and instead have their own unique origin story (be it creationism or something else).

So this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species. And in fact not just "expected" but literally predicted. To the point that if this pattern does not exist: then evolution is disproven.

And that pattern is - drumroll - the nested hierarchy.

We find exactly that pattern not only in the DNA, but we also uncover it in comparative anatomy. And that in both extant as well as extinct creatures (the fossil record). Furthermore, this pattern also matches the data we collect from geographic distribution of species (again both extant as well as the fossil record).

This pattern is in fact so exact and verifiable that we are even able to literally find fossils of previously unknown species by prediction. Like in the case of Tiktaalik. Or the "fishapod" like it is sometimes called, because it has features of both fish as well as terrestial animals. This species was unknown. And yet, using evolution theory, paleontologists were able to find it by prediction. They predicted when it would have had to live and where and what its anatomy must have had been like. They were correct on all counts.

This is the power of accurate testable explanatory models.



Not even in your wildest dreams.

Click to expand...

I assume you're familiar with entropy, correct? The universal Law that explains how the universe tends towards disorder?

Can you explain exactly how evolution can completely jettison the concept of entropy, and still be considered as "science"?

Because evolution implicitly implies that the universe tends towards order, NOT disorder.

It implies that life can arise ex nihlio from unliving, inanimate material. Neat trick! How exactly does inanimate material "mutate"? At what point does inanimate material gain the ability to reproduce?

This is the real issue that completely undermines the disproven, mid-19th century "science" of evolution.

An evolutionists have NO answer for it. And they never have.

Jacques de Molay said:

The "pattern of similarities" proves only (as already explained) that the DNA code is sufficient, and was well designed to support life.

Click to expand...

No, it is only "sufficient" in the current environments. Environments change over time and the code becomes insufficient if it does not change.

You are engaging in metaphorical "reverse engineering" when you say "this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species."

Click to expand...

Perhaps he should have said that creationists have no explanation for this. "God did it" is not an explanation, it is an excuse at best.

Yes...Especially if that's what you're looking for. It's called a predetermined conclusion.

It's not called "scientific evidence."

Click to expand...

But we are not "looking" for a predetermined conclusion. And you do not appear to understand the concept of scientific evidence, if you did you would realize that there is endless scientific evidence for evolution. I will gladly go over the concept with you.

In regards to anatomy, since anatomy is coded from DNA...You're talking in circles.

Click to expand...

How so? You do not seem to understand that the evidence from anatomy existed long before the evidence from DNA. When w use DNA as evidence we are using it in a different way so you appear to be wrong here too.

As an aside, "accurate testable explanatory MODEL" is an oxymoron. If it's still a model, it's accuracy is only assumed. And anyone who has taken a rudimentary class in statistics can tell you that "models" are easily manipulated.

Click to expand...

No, its accuracy is tested. That is the point of a model. That is how science is done in the first place. Please note, when you claim "the accuracy is assumed" you have just made a statement that appears to be false about others, A breaking of the Ninth Commandment. When you say that someone assumed something you need to be able to provide evidence for your claim. Where is your evidence that they just assumed the accuracy? Scientists are not allowed to do that. Other scientists would call them out.

Jacques de Molay said:

I assume you're familiar with entropy, correct? The universal Law that explains how the universe tends towards disorder?

Click to expand...

It does not say that. You are using an oversimplified and incorrect version of it. The second law is about the availability of energy to do work. It constantly decreases. It is not necessarily a tendency to disorder.

Can you explain exactly how evolution can completely jettison the concept of entropy, and still be considered as "science"?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. Your version is simply incorrect.

Because evolution implicitly implies that the universe tends towards order, NOT disorder.

It implies that life can arise ex nihlio from unliving, inanimate material. Neat trick! How exactly does inanimate material "mutate"? At what point does inanimate material gain the ability to reproduce?

This is the real issue that completely undermines the disproven, mid-19th century "science" of evolution.

An evolutionists have NO answer for it. And they never have.

Click to expand...

Actually we have answers for all of them. I do not allow shifting of the goal posts. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis at all. Evolution merely describes how life changes over time. If you want to move the goal posts all the way to abiogenesis you need to admit that evolution is a fact before you can demand to discuss this.

Jacques de Molay said:

I assume you're familiar with entropy, correct? The universal Law that explains how the universe tends towards disorder?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am very familiar with entropy. Are you?

For example, can you explain, using entropy, how it is possible for disordered water to freeze, giving the much more ordered crystal structure of ice? That is a spontaneous increase of order. BUT IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF ENTROPY. Do you understand why not?

The point is that the link between entropy and disorder is imply not as direct as you seem to think. Ice freezes *because* of the amount of heat released, which adds entropy to the environment, countering the increase of order in the crystal structure of the ice.

Can you explain exactly how evolution can completely jettison the concept of entropy, and still be considered as "science"?

Click to expand...

Evolution does NOT jettison the concept of entropy. Living things tend to produce a LOT of waste and heat, which means a LOT of entropy is added to the environment. The minor increases in order over generations produced by evolution is *far* outweighed by the massive amounts of entropy produced in this way.

Because evolution implicitly implies that the universe tends towards order, NOT disorder.

It implies that life can arise ex nihlio from unliving, inanimate material. Neat trick! How exactly does inanimate material "mutate"? At what point does inanimate material gain the ability to reproduce?

Click to expand...

When you have a self-catalyzing reaction. We know that such are possible for small stretches of RNA, for example.

This is the real issue that completely undermines the disproven, mid-19th century "science" of evolution.

An evolutionists have NO answer for it. And they never have.

Click to expand...

Actually, the questions you ask have been answered long ago and are pretty trivial misunderstandings of the science.

Pretty much anyone who brings up entropy as an argument against evolution has no actual understanding of entropy. I would bet that you only have the vague intuition that it is related to 'disorder' but could not determine the amount of entropy increase when a 2 liter volume of hydrogen gas (at standard temperature and pressure) expands to fill 3 liters.

In fact, I bet you have no idea what the units of entropy are.

Jacques de Molay said:

The "pattern of similarities" proves only (as already explained) that the DNA code is sufficient, and was well designed to support life.

Click to expand...

You make zero sense.

Evolution theory predicts this specific pattern. There's no other reason for this pattern to exist. Creationism certainly doesn't predict this pattern. Without common ancestry, this specific pattern (a family tree) wouldn't be expected at all.

You are engaging in metaphorical "reverse engineering" when you say "this specific pattern of similarities is something that is ONLY expected in context of common ancestry of species."

Click to expand...

No.

This pattern is how we can tell your brother from your cousin using only DNA.
Do you even know what nested hierarchies are about? Do you even know what this pattern entails?

Yes...Especially if that's what you're looking for. It's called a predetermined conclusion.

Click to expand...

No.

As an aside, "accurate testable explanatory MODEL" is an oxymoron. If it's still a model, it's accuracy is only assumed.

Click to expand...

"still" a model?



Models are models and stay models.
Again you make no sense.

And anyone who has taken a rudimentary class in statistics can tell you that "models" are easily manipulated.

Click to expand...

//facepalm

Jacques de Molay said:

"Selecting," like "directing," implies sentience/consciousness. That "having it both ways" paradigm keeps getting in the way.

Natural selection actually "selects" nothing. It can't.

Random mutations occur. IF those mutations prove to be beneficial (an incredible coincidence, given that a mutation is rarely - if ever - beneficial), then the organism thrives and survives.

Click to expand...

And when that happens, it is said that "positive selection has occurred".
It's just jargon. Bickering about that word is just arguing semantics.

Your description of what is being referred to, is correct - although beneficial mutations aren't that rare in the great scheme of things.

Sounds great...Except it still posits control, AND it's mathematically and biologically impossible for random mutations to keep occurring that just happen to be beneficial...In millions of species...Over and over...Again, and again, and again.

Click to expand...

Beneficial mutations happen all the time and are observed all the time.
Yes, they are rare, in proportion to the total amount of mutations that happen every generation, which is a LOT.

If you actually go look for positive selections, they're not exactly difficult to find.