Sexual selection and evolution - not so random

[Deeje]

Those that support evolution have undergone aggressive attempts by "evidence lacking" creationists to eliminate the theory of evolution from the world.

What dreadful thing would happen if they did eliminate evolution from the world?

What would happen to science if tomorrow it was proven that evolution is all just a huge mistake? Would the rest of science collapse? I think not. They would just regroup with a new theory.....and a new range of interpretation of their evidence.....correct?

What does the teaching of evolution do for mankind except to get rid of the only source of moral guidance in the world.....We are not without evidence any more than we are without evidence for anything else we cannot see with the naked eye. You can tell by the effect that something exists as a cause.....cause and effect is a scientific principle, is it not? You guys concentrate on the 'effect' so much that the 'cause' is not even mentioned in the conversation.

There attempts have been futile because the theory has truth and real evidence to support it. No one can strip your faith in a creator from you but that does not mean you cannot accept evolution.

The theory has attraction for those who chafe under the rules of a Creator...and those who genuinely hate religion. They will grasp at straws to make God and religion go away....and I must say that when listening to YEC's I understand why.......but God hasn't gone away and he never will.

This imagined 'freedom' of theirs is an illusion because it has never produced happier or more emotionally secure people. There is another epidemic that has swept the planet for most of this century...."depression". The world is not a happy place without hope. What hope does science offer?

If there was "real evidence" for evolution, then surely it would be a 'science fact' by now, wouldn't it? It masquerades as fact, but the truth is...there are no facts...just assertions and suggestions. None so blind, apparently....

But it also takes something in human nature that seems to be dying in this age....spirituality. Humans have become less and less spiritual as they become more secular and materialistic, but it hasn't really contributed to a better or more caring world...has it?

In a godless world, there is no one to answer to.....and no one to place your faith and hopes on....it always leads to disappointment. The empty promises never match the sad reality.

Not believing in evolution does not make it go away. It is not too late for you to accept evolution.

LOL...please don't hold your breath.....

Its also not too late for you to accept that the Creator may well be the all powerful "first cause" of all living things. The door of opportunity remains open until God himself closes it.....that closure will come without warning....so, what will happen if you're wrong...compared to what will happen to us if we are wrong? Its an interesting question...don't you think?

 

[ppp]

What dreadful thing would happen if they did eliminate evolution from the world?

What would happen to science if tomorrow it was proven that evolution is all just a huge mistake?

If it did, God would still not be on the table as a candidate explanation.

 

[Deeje]

If it did, God would still not be on the table as a candidate explanation.

LOL...and you think that bothers him?

 

[oldbadger]

Still waiting on your definition of random to understand what you are trying to say since it does not seem to be the same ones I am using. The outcomes of sexual selection are not 50:50. There is clear selection towards a certain outcome with variation accepted. In any definition I am aware of that is not random.

Tell me again........ what is your definition of 'random', please.

Mine? Just a sec....
Random..... occurring without method or planning.

haphazard, arbitrary, indiscriminate, sporadic,casual, unsystematic, disorganised, accidental.

 

[ppp]

LOL...and you think that bothers him?

About as much as it bothers the Boogeyman.

 

[oldbadger]

Joe W was correct, weather is not random. It seems random because of the complex number of factors involved but it is not random. Detailed prediction would require detailed information, but when it becomes possible weather can be better predicted.

Are you saying that with enough science and with best computer technology that the path of a tornado could be predicted?

That knocks your 'weather is not random' claim for six, I think?

 

[Deeje]

About as much as it bothers the Boogeyman.

I guess we will all find out soon enough.....

 

[ppp]

I guess we will all find out soon enough.....

nah.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its not just my religious beliefs...its also my own sense of logic. Something that is so incredibly well designed to function as part of a fully functioning 'whole', cannot be the product of blind chance

Well... good news: it isn't. Natural selection isn't "chance", nore is it blind.

In order to accept that evolution is true, I have to give up all that belief in God entails

There you go. The real reason for your evolution denial: you already religiously believe something else a priori and are too emotionally attach to that belief, which prevents you to change your mind.

It has nothing to do with the evidence or the science. It has everything to do with your religious dogmatism.

God offers me what science never can....and never will. To swap one for the other would be spiritual suicide......there is no way.

See? Dogmatism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The human body is an amazing piece of engineering.....

From an engineering standpoint, not really, actually........................

- mouth is too small to fit all the teeth, which is why many have to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled.
- spine isn't fit for bipedalism, giving it the s-shape and causing lower back problems in 70% of humans
- due to bipedalism hips are actually to small for live birth, which is why (in biological terms) every human is born prematurely at give-or-take 9 months, while 11 would be a lot more ideal.
- eyes are backwards, resulting in a blind spot and the need for brains to "fill in the blanks", which is inefficient and wastefull.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it is amazing.
From an engineering standpoint, it is deeply flawed.

If an engineer at sony would include similar design flaws like that in the blueprints of their next camera or playstation or whatever, he'ld be fired for being incompetent.

too amazing to be the by-product of undirected random forces

Natural select isn't undirected, nore is it a "random force". It is in fact the exact opposite.

Think back to Noah and the flood.....They didn't think it could happen to them either....(Matthew 24:37-39)

There's nothing there to "think back to", as it is demonstrably a fictional story (which isn't even original to abrahamic religion).

So what enables people to confidently bury God more completely than anything else in this world right now?

Evidence

Evolution

.

MOST christians actually don't have any issues with evolution theory at all. Creationists are a minority, even within the religion. So what you say, is demonstrably wrong. It's perfectly possible to be a believing christiand while not denying science, as demonstrated by the majority of christians around the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Covid 19 I believe was manufactured in a lab...it is an engineered human creation in that case.

That's been demonstrated false multiple times by now, through analysis of its genome.
Your "beliefs" are irrelevant to truth. DNA evidence isn't.

Since I don't believe that the earth was very mountainous prior to the flood

Again with what you "believe" (a priori, religiously, dogmatically) is irrelevant to truth.
The evidence isn't. And the evidence tells us that your supernatural flood never occured and that mountain regions existed LONG before any humans, or anything even remotely resembling a primate, ever existed.

But hey, don't let the evidence get in the way of your (a priori, religous, dogmatic) "beliefs".

I think the Bible says the water covered the tallest mountain

The bible says a lot of demonstrably false things.
Off course, if you're going to ignore the actual evidence in favour of dogmatic beliefs, you'll certainly miss that fact.

I don't need scientists to tell me what my God did or didn't do. But its interesting where the floodwaters went and where the water came from. Its also interesting to me the predictions about climate change and what is already happening as the ice shelves melt in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.....and what would happen if the polar ice caps themselves melted.....it would be another global flood.

No, it most certainly wouldn't. Sea levels would rise, sure / obviously. It would not however flood the entire world. Where did you get that silly idea?

My God has already let us know why conditions are bad on the earth, and why his intervention must wait. I am patient because I know what God is doing and what his goal is with regards to the earth and its inhabitants. Were you never informed of this?

I prefer sticking to the facts. Like climate change being the result of irresponsible human activity, ignored and defended by the likes of you, who thinks the invisible, undetectable, celestial dictator of the universe is gonna come and solve the problem for us.

What is the purpose of a religion without god(s)? How does one practice an atheistic "religion".....that is a weird contradiction in terms. Isn't the basic premise of atheism that there are no god(s)?

Buddhism is a religion without gods, if I'm not mistaken.

The Bible too teaches that there is no afterlife...nothing that goes on living after the death of the body....but it does teach about resurrection. The Creator of life is also the restorer of life. We are not created to die. It is as foreign to us now as it was when the first human died.....surely evolution would have taken us beyond grieving now, since death should be an acceptable inevitability? It never is.

That makes no sense. Grieving is part of survival mechanisms. Because the death of a loved one hurts, we will be doing our best to prevent our loved ones to die. And because we know that our own death will also hurt our families, we will take better care for ourselves as well. This manifests in things like finding the courage to go on for the sake of the children.

It takes just as much ignorance and brain washing to believe in a series of fortunate accidents leading to all life on earth

No. Chemical processes are very real. They factually occur. When's the last time anyone observed a supernatural entity create ANYTHING at all?

Chemical processes create stuff all the live-long-day.
And since life is, at bottom, an extreme expression of chemistry, chemical processes are a very demonstrable, supported contender / candidate for the creation of life.

Chemistry produces chemical compounds. Life, at bottom, is a chemical compound.

So, really, it is the ONLY contender at this point.

Perhaps you might like to furnish us the proof that amoebas morphed themselves into dinosaurs all those millions of years ago?.....I'll be waiting.

DNA and phylogenies.

ps: you realise that the process from "first life" to dino's took about 3 billion years, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No the evidence is not sufficient! Current interpretations are filled with supposition and guesswork.
That’s why there exists so much disagreement among ‘experts’.

There is no guesswork in determining your biological ancestry and lineage based on DNA evidence.

This is why geneticists can pick your exact biological father from thousands of random and anonymous DNA samples. Because comparative genomics enables us to determin kinship, lineage, ancestral bonds, etc.

That chimps and humans, and by extension all other lifeforms, share an ancestor is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory merely explains this fact by proposing the process by which this diversification of species occured.

And that process is extremely well-tested and established.


I'm guessing that when you say "supposition and guesswork", you're likely talking about evolutionary history, where scientists try to reconstruct exact lineages of the past. This is extremely hard work, as it's close to impossible to sample ancient DNA and obviously also due to the very scarcity of fossils. As I'm sure you know, fossilization is a very rare process.

But the point is, that's evolutionary history. Remove all fossils from existance and STILL, life sharing ancestry would remain a genetic fact.

 

[gnostic]

The scientific theories that want to tell us that life came from dead matter

Sorry, but this topic is about evolution and sexual selection, and evolution is about life evolving over times, due to selective pressures.

This topic isn’t about the origin of life, which is another field in the biochemistry. It is called Abiogenesis.

You do have some some chemistry background, back in high school or at university, don’t you?

If you do, you would know that all matters, all compounds and molecules and elements, are made of atoms, REGARDLESS if these matters are “ORGANIC” or “INORGANIC”.

Abiogenesis is not only about how life began. Just as important, is understanding how inorganic matters (molecules or compounds) can have chemical reactions to form different molecules or compounds, including transforming into organic matters.

Now, I am no biologist, but from what I understand, there 3 types of biological matters that are essential to all life (eg bacteria, fungi, plants and animals):

1. Amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins.
2. Carbohydrates (essentially it mean sugars and glucose)
3. Nucleic acids (you would know NA as DNA & RNA) which are essential for passing genetic traits to offspring.

The study of Abiogenesis, would include how these biological molecules or compounds can form from inorganic molecules or compounds.

One of the earliest Abiogenesis experiments, was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, where they tried to mimic early Earth environment to chemically transform a number of inorganic compounds into organic compounds, amino acids, which is the essential ingredient to proteins.

Since then (1952), other experiments have been done over the decades, and they have managed to successfully perform these experiments, using some different additional inorganic molecules to make amino acids.

But there are other sources for amino acids, which was discovered for instance, on large meteorite that crashed near Australian town in Victoria in 1969.

There many types of proteins, and proteins are found in almost every parts of the human bodies, eg in all the muscles and connective tissues, in our organs, hair, and even in our blood and cells.

The human body for instance, is comprised of both organic and inorganic matters, so the largest organic molecules is proteins which make up 20% of the mass, while DNA is about 0.1%, RNA about 1%, lipids (fat and fatty acids) 12%.

BUT about 65% of mass of average adult human is water. Water or H2O, is inorganic molecules, not organic.

Without proteins, we wouldn’t exist. Life wouldn’t exist.

Abiogenesis (unlike the scientific theory of Evolution) is still a hypothesis, not accepted “scientific theory”...

...HOWEVER, since we can perform experiments (eg Miller-Urey) and found evidence (eg hypothermal vents and Murchison meteor), Abiogenesis is not only falsifiable, it is working hypothesis.

Understanding the chemistry between inorganic and organic matters, is learning the natural chemical processes, isn’t anything like the faith in belief that some dead dust can miraculously and magically transformed into living adult human (Genesis 2:7) or in the Quran turning wet clay into living adult human:

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

If you want believe such magic of dust-turn-into-man is possible, then that’s your prerogative to believe what you will, but know that in natural reality, that’s not possible.

Abiogenesis at least is trying to investigate a natural approach, through understanding chemistry, and it showed some promises that we may have real verifiable answers in the future.

So, Abiogenesis is not dead ends, as you have been trying to lead us to believe.

 

[nPeace]

@Wild Fox...I want to thank you for posting that video.....I enjoyed it very much.
But I couldn't help but notice that the evolutionary biologist made the statements...."why?"...."how did that happen?"...."how did that come to be?"..."how did these birds of paradise come to be?"

Does somebody confident about the subjects of their chosen field make comments like that? He clearly doesn't know. These birds throw the theory of evolution under the bus IMO.

It speaks of these birds being "living textbooks on evolution".....but seriously, they have no clue as to how these birds came to exist, or even how they got into that habitat because they are found nowhere else on earth. A bit like Australia's monotremes......they are a mystery to evolutionists....but not to those who believe in creation.

I don't believe that evolution had anything to do with them personally.....they are to me, clearly the work of a talented artisan...not the product of blind evolutionary forces.....

How do birds create iridescence on their plumage? What is iridescence? It is described as..."an object's physical structure that causes light waves to combine with one another, a phenomenon known as interference. In constructive interference, light waves combine so that the crests and troughs line up to reinforce each other, increasing the vibrancy of the reflected color."...can this happen by accident? Who taught these birds about light refraction?

No one is going to tell me that these are flukes of nature......

Deeje... don't you know anything? Will you ever learn?
Those birds sat on a tree and thought how beautiful they would look if their had brilliant dazzling colors. "Why. We could outshine those dull, boring, ugly colors on some birds" they thought.
Then they wished it so hard... it happened.

Nice one sis.
Hey Pick me up when I get rolled over. Here comes the bulldozers.

 

[Deeje]

MOST christians actually don't have any issues with evolution theory at all. Creationists are a minority, even within the religion. So what you say, is demonstrably wrong. It's perfectly possible to be a believing christiand while not denying science, as demonstrated by the majority of christians around the world.

LOL....most "Christians" who sell out to unproven science will come to see the error of their thinking. Faith does not need science...especially not the theoretical guessing game.

Perhaps those "Christians" need to read Romans 1:18-25....

18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. . . .
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. "

The beliefs of the majority never did hold much importance for God.....he has always revealed himself and his truth to an obedient minority.....you don't sound like that would suit your sensibilities....sorry about that.

ps: you realise that the process from "first life" to dino's took about 3 billion years, right?

It wouldn't matter how much time elapsed.....you have to prove that it actually happened and the fact is....you can't....not without a generous amount of assertion and assumption, followed by lashings of suggestion. Throw in some decent computer graphics and voila! God instantly disappears....magic! But that is not real science.....it's science guesswork......science fiction, IMO. God will not disappear altogether...only in the minds of those who will not be granted citizenship in his kingdom...but I have a feeling that you'd hate it there anyway.

So why don't you prove me wrong. Show us the real evidence (apparently there's mountains of it to choose from) that single celled organisms even had the capacity to first of all, "poof" themselves into existence as an undirected product of blind chance, (sorry I know abiogenesis make you all a bit edgy) and then had the means to transform themselves into everything that led to dinosaurs.....and eventually man.

The same rule applies however...it must be presented without assumption or suggestion. No "might have's"...."could have's" or "maybe's". Just solid provable science in plain English.....let's see it.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje... don't you know anything? Will you ever learn?
Those birds sat on a tree and thought how beautiful they would look if their had brilliant dazzling colors. "Why. We could outshine those dull, boring, ugly colors on some birds" they thought.
Then they wished it so hard... it happened.

Nice one sis.
Hey Pick me up when I get rolled over. Here comes the bulldozers.

LOL...bulldozers?.....they can't roll over a cow pat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL....most "Christians" who sell out to unproven science will come to see the error of their thinking.

I love how you're doubling down on the no true scottsman, thinking you're making a decent argument.

Faith does not need science...

You can certainly say that again. In fact, to maintain "faith", one has to actually actively ignore and deny science. As the likes of you demonstrate every day.

especially not the theoretical guessing game.

See? Like that. You need to actively ignore and misrepresent science in order to uphold your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs. Science is the enemy of your "faith".

Perhaps those "Christians" need to read Romans 1:18-25....

18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. . . .
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. "

I think it's funny how you think that christians like Francis Collins or the pope aren't aware of these verses.

The beliefs of the majority never did hold much importance for God.....he has always revealed himself and his truth to an obedient minority.....you don't sound like that would suit your sensibilities....sorry about that.

Well.... the fact that gods have a habbit of always revealing themselves to the least credible gullible minorities, doesn't exactly speak in their favour.........................................

However, it doesn't matter. Independly verifiable evidence always wins over "faith based" beliefs.

It wouldn't matter how much time elapsed.....

Ow, it matters a lot, actually.
If the evidence, for example, would suggest that the elapsed time from first life to dino's was only about 6 days, then that wouldn't be consistent with the observed mechanisms of evolution, in which case, evolution couldn't be the explanation for how dino's came to be.


But you don't care about evidence... That's likely why you say that it wouldn't matter.
Indeed, evidence does not matter to you, as you have made VERY clear in post #18

In that post, as I've noted in a reply which you didn't respond to for obvious reasons, you are LITERALLY saying that nothing could ever convince you. No amount of evidence would be able to make you change your mind as you are far to invested emotionally in your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

So really, you have marked yourself and your opinions as utterly irrelevant when it comes to the topic of science when it contradicts your a priori beliefs.

You have succesfully removed yourself from the conversation. You have made it clear that it is impossible to have an intellectually honest discussion with you about the actual evidence. Because you'll reject everything with but a handwave whenever it contradicts your dogmatic beliefs.

you have to prove that it actually happened and the fact is

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact. A fact you'll consistently reject out of hand, as you have acknowledged yourself in post 18, because of the incompatibility with your dogmatic beliefs.

....you can't....not without a generous amount of assertion and assumption, followed by lashings of suggestion. Throw in some decent computer graphics and voila! God instantly disappears....magic!

Evolution theory doesn't have anything to say about gods.
World renown evolutionary biologists certainly don't agree with you that "god disappers" in a world where life evolved. Neither does the pope and with him, about a billion catholics.

Again: MOST christians don't consider this to be the case at all.

The only thing that accepting the evidence does, is falsifying your dogmatic fundamentalist beliefs.
Surely you know and understand that most christians do not at all are literalist creationists like you are.

Your "no true scottsman" defenses notwithstanding...

But that is not real science.....it's science guesswork......science fiction, IMO.

Your opinions are irrelevant.

God will not disappear altogether...

The vast majority of christians don't consider god disappearing in light of science.

only in the minds of those who will not be granted citizenship in his kingdom...but I have a feeling that you'd hate it there anyway.

About as much as I hate Santa not bringing me presents on christmass morning.

So why don't you prove me wrong.

You have been proven wrong countless of times already. But as you noted in post #18, you are dogmatically and emotionally unable to accept that.

Show us the real evidence (apparently there's mountains of it to choose from) that single celled organisms even had the capacity to first of all, "poof" themselves into existence as an undirected product of blind chance, (sorry I know abiogenesis make you all a bit edgy) and then had the means to transform themselves into everything that led to dinosaurs.....and eventually man.

See? I can't even count the amount of times that you have been corrected on these strawmen and misrepresentations. Yet, here you are... repeating the same bull once again.

Trying to prove anything to you is an exercise in futility, as you yourself have acknowledged in post #18. Not because the evidence isn't there... but quite simply because your emotional attachment to your dogmatic a priori faith based religious beliefs doesn't allow you to honestly evaluate the evidence.

The same rule applies however...it must be presented without assumption or suggestion. No "might have's"...."could have's" or "maybe's". Just solid provable science in plain English.....let's see it.

And here too... I can't count the amount of times it has been explained to you, how theories are never proven and how scientific jargon works and why that jargon is used.

It is utterly pointless to repeat it once more, as you have acknowledged in post #18.


There is no point in repeating something ad nauseum to someone who acknowledges in very clear terms that (s)he will not listen because he already believes something else dogmatically.



So yeah......................


Don't ask for evidence if you are not prepared to honestly evaluate it, unless it already agrees with your a priori beliefs.

I'm done trying to talk some sense into you. So unless you demonstrate that you've taken up a grain of intellectual honesty, I won't be wasting my time.

 

[Deeje]

I'm done trying to talk some sense into you. So unless you demonstrate that you've taken up a grain of intellectual honesty, I won't be wasting my time.

Yeah...I know the feeling....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah...I know the feeling....

No, you don't, as you have demonstrated in post #18, where you literally confessed that your emotional attachment to your dogmatic religious beliefs do NOT allow you to approach the science with a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[Deeje]

No, you don't, as you have demonstrated in post #18, where you literally confessed that your emotional attachment to your dogmatic religious beliefs do NOT allow you to approach the science with a shred of intellectual honesty.

I demonstrated that to swap one “belief” for another, when there was nothing of substance to confirm even its first premise, would mean giving up what God provides for me personally, compared to what science provides for you.....it’s a no brainer. I have no use for your empty suggestions and useless assertions.....they have no appeal for me whatsoever because you cannot prove a thing you say regarding our existence here. Do you comprehend that?