What is Evolution? Lets define it

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where evolution gets a bad name is connected to the atheists fixating on evolution as a way to create a distinction based on politics, instead of trying to show the process of evolution was at work after 6000 years ago, unrelated to the religious or philosophical divide.

Evolution doesn't have a bad name except with creationists, and then only because it threatens their beliefs.The scientific community pays them no heed.

Why is it that atheist seem to be more interested in avoiding the burden proof rather than showing that their view is correct?

The theory is well established and cannot be toppled, just tweaked. You can find the evidence and supporting arguments online if you're interested.

Can you quote a single scientific article that concludes that number 3 is true?

There is no need. We know the mechanism of evolution. Your argument might be that there is a second mechanism working with it. Even if true, that wouldn't negate he fact that genetic variation + natural selection + time = speciation. If you want to claim that more than this is at work, feel free to make the claim and support it.

As for number 3 "the idea that Darwinian mechanisms can account for the diversity of life" my objections are: Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.

Now you've made a claim about natural selection's inability to overcome deleterious mutations. That seems like a random speculation without any support. The burden of proof is yours, but only if you wish to be believed.

Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.In some cases a single benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes. For example even a "simple eye" that can only detect light would be useless if there is not an other mechanism that causes a reaction in the organism when light is detected. Any of them is useless without the other. Both have to appear at the same time

Irreducible complexity and Behe have both been debunked (see the Dover trial transcripts). Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated to exist in any biological system. Multiple examples have been offered (the hemostasis cascade, the immune system, the bacterial flagellum, and compound eyes), and all shown to be feasible for a blind, undirected process to assemble.

Pretend that an ancient ape (the ancestor of humans and chimps) received a beneficial mutación , this mutation is so beneficial that in just 1 generation (10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the population. Repeat the process for 500,000 generations (5 million years) and you end up with an ape who accumulated 500,000 mutations. We are suppose to share 99% of our genetic material with chimps. This represents 30,000,000 base pairs (given that our genome is 3B base pairs long.) In other words as an evolutionist you need to explain how 30,000,000 benefitial mutations took place and became fixed in the genome in just 5,000,000 years. Even in the best possible (and unrealistic) scenario one can imagine at most account for 500,000 differences...... You need to explain 30,000,000 genetic differences between chimps and humans.

The flaw here is that this process is occurring in every ape, not just this one series of apes. If the ape population is 100,000, that one beneficial mutation per generation can be occurring 100,000 times over those ten years.

Furthermore, if 99% of our genome comprises 30 million base pairs, then the 1% difference would be 300,000 base pairs.

 

[Skwim]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

For future reference, definitions aren't constructed of examples; although they may be used later on to help the reader understand the definition. A definition is a statement of the exact meaning of a word or term.

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)."
source
​

So, because you've failed to properly define biological evolution everything else that followed in your post is immaterial.

.

 

[ChristineM]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

Starting with faulty premise(s) will not make a dialogue

 

[Jollybear]

The definition of evolution is that monkeys give birth to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The definition of evolution is that monkeys give birth to humans.

Not exactly, but cladistically you are a monkey.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.

That's why scientists define such things and not laymen.

 

[Skwim]

Not exactly, but cladistically you are a monkey.

Not really, at least no more so than one is a lemur or tarsier, or any other present day animal that split off from evolutionary development millions of years ago, such as the tree shrews, colugos, or rabbits. One can be more closely related to some animals rather than others, but this doesn't mean they "are" them.

.

​

.

 

[ecco]

Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.

OK Let's talk about "the actual argument presented by Behe". The actual argument presented by Behe that has been refuted over and over. How many times, in how many ways, does it need to be refuted?

This is like trying to defend Hoyle's Steady State theory long after it was refuted.

As soon as you bring up irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution you lose.

 

[leroy]

OK Let's talk about "the actual argument presented by Behe". The actual argument presented by Behe that has been refuted over and over. How many times, in how many ways, does it need to be refuted?

This is like trying to defend Hoyle's Steady State theory long after it was refuted.

As soon as you bring up irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution you lose.

I challenge you to explain the argumente with your own words without missrepresent it

 

[Ellen Brown]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

Humans are a quarrelsome lot. In thinking about evolution, one could take a lesson from "The Wizard of Oz" and the man behind the curtain, perhaps. Or, it is like a bus full of passengers. Those who believe in God, think he is driving. Those who think evolution is random think there is no driver, and the bus is controlled by passengers moving one side to the other of the bus. There, problem solved.

 

[Sunstone]

Why is it that atheist seem to be more interested in avoiding the burden proof rather than showing that their view is correct?

Oh, you're so good at logic, eh? Then why don't you know when you have incurred the burden of proof? I'll wager you've never studied logic in a formal setting at the university level. Not even an intro course. I'll further wager you couldn't pass an intro course with what you know today.

 

[ecco]

I challenge you to explain the argumente with your own words without missrepresent it

It's not my argument for irreducible complexity that has been refuted repeatedly. It's Behe's from his own book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

​

This is the argument that has been refuted repeatedly by many scientists.

"My version" of the argument is not germane.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really, at least no more so than one is a lemur or tarsier, or any other present day animal that split off from evolutionary development millions of years ago, such as the tree shrews, colugos, or rabbits. One can be more closely related to some animals rather than others, but this doesn't mean they "are" them.

View attachment 24129

.

​

.

Your cladogram supports me. If one treats all "monkeys" as a monphyletic group that means that the "monkeys" started before the split between New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. That is why I used the qualifying term "cladisctically".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I challenge you to explain the argumente with your own words without missrepresent it

You were the one that brought up the topic of "irreducible complexity". That once again puts the burden on you to define it. If you are not ready to defend a concept then it is best not to mention it.

 

[leroy]

You are simply wrong. Atheists never dodge the burden of proof, at least not here. You made a claim that put the burden of proof upon you. I pointed that out. Did you not understand your error?

You are aserting that Darwinian (random genetic change, sexual selection, natural selection etc) can account for all (or most) of the diversity of live.

I am aserting that the claim is controversial and probably wrong. We both have our burden.

Correct, convergent evolution is not expected to do that. And guess what? That is not the case here. The article you linked does not support that claim at all. And watch the name calling. I am not the fanatic here.

My mistake, I quoted the wrong article.

And a new study shows that in both groups the same protein evolved in the same way to make that possible. Researchers say it's surprising to discover a molecular convergence in these very distantly related groups of animals.

So the new finding was "very unexpected,"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/hear-bats-and-whales-share-sonar-protein

Primary source
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)02057-0

We do have convergent evolution, at a genetic level which was not expected according to Darwinism.

No need to. Your source, the one that you chose, told you how Haldane's dilemma was incorrect. Haldane himself realized it later. If you can be honest I will gladly support my claims, but sice I have been using your sources so far to show that they do not support your claims there is no need to.

Even takin in to consideration the "mistakes" originally made by haldane the problem is still there. ......but feel free to provide the correct calculations and show that 5 million years is enough time to produce a human from an ancient ape.(who was also the ansestor of chimps.)

Supposedly there is a 1% difference between humans and chimps, this represents 30 million base pairs.

So can 30M base pairs evolve through Darwinian evolution in 5 million years?

Please provide your sources.

Can you be honest? That is a simple question that for some reason riles creationists. That means you need to use proper sources,

You can teach me a lesson and provide proper sources for your claims.


As for me providing sources, I will be happy to provide them, just let me know which specific points do you find controversial, and I will support it with proper sources.

For example what claims did Sanford made, that you would consider to be wrong ?


.....

There is a real controversy in the scientific community on whether if Darwinian can account for the diversity of life, many alternative hypothesis are constantly being proposed and some of them pass the proces of peer review. (Neutralism, natural genetic engineering, mutationalism etc would be examples)

Only atheist from YouTube and forums seem to believe that Darwinian is the only hypothesis In the table .

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are aserting that Darwinian (random genetic change, sexual selection, natural selection etc) can account for all (or most) of the diversity of live.

I am aserting that the claim is controversial and probably wrong. We both have our burden.

It is foolish to claim it is controversial. Since over 90% of all scientists and over 99% of experts in the field accept it it is far from controversial. I can support that claim. And since you probably have almost no education in the sciences I doubt if you can give more than a halfhearted attempt to defend your claims.

My mistake, I quoted the wrong article.





http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/hear-bats-and-whales-share-sonar-protein

Primary source
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)02057-0

We do have convergent evolution, at a genetic level which was not expected according to Darwinism.

Since Darwin did not even know of the existence of genes that would be expected. Once again you need to read the articles that you link. They tested that evolution with computer modeling to see if natural selection could cause those mutations to be selected. That was confirmed to be the case. Please note that the basic protein is one found in all mammals. I A protein will have limited ways that it can change. The relevant quote from the article:

" They then used computers to simulate how the prestin gene might change over time to rule out that these six genes converged by chance through random mutations. They concluded that natural selection likely drove the changes to be the same. The sperm whale had some of the same prestin gene sequence but was not completely the same. That difference might be because it seems to use lower frequencies for echolocation than other toothed whales, says Rossiter."

Even takin in to consideration the "mistakes" originally made by haldane the problem is still there. ......but feel free to provide the correct calculations and show that 5 million years is enough time to produce a human from an ancient ape.(who was also the ansestor of chimps.)

What "mistakes"? Calling mutations a mistake is an error on your part. You are assuming a goal to evolution with such a claim and there is none. And again, since your article, that you based your argument on told you that it was shown to be wrong I have no need to do the calculation. Once again we are dealing with the claims that you made and the articles that you used. You abused a source and I made your error clear to you. So far you are failing at being honest.

Supposedly there is a 1% difference between humans and chimps, this represents 30 million base pairs.

So can 30M base pairs evolve through Darwinian evolution in 5 million years?

Please provide your sources.

Let's go over the math. There are on the order of 100 mutations per individual per generation. With a species population of 1,000,000 that is 100 million mutations per generation for a species. Using twenty years as a generation, and that is on the high side, five million years gives us 250,000 generations. Times 100 million that is 25 trillion mutations. To make it easy since I have been a bit generous let's round that up to 30 trillion mutations. That means that only roughly one out of a million mutations have to be beneficial and become fixed in the genome. Do you really think that is an impossible number? Seriously?

You can teach me a lesson and provide proper sources for your claims.


As for me providing sources, I will be happy to provide them, just let me know which specific points do you find controversial, and I will support it with proper sources.

For example what claims did Sanford made, that you would consider to be wrong ?

Why would I waste my time with someone that has shown an inability to be honest and will not even promise to at least try to be honest? The fact that Sanford did not put his ideas through the process of peer review alone demonstrates that he had serious doubts about his claims. When it comes to Sanford there is no real need to refute him since he could not support his own claims. But once again, if you can promise to be at least try to be honest I will gladly help you.

.....

There is a real controversy in the scientific community on whether if Darwinian can account for the diversity of life, many alternative hypothesis are constantly being proposed and some of them pass the proces of peer review. (Neutralism, natural genetic engineering, mutationalism etc would be examples)

Only atheist from YouTube and forums seem to believe that Darwinian is the only hypothesis In the table .

Please provide any such examples. Waving your hands and claiming that they exist when you have not been able to understand the sources that you supply yourself is not very convincing.

I too will provide any sources that you need, but if you cover multiple claims in one post I will generally only correct your claims. It is best to argue one claim at a time. Multiple claims are not worthy of the effort needed to refute them. That is called a Gish Gallop and is a dishonest debating technique.

 

[Windwalker]

You could also suppose that gene-change has another factor involved instead of random mutations in the genome that are selected out.
I have my thoughts on that but it will not be easy to do experiments to prove it.
I was thinking of mutations to the genome through genetic information that comes from outside the organism in the form of virus-DNA which is added on the the genome of the "infected" organism.

This type of evolution would only be possible if certain viruses (perhaps also floating in space) are somehow attracted to the organism in need of the mutation.
Considering the present materialistic paradigm in scientific thought most scientist will not even consider such a possiblity.
But someone like biologist Rupert Sheldrake would consider it I'm sure.

Ah, you mention Sheldrake. Myself, personally too I like the ideas of morphogentic fields, cosmic habits. Where and what this "field" is is of course difficult to "detect", such as things like magentic fields. But the notion that nature repeats what it learns through others, and that is transmitted non-geneticially (and there is evidence for this), makes a lot more sense. Genes are one things, but the picture is much more an Indra's Web sort of thing, and Morhogientic fields resonates with me, for many reasons, on many levels.

The Creationists are nuts of course, too afraid to look beyond their magical interpretations of Genesis to see the bigger Reality of what its story seems to convey in its mythological terms of an external God. Rather, God is Creation in all moments, and we come forth into form through evolution, following the trails of the grooves cut deep into the fabric of the universe through repetition of habits, over and over again. It just goes there, like falling into a gravity well.

Fun stuff.

 

[ecco]

There is a real controversy in the scientific community on whether if Darwinian can account for the diversity of life,

That is flat out untrue. The only people still making that ridiculous claim are die hard Christian Creationists.

many alternative hypothesis are constantly being proposed and some of them pass the proces of peer review. (Neutralism, natural genetic engineering, mutationalism etc would be examples)

Please show some peer reviewed papers supporting Neutralism, natural genetic engineering or mutationalism. Whatever they are supposed to be.

Only atheist from YouTube and forums seem to believe that Darwinian is the only hypothesis In the table .

Let's set the record straight.
Many Christians support ToE. Many scientists who are Christian support ToE. Many Christian pastors, ministers, priests, etc. support ToE.

 

[leroy]

It is foolish to claim it is controversial. Since over 90% of all scientists and over 99% of experts in the field accept it it is far from controversial. I can support that claim. ]

Then support your claim. In response to you question yes I will be honest and admit my mistake if you happen to support that claim.

Once again you need to read the articles that you link. They tested that evolution with computer modeling to see if natural selection could cause those mutation

Well natural selection doest "cause" mutations.


But the problem is not natural selection, the probkem is with the idea of " random mutations"

the problem is that given that 3 independent clades suffered from the same mutations, it is obvious that these mutations where not completely random.

Let's go over the math. There are on the order of 100 mutations per individual per generation. With a species population of 1,000,000 that is 100 million mutations per generation for a species. Using twenty years as a generation, and that is on.....

do you really think that this is how evolution is suppose to work?

When it comes to Sanford there is no real need to refute him since he could not support his own claims

.

Ok his claim are
1 Delaterious mutations are more frequent than positive (constructive mutations)

2 Most delaterious mutations are not lethal nor prevent the organism from reproducing. (These mutations are called slightly delaterious)

3 These slightly delaterious mutations will tend to pass to the next generation and acumulate as time passes.

4 Over thausands of generations these slightly delaterious mutations will add up and become lethal.

A good analogy would be a book, in most of the cases a spelling mistake won't really affect the text (one can still read and understand the text) but if you keep adding spelling mistakes there will be a point where the book will become impossible to read.

So which of these statements made by Sanford do you find controversial so that I can provide a proper source?

It is best to argue one claim at a time.

Sure, feel free to select your favorite claim and we will focused on that single claim.

Please provide any such examples. Waving your hands and claiming that they exist when you have not been able to understand the sources that you supply yourself is not very convincing.

I did provide some examples, neutralism, mutationalism, natural genetic engineering etc. These are all alternatives to Darwinism that are taken seriously in the scientific community.

 

[leroy]

Please show some peer reviewed papers supporting Neutralism, natural genetic engineering or mutationalism. Whatever they are supposed to be.

Sure
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16120807/

For example this article talks about the .controversy between neutralism and Darwinism and the article supports neutralism over darwinism

This article shows that mutations are not conolcompl random.
Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)

This article talks about how eukaryotic cells evolved due to a symbiotic relationship (not due to darwinism evolution)
The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Do you honestly think that darwinism is the only option?