What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Subduction Zone]

Well I think it unlikely that sleep would be relevant to something so simple. In flatworms, for instance, they use their eyespots to move away from light, probably as it risks drying them out or damaging their tissues.

And flatworms can detect direction without even the need of depressions. Their eyespots come in pairs:

Though those may have depressions as well.

 

[leroy]

No, we don't. That is why I gave the three possible reactions. Let's not jump ahead.

Well I don't grant that there would be 3 possible reactions unless you add new functions to the organism.


The second organism would have not reacted differently from the first

 

[Bear Wild]

I like this one:

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974).

Although I cannot disagree with the definition you presented “any change in frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next”. I personally think there is more that should be included in the definition of evolution starting with the central aspect that it is the process where a species undergoes genetic change (creating variation) over time based on changes in the genetic code which originate as mutations by different mechanisms. I would include some other important aspects to define evolution including that it is a process takes many generations for sufficient changes to occur for differences to be seen in a species with different rates related to different reproductive rates for different species. Evolution is also defined by the process speciation where a gene pool could no longer be shared between two species because of sufficient genetic differentiation to where they are able to mix their genetic code (typically because of barriers that separate the species) yet have a common ancestry as seen by the same basic DNA/RNA pairs seen in all species. And finally, that evolution is process of change driven by natural selection. What I find amazing is how Darwin developed the concept of natural selection as the driving force without any knowledge of the genetic mechanisms. I also find it interesting how interconnected the study of evolution and ecology are and support each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I don't grant that there would be 3 possible reactions unless you add new functions to the organism.


The second organism would have not reacted differently from the first

Then you are just burying your head in the sand.

And you failed to approach this problem honestly. Nervous systems react to stimuli. A new stimulus will cause a new reaction. No new needed structures. This is an unjustified assumption that you make to defend your false beliefs. It is a failure on your part.

 

[Bear Wild]

2 and 3 from your list may or may not be directed.

I don't reject darwinian evolution in the basis of religión. I think there are good scientufuc reasons to be skeptical, relevant genetic changes seem purposefull.

I do that have a view on how exactly God intervined in the process. Maybe everything was set at the big bang, maybe tuned the process at key points, maybe he created natural mechanisms that cause purposfull mutations ..,....

You cannot reject evolution first defined by Darwin on the basis of science. Everything we know to date supports the theory of evolution. We have no evidence to support a god intervening or a process of intelligent design other than nature itself. Of course you could always use the concept of aliens as the ones with intelligent design coming to earth and implanting genetic material, We again have no proof of that and do not need that proof to show that evolution explains the diversity of life that exists on earth including human intelligence. Since we have no proof of any other explanation and our current understanding of evolution explains the diversity of life, there is no reason to argue against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot reject evolution first defined by Darwin on the basis of science. Everything we know to date supports the theory of evolution. We have no evidence to support a god intervening or a process of intelligent design other than nature itself. Of course you could always use the concept of aliens as the ones with intelligent design coming to earth and implanting genetic material, We again have no proof of that and do not need that proof to show that evolution explains the diversity of life that exists on earth including human intelligence. Since we have no proof of any other explanation and our current understanding of evolution explains the diversity of life, there is no reason to argue against it.

I am trying to break down a simple concept for him, but cognitive dissonance keeps raising its ugly head.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am trying to break down a simple concept for him, but cognitive dissonance keeps raising its ugly head.

He already said he does not know how god intervened which means there is no proof to his idea and now he only has to accept the only explanation that has any proof even if that takes some time.

 

[leroy]

Then you are just burying your head in the sand.

And you failed to approach this problem honestly. Nervous systems react to stimuli. A new stimulus will cause a new reaction. No new needed structures. This is an unjustified assumption that you make to defend your false beliefs. It is a failure on your part.

Well I am open to any evidence that you might provide


Your claim is that the animal with the depression would react differently than the animal without it, without adding new functions in the nervous system.

Do you have any evidence?

 

[Bear Wild]

Well I am open to any evidence that you might provide


Your claim is that the animal with the depression would react differently than the animal without it, without adding new functions in the nervous system.

Do you have any evidence?

Create a hypothesis and test it. That's how you get your evidence. The way that mutations work is through small increments in genes that are often restricted to specific structures. A depression if the eye could be just that and not affect the rest of the nervous system. If it gave an advantage to the animal to that it could survive better then it could pass on that genetic information. Thus natural selection, thus evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I am open to any evidence that you might provide


Your claim is that the animal with the depression would react differently than the animal without it, without adding new functions in the nervous system.

Do you have any evidence?

this is based upon basic principles of life. When an organism with a nervous system is stimulated it reacts. Do you really need to evidence of that? If you are that ignorant this is going to take a long long time and you have in effect disqualified yourself from this discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Create a hypothesis and test it. That's how you get your evidence. The way that mutations work is through small increments in genes that are often restricted to specific structures. A depression if the eye could be just that and not affect the rest of the nervous system. If it gave an advantage to the animal to that it could survive better then it could pass on that genetic information. Thus natural selection, thus evolution.

He is having trouble discussing this properly. He knows he is wrong but keeps grasping at straws.

 

[leroy]

this is based upon basic principles of life. When an organism with a nervous system is stimulated it reacts. Do you really need to evidence of that? If you are that ignorant this is going to take a long long time and you have in effect disqualified yourself from this discussion.

Yes I need evidence that shows that organisms with the depression would react differently than those who don't have such depression. (Given that they have the same nervous system)

Why do you you provide such evidence, ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I need evidence that shows that organisms with the depression would react differently than those who don't have such depression. (Given that they have the same nervous system)

Why do you you provide such evidence, ?

Nope, you need to understand basic biology and learn how to be honest. You simply could not be honest in this discussion. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[leroy]

Nope, you need to understand basic biology and learn how to be honest. You simply could not be honest in this discussion. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

In other words, you don't have any evidence, you are just a troll.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I need evidence that shows that organisms with the depression would react differently than those who don't have such depression. (Given that they have the same nervous system)

Why do you you provide such evidence, ?

Think about it. The light signal is different. That means the nervous system reacts differently. And that leads to different behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you don't have any evidence, you are just a troll.

I expect an apology. I have not called you an idiot because you do not understand a basic concept of biology.

Once again, when a creature has a nervous system and is exposed to a stimulus it tends to react. I could give you all sorts of short video clips of organisms reacting to a stimulus. What good would that do? For a simple organism no "thought" is involved. It merely reacts. You are afraid to even discuss the possible reactions because you appear to understand that it would lead to the evolution of the eye.

 

[exchemist]

In other words, you don't have any evidence, you are just a troll.

A troll would not have taken anything like the time and trouble that Subduction Zone has taken to try to explain how evolution works to you.

And you are being increasingly unreasonable, hence the frustration of those trying to discuss this with you. A few posts ago you were arguing that the eye required the simultaneous appearance of more than one feature and therefore could not have evolved.

Now that that has been shown to be wrong, you have switched the argument to demanding that evidence be produced on every individual step. So now you are saying you don't believe even a single evolutionary step can have occurred, without evidence of it being produced. That is silly.

The whole point of any theory is to be able to generalise from particular instances, to save having to demonstrate every step of everything. For example the point of the Periodic Table is that we can predict the reactions of potassium from the reactions of sodium,and so on. We don't have to carry them all out to have a good ida of what will happen. So it is with evolution. As it happens, in the case of the eye, a remarkable number of intermediate forms are still accessible to us today, such as the flatworms that I mentioned. But it is stupid to expect that examples should be to hand for every step of every evolutionary process.

Subduction Zone is not a "troll" for not immediately producing evidence of every arbitrary step that you identify. Get real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Think about it. The light signal is different. That means the nervous system reacts differently. And that leads to different behavior.

And I am not even claiming that the organism would run away. I gave three possible results and he seems to be afraid to discuss them. If one behavior was more successful as a survival trait than the others that behavior would be selected for.

 

[ecco]

NM

 

[ecco]

Well I am open to any evidence that you might provide

No, you aren't. You continually reject any and all evidence that several people have been patiently offering.

Most of us understand that you must reject this evidence. If you were to accept the evidence, it would force you to reject, at least to some degree, you fundamentalist beliefs. That is something that your psyche will not allow.

The discussion is futile. However, I hope it continues. I have learned a lot of details of ToE that I was not aware of.