What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Subduction Zone]

uh subzie, your asking for an apology is unreasonable

Only because I am dealing with an unreasonable poster. An honest and reasonable one would have acknowledged their error immediately.

 

[leroy]

I was pointing out a dishonest argument by you. The proper action would have been to apologize for attempting to move the goal posts.

In your mind it might look dishonest, but everybody else would agree that there is nothing wrong with accepting an argument, admiting that I was wrong, and asking another independent question.

 

[leroy]

I see an "if". Did you accept* it that you were wrong?
If so, that is a point in your favour! Few can do it.

*I dont like "admit". It means, to "reluctantly confess"

Yes I was wrong, given the initial assumptions on who is the first organism was, it is possible to go from “organism 1” to “organism 2” trough Darwinian mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your mind it might look dishonest, but everybody else would agree that there is nothing wrong with accepting an argument, admiting that I was wrong, and asking another independent question.

It is always dishonest to try to change the goal posts. That is exactly what you did. If you really wanted to learn that would be different, but we both know that is not the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I was wrong, given the initial assumptions on who is the first organism was, it is possible to go from “organism 1” to “organism 2” trough Darwinian mechanisms.

Okay, so then the evolution of the eye should be no problem. Now you want a more specific question on how the eye patch arose. Those are merely specialized nerve cells. Here is an article that may help you to understand. It explains much better than I would be able to:

Evolutionary Novelties: Evolutionary origin of a light sensitive nerve

 

[Polymath257]

My question would be,

How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?

Every organism is able to react light to some degree. That is a function of the chemicals involved in life. So, for example, light shining on a bacterium will stimulate chemical reactions that didn't happen before. That *is* a reaction to light. Furthermore, by adjusting the proteins (mutations), the amount of reaction to light can be affected.

More specifically, vision is related to opsins, which are proteins sensitive to light. These are all int he more general family of G-proteins, which gives a family from which they would be derived through gene duplication.

 

[Audie]

Only because I am dealing with an unreasonable poster. An honest and reasonable one would have acknowledged their error immediately.

Whatevs. But you get nowhere you really want to go,
that way. Do you?

 

[Audie]

Yes I was wrong, given the initial assumptions on who is the first organism was, it is possible to go from “organism 1” to “organism 2” trough Darwinian mechanisms.

Well, sorta. Depends on what you mean by
"Organism one".

And why do you insist on saying
"Darwinian"? That is like, so 19th century.
It is in a league with arguing "catastrophism"
v "gradulaism". Seriously, you look a bit silly
talking "darwinian". Take a hint?

Anyway, what we have been trying witih no evident
success to show you is that there is no such thing
as a "first" organism, never was, never could have been.
Why? Because it is as undefinable as
the exact line between night and day.

So there is no initial assumption as to the first organism.

Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatevs. But you get nowhere you really want to go,
that way. Do you?

Were we getting anywhere? And perhaps he sees his error now. At any rate both I and @Polymath257 answered his question on how eye patches would have come to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, sorta. Depends on what you mean by
"Organism one".

And why do you insist on saying
"Darwinian"? That is like, so 19th century.
It is in a league with arguing "catastrophism"
v "gradulaism". Seriously, you look a bit silly
talking "darwinian". Take a hint?

Anyway, what we have been trying witih no evident
success to show you is that there is no such thing
as a "first" organism, never was, never could have been. Why? Because it is as undefinable as
t he exact line between night and day.

So there is no initial assumption as to the first organism.

Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.

There are so many processes that do not have a clear borderline. For example one could just as easily have asked who was the first kid to speak Spanish, or French, or Italian for that matter. None of them speak Latin but we know that all of those languages arose from that base. The inability to find solid lines between species or even between life and non-life is what we would predict to see if evolution were correct. If creationism were true then hard lines could be drawn.

 

[Audie]

The fit with creationism is found nowhere but
where it is imagined to be, and generally that is
done by the creos inventing absurdities in ToE, aka,
of course, "strawmen".

 

[leroy]

known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.

How would an organism that “could have not evolved” look like?

For clarification

“Organism 1 and 2” are hypothetical organisms described in this forum

I know that “Darwinism” has a negative connotation in USA but:

1 I am not from USA (I am from Mexico)

2 I honestly don’t know what word should I use instead of “Darwinism” what word should I use to describe “the idea that the diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection”

 

[Audie]

How would an organism that “could have not evolved” look like?

For clarification

“Organism 1 and 2” are hypothetical organisms described in this forum

I know that “Darwinism” has a negative connotation in USA but:

1 I am not from USA (I am from Mexico)

2 I honestly don’t know what word should I use instead of “Darwinism” what word should I use to describe “the idea that the diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection”

(What would) would an organism that “could have not evolved” look like?

That is a seriously absurd question, and there is no possible answer.

In any case, you took what I had, turned it upside down and
backwards, and completely missed what I said.

here is is again-

Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.

the common claim is that the eye, first life, or something
HAD to have been god--poofed.

But none who say that can point to anything that could
not have evolved naturally, by known processes.

Now do you get it?



"Darwinism" does not have a negative connotation
except to people who are creationists. HOWEVER,
it is, as I said, very 19th century. You could write
in Shakespearean English, and that would be out of date
too.

Try just calling it "evolution"?

 

[ecco]

My question would be,

How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?

Go sit in the sun. Do you feel the heat on your arm? Do the cells in your arm have photo-receptors? Every cell comprising your skin can detect radiation.

 

[leroy]

Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.

Sure, so my question is, how does an organism has to look like in order for you to conclude that evolution could have not done it? What potential characteristics would indicate that life was intelligently designed?

Well I accept universal common ancestry, descend with modification and natural selection, but I would also argue that the diversity of life is due to “guided” genetic variation as oppose to random genetic variation. I like to describe myself as someone who accepts evolution, but rejects Darwinism. The term Darwinism is necessary, because evolution and Darwinism don’t have the same meaning.

 

[Audie]

Sure, so my question is, how does an organism has to look like in order for you to conclude that evolution could have not done it? What potential characteristics would indicate that life was intelligently designed?

Well I accept universal common ancestry, descend with modification and natural selection, but I would also argue that the diversity of life is due to “guided” genetic variation as oppose to random genetic variation. I like to describe myself as someone who accepts evolution, but rejects Darwinism. The term Darwinism is necessary, because evolution and Darwinism don’t have the same meaning.

A 100% data-free argument is no argument at all.
You have a feeling about it, or something.

There is nothing to discuss.

 

[ecco]

... as someone who accepts evolution, but rejects Darwinism. The term Darwinism is necessary, because evolution and Darwinism don’t have the same meaning.

How silly. It is acknowledged that Darwin didn't get some of the details right. But the term Darwinism isn't necessary and rejecting it is nonsensical.

Henry Ford figured out how to mass produce cars. By today's standards we don't necessarily follow all of Fords practices. We have cars with front wheel drive, disk brakes, electric engines. Do you find it necessary to insist on the term Fordism and then to reject Fordism? That would be just as silly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection is the driving force changing the frequency of alleles but it can be physical or biological

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding of natural selection is the whole of the abiotic and biotic environment, including the internal environment of the organisms other members of the population and all the predators, parasites, pathogens, etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is process of change. Even if you assume the earth is 6000 year old, once the earth was in place, things change, with this process of change called evolution. If there was a forest fire and all the plants are burned and the animal are displaced, the forest is gradually restored, beginning as a meadow. The sequence of change draws in various species of bugs and animals, which help and harm some plants, further changing the landscape. Ecosystem eventually form, which are typically healthy and integrated as though nature has a plan; natural selection process. Evolution has nothing to do with the political divide between religion and atheism, although it is used like a weapon.

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.

Noah's Ark is an example of how evolution could work. If there as a giant flood and we selected 2 of each animal, after the world wide destruction, life would begin again as the plants spout from the mud and the animals repopulate the earth, until new ecosystems appear. God does not have to direct this, personally, due to natural selective processes that are built into creation; potentials.

Two individuals would not be enough of a genetic basis to suscessfully sustain populations of most organisms.

Weren't plants all destroyed according to a literal reading of the Bible? Plants, sea life and everything on the earth was destroyed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

A change in a gene is a mutation, even if that change results from viral insertion. However, I don't know what the specific term would be for insertions into the non-coding regions of the genome.

Need for mutation isn't a concept associated with mutation. They are random.

Since there is no way for science to test for concepts like some speculative need for mutation, I don't see how it can be considered.