What is Evolution? Lets define it

[exchemist]

Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?

Let's just leave the goalposts where they were at the start of the thread, OK? The theory of evolution as you originally described it, comprising "mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.", does seem to account quite well for most of the diversity of life, yes indeed. Though of course there are still plenty of gaps and unanswered questions, which is why it is a live field of study.

Note: I put in some qualifications, as any prudent scientist will do when asked about the strength of a theory which is still, er, evolving.

 

[wellwisher]

Let's start with a proper label: as in the theory of the evolution of life forms. This is important because it does NOT include a theory of how life originated. We still don't know how life originated, or where it originated, or even where all it currently exists. So that what we refer to in shorthand as "Evolution" is only a theory about how the life forms that we know to exist developed the physical characteristics that they currently possess.

The disconnect between abiogenesis; science of the origin of life, and the theory of evolution creates a conceptual problem. How can you draw the correct curve, if that curve does not have to intersect the origin?

It would be like creating a theory for the life of a person, in terms of their past and future choices, starting the analysis when they are 18 years old. The analysis leaves out ages 1-18, since these do not have to be part of the theory. The conceptual problem that arises is these very early years, can have a major impact on the rest of their life. If we leave them out, this can make the analysis appear more random than it is. One bad event from childhood, can make decisions late in life appear random/irrational, if this knowledge is not there.

In terms of a better theory, that includes the origin, water was there from day one. It was involved in the formation of the building blocks; amino acids, all the way to the formation of the genetic material. Water is still here today and is still critical to the operation called life. This is not part of the working evolutionary analysis, other than as a footnote.

The insistence that life can form in other solvents is a good indication that evolutionary science is weak in terms of the unique properties of water ,which are critical to the needs of the living state, from alpha to omega. They assumer you can start at age 18 and the rest still works. The random theory is an artifact of leaving out the cornerstone from day one, and building on sand without a footing that touches the origin.

It's not about adaptation. It appears to be but it's actually just random mutation.

Are you aware that the DNA double helix also contains a double helix of water that occupies the major and minor grooves of the double helix. The degree of hydration; amount of water, determines the conformation of the DNA.

The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right-handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left-handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.

DNA does not work without the water acting as scaffolding. You cannot use other solvents as scaffolding. You can tweak the water scaffolding via global information transfer in the hydrogen bonding of water. This can add stresses to the DNA to reflect needs.

When the DNA is duplicated, proofreading enzymes will move along the DNA and correct any errors. The stresses induced in the water scaffolding, can create ambiguity for the proofreading enzymes, so instead of correcting a typo, they will let it remain. This can alter the meaning of the gene; deer instead of dear. This change is not random, but is in equilibrium with the potentials in the global water, due to need.

 

[exchemist]

The disconnect between abiogenesis; science of the origin of life, and the theory of evolution creates a conceptual problem. How can you draw the correct curve, if that curve does not have to intersect the origin?

It would be like creating a theory for the life of a person, in terms of their past and future choices, starting the analysis when they are 18 years old. The analysis leaves out ages 1-18, since these do not have to be part of the theory. The conceptual problem that arises is these very early years, can have a major impact on the rest of their life. If we leave them out, this can make the analysis appear more random than it is. On bad even from childhood can make decisions appear random/irrational if this knowledge is not there.

In terms of a better theory, that includes the origin, water was there from day one. It was involved in the formation of the building blocks; amino acids, all the way to the formation of the genetic material. Water is still here today and is still critical to the operation called life. This is not part of the working evolutionary analysis, other than as a footnote.

The insistence that life can form in other solvents is a good indication that evolutionary science is weak in terms of the unique properties of water ,which are critical to the needs of the living state, from alpha to omega. The random theory is an artifact of leaving out the cornerstone from day one, and building on sand with a footing in the origin.



Are you aware that the DNA double helix also contains a double helix of water that occupies the major and minor grooves of the double helix. The degree of hydration; amount of water, determines the conformation of the DNA.



DNA does not work without the water acting as scaffolding. You cannot use other solvents as scaffolding. You can tweak the water scaffolding via global information transfer in the hydrogen bonding of water. This can add stresses to the DNA to reflect needs.

When the DNA is duplicated, proofreading enzymes will move along the DNA and correct any errors. The stresses induced in the water scaffolding, can create ambiguity for the proofreading enzymes, so instead of correcting a typo, they will let it remain. This can alter the meaning of the gene; deer instead of dear. This change is not random, but is in equilibrium with the potentials in the global water, due to need.

Hi Wellwisher, it's been rather more peaceful on sciforums since you were banned.

I see your obsession with water continues. I await with confident expectation the arrival on the scene of the other bees in your bonnet, including hydrogen bonding and entropy.

I will try to leave you alone, unless you garble physical science too grossly.

 

[Polymath257]

He appears to be grasping at straws. Earlier be tried to use the failed arguments of Sanford and Behe to argue against evolution. Now he is trying to use refinements in the theory against the concept. It makes no sense to me.

That's because it makes no sense. Part of it is a lack of understanding of how sciences progress.

 

[Polymath257]

All I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community with regards to the mechanisms responsable that explain the diversity of life .

Yes, of course there is. There is controversy in the scientific community in the details of any subject area. But there is *not* conroversy that mutation and natural selection are the *domenant* ways that diversity arises.

 

[Polymath257]

Sexual selection would be a part of natural selection.

If you conclude that the eye (and most other organs and systems) evolved mainly due to genetic drift or epigenetics then the darwinian thesis would be wrong.

But modern evolutionary theory would not be wrong. And NOBODY thinks the primary aspects of the development of the eye were genetic drift or epigenetics.

Darwinists wouldn't deny that genetic drift and epigenetics are possible and can ocurre every once in a while, but they would render this mechanisms as secondary , they would say that the main source of change and diverity is random change + natural selection (and sexual selection)

The only point that i am making is that darwinists might be correct but their thesis is controversial and widely discussed In the scientific community.

It is NOT controversial to say that mutation and selection are the *primary* ways that diversity arises. To the extent that genetic drift and epigenetics exists, they are far less relevant mechanisms. Genetic drift primarily happens in small, isolated populations. Epigenetics is at best rare, although it has been verified to exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?

Once again, yes. The vast majority of the diversity arises in that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Continue? What for?


If you can't answer a simple question,


From.wiki


Which unjustified assumption am I making with my question? ,........why don't you simply answer the question and apologize for wrongly accusing me for comiting this fallacy?

As soon as you answer the question about beating your wife. I would not give an improper question a Yes/No answer, you complained about that, and yet you won't do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?

I will give this one the sort of answer you demand:


Yes.

 

[Polymath257]

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

And points out at the end that mutation is still dominant.

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

I'd point out that the *mutations* are initially random, but are quickly selected to maintain repeats around crucial areas of code.

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

That symbiosis *was* the result of natural selection.

Do you honestly think that darwinism is the only option?

You need to read your own sources a bit closer. They don't say what you think they say.

 

[Jumi]

That is an other "atheist thing" only fanatic atheist from forums and YouTube think that the .term "darwinism" is inapropiate.

Wrong, it's of rhetorical value mostly used by creationists to try to find something to attack, for example Darwin's personality or the science of his time. Perhaps some less honest people try to associate social darwinism to it by extension. Darwinism mostly being more of a quaint anachronistic usage by various creationists.

 

[ecco]

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?

I clearly do not understand where you are going or what arguments you are trying to make. First you reference Creationists like Behe and Sanford which makes it look like you do not believe in evolution.

Then you attack "Darwinism" by citing articles like the ones above.

Do you realize that the above articles do support ToE and do not support Creationism?

So, it's time to clearly state what you are supporting.



ETA: If you think the articles you cited support Behe (from earlier in the discussion) you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Audie]

I clearly do not understand where you are going or what arguments you are trying to make. First you reference Creationists like Behe and Sanford which makes it look like you do not believe in evolution.

Then you attack "Darwinism" by citing articles like the ones above.

Do you realize that the above articles do support ToE and do not support Creationism?

So, it's time to clearly state what you are supporting.



ETA: If you think the articles you cited support Behe (from earlier in the discussion) you are sadly mistaken.

Anyone who talks "darwinism", and gets it exactly backwards

leroy said: ↑
That is an other "atheist thing" only fanatic atheist from forums and YouTube think that the .term "darwinism" is inapropiate.

And then cites Behe is clearly in the creocamp;
the neutral flag, "let's define" is a false flag.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I also more than made my case. If you can admit it when you have been shown to be wrong you will never learn.

There is no burden of proof when dealing with somebody who makes decisions on faith. To prove something to somebody requires their cooperation - their ability and willingness to consider evidence and a compelling supporting argument impartially and to be convinced by it if sound. It is simply impossible to prove anything to a person who has a stake in holding onto a faith based belief.

So, no burden of proof when dealing with a faith based thinker.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I don't grant is that 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

The other situation in which there is no burden of proof attending a claim is when one doesn't really care if it is believed. It's not important that you believe that. Nobody else on this thread has disputed that claim. It doesn't matter whether the precise fraction of such scientists is 98% or 97%, but whatever the number, there is no controversy among evolutionary biologists that the theory in the main is correct exactly as you described it: "all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection".

Changes have to be heritable to appear in subsequent generations, and unless there is an intelligence nudging things along, these changes have to be undirected, or as you say, random. There is no evidence for this intelligent intervention, and no apparent need to posit one, so, according to Occam's rule of parsimony, we don't.

All I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community with regards to the mechanisms responsable that explain the diversity of life .

Why do you consider that relevant? What if the entire thread conceded your claim. Then what? Toss out the theory and turn to creationism?

And what is your larger purpose here? It's probably widely assumed that you are a creationist trying to undermine the theory of evolution. That is the usually the case in such discussions, especially with references made to Behe and his claims as if either were credible.

Here's something for you to consider: Even if the theory of evolution were falsified by a finding tomorrow, you're still left with mountains of evidence that previously supported the theory. How would we account for that? How would we account, for example. for the stratification of hominin fossils with deeper forms dating older and appearing more chimplike if the theory of evolution were overturned?

Wouldn't we be forced to admit that all of that evidence was deceptively designed and planted? What does that do for your religious beliefs?

I suggest that if your purpose is to promote creationism, you focus on its merit. Attacking evolutionary theory, as you can see, is pointless. Why? It asks us to reject an idea that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition.for one that can do none of that.

That's a hopeless task, as well it should be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would be like creating a theory for the life of a person, in terms of their past and future choices, starting the analysis when they are 18 years old. The analysis leaves out ages 1-18, since these do not have to be part of the theory.

Sounds like the life of Jesus in the New Testament.

They assumer you can start at age 18 and the rest still works. The random theory is an artifact of leaving out the cornerstone from day one, and building on sand without a footing that touches the origin.

Your argument if applied to the life of Jesus is that without a thorough description of his growth and development in the womb, and of his infancy and early childhood, the Gospels have no connection with the origin of Jesus and are therefore built on a foundation of sand.

 

[Audie]

The other situation in which there is no burden of proof attending a claim is when one doesn't really care if it is believed. It's not important that you believe that. Nobody else on this thread has disputed that claim. It doesn't matter whether the precise fraction of such scientists is 98% or 97%, but whatever the number, there is no controversy among evolutionary biologists that the theory in the main is correct exactly as you described it: "all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection".

Changes have to be heritable to appear in subsequent generations, and unless there is an intelligence nudging things along, these changes have to be undirected, or as you say, random. There is no evidence for this intelligent intervention, and no apparent need to posit one, so, according to Occam's rule of parsimony, we don't.



Why do you consider that relevant? What if the entire thread conceded your claim. Then what? Toss out the theory and turn to creationism?

And what is your larger purpose here? It's probably widely assumed that you are a creationist trying to undermine the theory of evolution. That is the usually the case in such discussions, especially with references made to Behe and his claims as if either were credible.

Here's something for you to consider: Even if the theory of evolution were falsified by a finding tomorrow, you're still left with mountains of evidence that previously supported the theory. How would we account for that? How would we account, for example. for the stratification of hominin fossils with deeper forms dating older and appearing more chimplike if the theory of evolution were overturned?

Wouldn't we be forced to admit that all of that evidence was deceptively designed and planted? What does that do for your religious beliefs?

I suggest that if your purpose is to promote creationism, you focus on its merit. Attacking evolutionary theory, as you can see, is pointless. Why? It asks us to reject an idea that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition.for one that can do none of that.

That's a hopeless task, as well it should be.

Perhaps central to the leroygument is the word
"controversy", and what he may think implies.

The word is used by creationists much as they use the
word "assumption" by which they imply much but
deliver nothing.

As used in a creogument, that there are assumptions
and controversies in aeronautical engineering would
mean that airplanes cannot fly.

 

[Audie]

Sounds like the life of Jesus in the New Testament.



Your argument if applied to the life of Jesus is that without a thorough description of his growth and development in the womb, and of his infancy and early childhood, the Gospels have no connection with the origin of Jesus and are therefore built on a foundation of sand.

Well! That is more or less so.

 

[leroy]

And points out at the end that mutation is still dominant.



I'd point out that the *mutations* are initially random, but are quickly selected to maintain repeats around crucial areas of code.



That symbiosis *was* the result of natural selection.



You need to read your own sources a bit closer. They don't say what you think they say.

Some of the mechanisms mentioned in the articles remove natural selection from the equation and others remove random mutations.

These are simply alternative mechanisms that are currently being discussed….agree?

 

[leroy]

I clearly do not understand where you are going or what arguments you are trying to make. First you reference Creationists like Behe and Sanford which makes it look like you do not believe in evolution.

Then you attack "Darwinism" by citing articles like the ones above.

Do you realize that the above articles do support ToE and do not support Creationism?

So, it's time to clearly state what you are supporting.



ETA: If you think the articles you cited support Behe (from earlier in the discussion) you are sadly mistaken.

Well read my first post.

1 I grant that organism change and adapt.

2 I grant universal common ancestor, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt.

3 I would say that the claim that all the diversity of life is mainly a result of random genetic change and natural selection is a controversial claim, currently being in discussion in the scientific community (as the articles that quoted show) I am not saying that I agree with all the articles, I am simply saying that there are alternative views that are being currently discussed.

I am not a YEC I am a theist. I think that Behe and Sanford made good points.

My view is that the process of evolution is indirectly being guided by God, so I would deny that genetic changes that lead to the evolution of the eye for example where caused by random mutations. (I would say that these mutations where guided)

I honestly don’t care if you what to lable me as an evolutionists or as a creationists, those are my views on the subject, feel free to use any label that you might find convenient.