What is Evolution? Lets define it

[leroy]

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.

The question about my wife makes an “ungranted assumption” namely that I used to hit my wife in the past.

What ungranted assumption does my question have?

 

[leroy]

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


Yes.

Ok, but do you accept the fact that it is a controversial assertion currently in dispute among scientists?

For example Neutralists would answer no to that question.

 

[Audie]

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?

All manner of things are discussed, bu various
persons, including the topics of batboy and
bigfoot.

Are you proposing that any serious researcher is
actually saying that natural selection and random
mutations are non existent, or otherwise irrelevant to
evolution?

If so, surely you are joking?

 

[Audie]

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.

What good points have Behe or Sanford ever made?
(complete with data)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question about my wife makes an “ungranted assumption” namely that I used to hit my wife in the past.

What ungranted assumption does my question have?

You insisted on the dishonest use of the term "Darwinism". It has been pointed out to you by several posters that the theory of evolution has advanced since Darwin's time. You had to, again dishonestly, go to a source roughly one hundred and fifty years old to find someone that used that term.

Remember your promise to try to be honest? You have failed at keeping that promise. As a supposed Christian the proper action to take would have been to apologize and change your behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, but do you accept the fact that it is a controversial assertion currently in dispute among scientists?

For example Neutralists would answer no to that question.

No, it is not controversial at all. What is being debated are the details, that is all. There will always be debate about details. There is no doubt about the evolution of the species, the debate is about the details of the causes. Darwin did not know of genetics. He thought that it was some form of blending of traits. He was bound to be wrong in that detail. Let's compare that to gravity. Newton did not know of relativistic effects so he his Law of Universal Gravitation was all but doomed to failure in respect to that. Science is always built upon the work of predecessors. What is wrong is discarded. But that does not mean that just because one flaw is found that the entire work of someone is thrown out. By your "standards" Christianity is false since we can find errors in the Bible. An all or nothing attitude is not a wise one to have.

 

[ecco]

An other atheist thing: Inability to answer a question with a simple yes or No.

Another Biblical Literalist Creationist thing: Asking questions that do not deserve an answer.

Leroy, Yes or No, have you stopped flagellating yourself?

 

[ecco]

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 .

If that is all you are saying then why did you bring up Creationist Behe's Irreducible Complexity and post videos from Creationist Sanford?

 

[ecco]

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

Where have we seen that before? Oh, yeah, other creationists.

 

[Audie]

If that is all you are saying then why did you bring up Creationist Behe's Irreducible Complexity and post videos from Creationist Sanford?

Those are definitely not examples of
"controversy in the scientific community "

 

[Audie]

Another Biblical Literalist Creationist thing: Asking questions that do not deserve an answer.

Leroy, Yes or No, have you stopped flagellating yourself?

Leroy-
An other atheist thing: Inability to answer a question with a simple yes or No.

Here above, we also get a complete falsehood,
combined with bigotry.

The white flag of neutrality has come down, replaced
with the grim spectre of the creoflag.

 

[ecco]

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.

I am not a YEC

One does not need to be a YEC in order to be a Creationist. But, thanks for the clarification.

I am a theist.

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)

Would you agree that you essentially fall into the camp called Theistic Evolution?

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.

See above.

I think that Behe and Sanford made good points.

Do you realize that Behe and Sanford are Creationists? By referring to them, you align yourself with their Creationist beliefs.

 

[leroy]

You insisted on the dishonest use of the term "Darwinism". It has been pointed out to you by several posters that the theory of evolution has advanced since Darwin's time. You had to, again dishonestly, go to a source roughly one hundred and fifty years old to find someone that used that term.

Remember your promise to try to be honest? You have failed at keeping that promise. As a supposed Christian the proper action to take would have been to apologize and change your behavior.

With Darwinism I simply mean: the idea that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection. Please let me know which word should I use instead of Darwinism.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

No, they do NOT remove either 'from the equation'. The examples show that in some very limited situations, there may be other mechanisms going on *also*. And yes, alternative mechanisms are being discussed. So? They are edge phenomena and not central to the process.

 

[leroy]

No, it is not controversial at all. What is being debated are the details, that is all. There will always be debate about details. There is no doubt about the evolution of the species, the debate is about the details of the causes. Darwin did not know of genetics. He thought that it was some form of blending of traits. He was bound to be wrong in that detail. Let's compare that to gravity. Newton did not know of relativistic effects so he his Law of Universal Gravitation was all but doomed to failure in respect to that. Science is always built upon the work of predecessors. What is wrong is discarded. But that does not mean that just because one flaw is found that the entire work of someone is thrown out. By your "standards" Christianity is false since we can find errors in the Bible. An all or nothing attitude is not a wise one to have.

Well I already provided examples of peer reviewed articles that present alternatives to Darwinian evolution, this articles ether deny the protagionism of natural selection (neutralist for example) or deny that relevant mutations are random (epigenetics for example)

If for example neutralists where correct, then natural selection would not be important, which would contradict what Darwin said.

The fact that these articles exist show that there is a controversy. This is not analogous to Newton and Einstein, what Einstein did was simply built upon what Newton did.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Sorta. A more accurate way to put it would be something like "the genetics of populations changing over time".

I point that out because every change in an organism isn't "evolution", such as a person losing an arm. They've changed, but not evolved.

2 that we all share a common ancestor

Only in a colloquial sense. A more accurate term for that concept is "universal common ancestry".

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

This one seems a bit odd, since "Darwinian mechanisms" don't usually include mutation, genetic drift, and other genetic-related things that weren't known in Darwin's time. You seem to be describing the modern synthesis more than anything Darwinian.

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.

That depends. There are certainly competing hypotheses about the very early earth and the nature of the first populations on it, but that's not what I would really call "evidence against UCA".

Number 3

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

Well given that you listed the mechanisms as "mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.", it's hard to see just what you're talking about here. What other mechanism(s) are you thinking of that you didn't list (and aren't included under "etc.")?

As for the evidence against common ancestry I'll Gene tree discordances, with this I mean genetic material present in 2 distant organisms that is absent in closer relatives. For example dolphins and bats bave genetic material in common (related to echolocation) that is absent in other mammals.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00008.2013
Note that I don't deny common ancestry, I am just saying that there is room for reasonable doubt.

I don't quite understand how that material raises "reasonable doubt" about universal common ancestry. Can you explain?

Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.

I've discussed Sanford's arguments with other creationists on other forums, and well.....it didn't really go well for the creationist. So I'm curious to hear your take. Do you have anything to add beyond what you've said already?

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

Which of Behe's definitions of IC are you using?

I think that's enough material for now, so I'll just wait for your response.

 

[leroy]

Do you realize that Behe and Sanford are Creationists? By referring to them, you align yourself with their Creationist beliefs.

As far as I know Behe is not a YEC, but so what? I can agree on that there are irreducible complex structures, without agreeing with absolutely everything that Behe belives.

 

[Audie]

As far as I know Behe is not a YEC, but so what? I can agree on that there are irreducible complex structures, without agreeing with absolutely everything that Behe belives.

You can agree, but can you identify and defend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

With Darwinism I simply mean: the idea that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection. Please let me know which word should I use instead of Darwinism.

Evolution would do just fine. If you want to be specific the modern synthesis is a more accurate term since the theory of evolution has moved past just the work of Charles Darwin, granted he played a seminal role and many of his ideas were amazingly correct:

Modern synthesis (20th century) - Wikipedia

Meanwhile there is no evidence at all that I know of for theistic evolution. There are only failed arguments against the theory of evolution. I know that you are probably familiar with how a mousetrap was used to refute Behe's Irreducible complexity. Now granted that was rather simple, but it was still correct. I can understand how you might want a more thorough debunking so here is a video for you:

That video itself is a simplification of a much much longer and more thorough paper here is a link to that:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

And that paper was a simplification of over 200 peer reviewed papers. Forgive me for not linking them but you can find them, most of them linked, in the appendix of the paper that I linked.

This is why people like Behe have no respect in the scientific community. He made a claim that he could not support and has since been blown out of the water and he is not honest enough to admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I know Behe is not a YEC, but so what? I can agree on that there are irreducible complex structures, without agreeing with absolutely everything that Behe belives.

I guess that I picked a perfect time to post the video and link that I just did.