What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Polymath257]

You mean it has been boring and you have decided to move on, too. My problem on that site was nobody would challenge my logic. Instead the discussion regressed to a gang of name callers and trolls, crying wolf to the staff. It was supposed to be science discussion site and not a political action site, like you are trying to make it. Address my theory and my logic show us you have science skills instead of gossip skills.

Show me an example of where you can randomly change anything, over a period of time, and expect it to work better than the original. Take you car, and make a random change to the engine or to the onboard computer. The less sense the change makes, the more random it will be.

Random changes *and* selection by an environment. It is a recognized form for finding optimal solutions to many problems we can't solve otherwise. Look up 'genetic programming'.

A random genetic change theory of evolution would make sense if the random changes were designed to eliminate aspects of the population, so the other aspects, without random change, would become better in comparison, so they are selected easier. After you change the onboard computer on your car, in a random way, I'll buy the other car. Your action helped me to select.

In case you haven't noticed, living populations have variety. That variety has a genetic component: different individuals have slightly different genetics. That variety comes from mutations.

Natural selection acts on that variation via adaptation to make the population more adapted to a changing environment. Over geological time, those changes can lead to new species.

I do not deny the importance of genetics and genetic changes. However, random never made any sense, since in the practical world more can go wrong than right. The compromise is to figure out how to make genetic mutations, have a logical basis, that fits into the larger plan. The current theory has not been able to do this. It needs help.

Random changes in genetics have been established. We know that random changes in a population can serve to adapt that population to optimal performance in an environment. That is evolution.

 

[exchemist]

"Forward progress" is not actually meaningful in evolution
anyway.

Quite. Wellwisher has an unscientific, teleological view of life, bound up with mystical ideas about water and entropy, in an incoherent mish-mash. He has bored and annoyed us with it for years on sciforums (until his ban last year).

 

[Audie]

Quite. Wellwisher has an unscientific, teleological view of life, bound up with mystical ideas about water and entropy, in an incoherent mish-mash. He has bored and annoyed us with it for years on sciforums (until his ban last year).

I can send you to a gap person, and one who thinks
all the flood-water was wafted to Neptune "where
it shines to this day as a warning beacon against
incoming rogue angels".

I mean, if you like that kinda thing.

(Do you suppose they travel upright, or, like Superman?)

 

[exchemist]

I can send you to a gap person, and one who thinks
all the flood-water was wafted to Neptune "where
it shines to this day as a warning beacon against
incoming rogue angels".

I mean, if you like that kinda thing.

(Do you suppose they travel upright, or, like Superman?)

Hmm, no thanks, my needs are simpler.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean it has been boring and you have decided to move on, too. My problem on that site was nobody would challenge my logic. Instead the discussion regressed to a gang of name callers and trolls, crying wolf to the staff. It was supposed to be science discussion site and not a political action site, like you are trying to make it. Address my theory and my logic show us you have science skills instead of gossip skills.

Show me an example of where you can randomly change anything, over a period of time, and expect it to work better than the original. Take you car, and make a random change to the engine or to the onboard computer. The less sense the change makes, the more random it will be.

A random genetic change theory of evolution would make sense if the random changes were designed to eliminate aspects of the population, so the other aspects, without random change, would become better in comparison, so they are selected easier. After you change the onboard computer on your car, in a random way, I'll buy the other car. Your action helped me to select.

I do not deny the importance of genetics and genetic changes. However, random never made any sense, since in the practical world more can go wrong than right. The compromise is to figure out how to make genetic mutations, have a logical basis, that fits into the larger plan. The current theory has not been able to do this. It needs help.

"Random" only does not make any sense if one ignores natural selection. Here is an idea, don't ignore half of the theory of evolution in the future.

 

[Audie]

Hmm, no thanks, my needs are simpler.

I will leave the wisher to you, but, you know, if
you ever want a gapper...

 

[exchemist]

You mean it has been boring and you have decided to move on, too. My problem on that site was nobody would challenge my logic. Instead the discussion regressed to a gang of name callers and trolls, crying wolf to the staff. It was supposed to be science discussion site and not a political action site, like you are trying to make it. Address my theory and my logic show us you have science skills instead of gossip skills.

Show me an example of where you can randomly change anything, over a period of time, and expect it to work better than the original. Take you car, and make a random change to the engine or to the onboard computer. The less sense the change makes, the more random it will be.

A random genetic change theory of evolution would make sense if the random changes were designed to eliminate aspects of the population, so the other aspects, without random change, would become better in comparison, so they are selected easier. After you change the onboard computer on your car, in a random way, I'll buy the other car. Your action helped me to select.

I do not deny the importance of genetics and genetic changes. However, random never made any sense, since in the practical world more can go wrong than right. The compromise is to figure out how to make genetic mutations, have a logical basis, that fits into the larger plan. The current theory has not been able to do this. It needs help.

See later posts. The clue is in natural selection. Obviously it would make no sense if you leave that part out and just have random changes.

So much for your "logic".

 

[Audie]

See later posts. The clue is in natural selection. Obviously it would make no sense if you leave that part out and just have random changes.

So much for your "logic".

wellwisher said: ↑ My problem on that site was nobody would challenge my logic

Hard to challenge the undetectable.

 

[Skwim]

Start at the 1:15:00 mark to hear the dramatization of Behe's failure on the immune system.

It's been a long time since I've reflected on the Kitzmiller vs Dover incident, so I set aside two hours last night and watched the whole thing. Thank you for posting the video. It's good to be reminded just how dishonest the creationist camp is and how our justice system was able to see through it.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's been a long time since I've reflected on the Kitzmiller vs Dover incident, so I set aside two hours last night and watched the whole thing. Thank you for posting the video. It's good to be reminded just how dishonest the creationist camp is and how our justice system was able to see through it.

.

Eugenie Scott did some excellent lectures on the case as well. The judge was rather poker faced throughout the trial, but he did sit up when they demonstrated graphically how the words creation and creationist changed to intelligent designer and design proponents in Of Pandas and People as the book was edited.

 

[Skwim]

Eugenie Scott did some excellent lectures on the case as well. The judge was rather poker faced throughout the trial, but he did sit up when they demonstrated graphically how the words creation and creationist changed to intelligent designer and design proponents in Of Pandas and People as the book was edited.

Yeah, the changing of "creationism" to "intelligent design" in the book was pretty much the nail in the coffin. In my earlier years here on RF the incident and creationism in general was pretty much debated into the ground. I recall bringing up "cdesign proponentsists" several times. Sorry you missed it all. You would have been a great contributor.

.

 

[exchemist]

Eugenie Scott did some excellent lectures on the case as well. The judge was rather poker faced throughout the trial, but he did sit up when they demonstrated graphically how the words creation and creationist changed to intelligent designer and design proponents in Of Pandas and People as the book was edited.

Was he? I have not seen any footage of the trial but I found the whole case so shocking that I downloaded and read the entire judgement. About 130 pages, as I recall, but a surprisingly good read. It is evident to me that Judge Jones really enjoyed writing that.

It was an interesting subject for the court to consider, I suppose, as well as setting a crucial precedent for the school system. He was scathing about the bullying and dishonesty exposed during the trial. The Disco 'Tute and the laughably named "Thomas More" law centre left with their tails between their legs. And Dembski turned out to be yellow when it came to it - didn't show up at all! (Though he did make a video of the trial afterwards in which the judge's speech was replaced by farting noises - which he did himself.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was he? I have not seen any footage of the trial but I found the whole case so shocking that I downloaded and read the entire judgement. About 130 pages, as I recall, but a surprisingly good read. It is evident to me that Judge Jones really enjoyed writing that.

It was an interesting subject for the court to consider, I suppose, as well as setting a crucial precedent for the school system. He was scathing about the bullying and dishonesty exposed during the trial. The Disco 'Tute and the laughably named "Thomas More" law centre left with their tails between their legs. And Dembski turned out to be yellow when it came to it - didn't show up at all! (Though he did make a video of the trial afterwards in which the judge's speech was replaced by farting noises - which he did himself.)

According to those on the winning side. He did not display much in the way of emotions. He did open up quite in his judgement. And sadly in most court cases cameras, audio recorders, and video cameras are banned. That is why we are limited to reenactments based upon the transcripts.

 

[exchemist]

According to those on the winning side. He did not display much in the way of emotions. He did open up quite in his judgement. And sadly in most court cases cameras, audio recorders, and video cameras are banned. That is why we are limited to reenactments based upon the transcripts.

Well read the judgement, if you haven't. There is some very nicely measured reasoning and some good turns of phrase.

(By the way, I was proud to see one of my own religious tribe appear as an expert witness to explain evolutionary science. Ken Miller. A sound man. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well read the judgement, if you haven't. There is some very nicely measured reasoning and some good turns of phrase.

(By the way, I was proud to see one of my own religious tribe appear as an expert witness to explain evolutionary science. Ken Miller. A sound man. )

I often point out that one should not conflate creationism with Christianity. Though many creationists think that those that do not take Genesis literally are "not true Christians". Then out of the other side of their mouth they will claim that Christianity is the world's largest religion.

And yes, I do enjoy the lectures of Ken Miller too, a very sound and well respected biologist.

 

[exchemist]

I often point out that one should not conflate creationism with Christianity. Though many creationists think that those that do not take Genesis literally are "not true Christians". Then out of the other side of their mouth they will claim that Christianity is the world's largest religion.

And yes, I do enjoy the lectures of Ken Miller too, a very sound and well respected biologist.

Exactly. Evangelical creationists are a small and highly unrepresentative segment of the Christian world as a whole. But they make more noise than everyone else put together!

 

[Segev Moran]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word"

No it is not. its a name given to a theory that describes how the current species we see on earth formed.

which means that it has many definitions.

Once again, Thats wrong.
The only meaning of it is the process of how life evolved (not to mix that with created) on earth.

In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

Again, wrong. not usually.
Evolution is a very specific and detailed theory backed up by thousands of evidence, measurements and experiments.

1 that organisms change and adapt

That's the outcome, not the definition.

2 that we all share a common ancestor

Not just we, rather the entire life organisms on the planet.

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.

The first two are not a process rather an outcome.

Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Yet disapproving one of them will render the Evolution theory wrong.

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

As this is observable.

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true,

No need for a bet here. it is proven and undoubted.
We have a hierarchy that demonstrates direct connection between previous speices to the current ones.
There are a lot of gaps, but the evidence is compelling enough to determine it as proven.

but there is room for reasonable doubt.

No there is not. the only thing in question is the timeline.

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.

Can you refer to some evidence that contradicts it?

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis.

No it is not.
We see it occurring these days in many species, plants, viruses, mammals, birds, reptiles and many more.
We can see the mutations and measure them. we can see natural selection in action in many places on the globe.

Evidence
strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.

What kind of evidence? can you please present some?

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

 

[Jollybear]

Idiot.

Hey, atleast i never said humans give birth to monkeys.

 

[Audie]

No it is not. its a name given to a theory that describes how the current species we see on earth formed.

Once again, Thats wrong.
The only meaning of it is the process of how life evolved (not to mix that with created) on earth.

Again, wrong. not usually.
Evolution is a very specific and detailed theory backed up by thousands of evidence, measurements and experiments.

That's the outcome, not the definition.

Not just we, rather the entire life organisms on the planet.

The first two are not a process rather an outcome.

Yet disapproving one of them will render the Evolution theory wrong.

As this is observable.

No need for a bet here. it is proven and undoubted.
We have a hierarchy that demonstrates direct connection between previous speices to the current ones.
There are a lot of gaps, but the evidence is compelling enough to determine it as proven.

No there is not. the only thing in question is the timeline.

Can you refer to some evidence that contradicts it?

No it is not.
We see it occurring these days in many species, plants, viruses, mammals, birds, reptiles and many more.
We can see the mutations and measure them. we can see natural selection in action in many places on the globe.

What kind of evidence? can you please present some?

I think he ran

 

[exchemist]

Hey, atleast i never said humans give birth to monkeys.

Er, yeah.