Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Floyt]

The point of contention is not THAT biologic systems evolved but about HOW they evolved.

I think there is tremendous evidence for common ancestry. There is little or no evidence that common ancestry owes to a series of unrelated, undirected, unintentional mutations.

For your convenience, I shall quote the place in this very thread, a few posts up, where this misconception has already been comprehensively addressed and which you chose to ignore:

Another problem with this is the idea that mutations are what causes the change in the first place. Mutations (of all types) are a source of variation in a population's genetics, but the changes that occur aren't because an individual organism has a mutation in a single gene and is suddenly able to do something amazing (at least, that's very rarely the case.) Instead it's because there are many many individuals, each trying a host of genetic options out simultaneously. Each one of their genomes is exposed to changes due to mutation, to be sure, but the larger impact is simply that their genomes are different to begin with because they aren't clones of one another.

Basically, faster cheetahs aren't faster because a mutation occurred and made them faster, they are faster because the individuals with a genes that led to speed were more reproductively fit and tended to have babies with at least some of those genes included.

Another common misconception is that a mutation occurs and suddenly a gene is doing something completely novel. This sort of thing can happen (and has been observed in the lab) but it is more often the case that something like the following occurs in the creation of genes with novel functions. First an existing gene is duplicated in the genome (a fairly common event.) The copy of the gene doesn't need to function, so it is free to accumulate errors without hurting the organism. It does so, and over time comes to have some novel function. Typically speaking, it does this novel function extremely poorly, however, an extremely poorly functioning gene is more effective than no gene, so it survives and benefits the organism. After that, mutations in the gene improve its function until we have something highly effective. This set of steps is apparently what happened in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a creationist favorite, with the vast majority of the proteins that comprise it identified as having precursors elsewhere in the cell doing other functions.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.

Chimeras that don't sit in the in the nested hierarchies of the phylogenetic tree but cross several branches would also present major problems for the theory. The fact that everything so beautify fits is a clear demonstration of evolution's explanatory power.

 

[H'ethetheth]

3,000,000,000,0000

Whoa there! I don't mean to disagree with your point, but you went overboard a little with the zeros. That's about 2000 times the age of the universe right there.

 

[Patrick1000]

You also are making my point

Compare bird DNA with reptile DNA. Case closed.


You're ignoring natural selection again.

Oh, and archaeopteryx, anyone?


Mutations.


Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.


Our point is that you are at best entirely ignorant of evolutionary science, and at worst, dishonest.

You also are making my point PixyMisa.

Let's not even look at the whole bird and whole reptile, just the heart and lung. The DNA, the INFORMATION for directing the formation/creation of a reptile heart/lung and a bird heart/lung are different. And the question is, given the great difference between how a bird heart/lung works and how a reptile heart/lung works, it is not at all obvious how the reptile heart/lung information coding "mutated", morphed, into that coding for a bird's. Many many many changes, in aggregate, of infinite complexity, going from point REPTILE HEART/LUNG to point BIRD HEART/LUNG. "How can that happen?", is the question.

The truth of the matter is, we have no evidence, no details. We observe nothing now that might help us. As pointed out, penicillin sensitive bacteria to penicillin resistant bacteria is no proof for dinosaur to bird heart/lung informational change anymore than as in the case of my analogy, where showing that a hot air balloon can fly, and fly high, nevertheless does not mean one can take the balloon all the way to the moon.

As best we can tell, natural selection as observed, provides only for very limited changes, in the same way balloon flight provides only for limited travel destinations.

This does not mean biologic systems do not evolve, and do not evolve by way, at least in part, of informational change, DNA change, over time. Indeed, that must be the case if evolution is real, and it seems to be, at least to some lesser or greater degree. But we have no good idea really how this is happening. Saying a series of relatively spontaneous, unrehearsed, random, unintentional, undirected, unrelated mutations over time accounts for the transformation of a dinosaur into a bird does not make it true. And we should not buy into such a silly notion without evidence. Was there actually evidence for such, it wouldn't be so silly now would it?

Alas, but there is none........

 

[Kid Eager]

The point of contention is not THAT biologic systems evolved but about HOW they evolved.

I think there is tremendous evidence for common ancestry. There is little or no evidence that common ancestry owes to a series of unrelated, undirected, unintentional mutations.

Sigh... Yet another thread where OP acts thick as a brick for the lulz.

Back on ignore you go.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The truth of the matter is we have no evidence, no details. We observe nothing now that might help us. As pointed out, penicillin sensitive bacteria to penicillin resistant bacteria is no proof for dinosaur to bird heart/lung informational change anymore than as with the case in my analogy, showing a balloon can fly most certainly does not mean one can take the balloon to the moon.

Are you going to trot out Claude Shannon and the ID canard that evolution can only lead to information loss?

 

[Lowpro]

The truth of the matter is, we have no evidence, no details. We observe nothing now that might help us. As pointed out, penicillin sensitive bacteria to penicillin resistant bacteria is no proof for dinosaur to bird heart/lung informational change anymore than as with the case in my analogy, showing a balloon can fly most certainly does not mean one can take the balloon to the moon.

Again, you seem to either not know or just straight up ignore most evidence...

It's not like scientists just declare by fiat that birds evolved from dinosaurs. They say it...because there is evidence for it. Your ignorance does not make your argument valid, it just means you don't know, and you can't figure out why others made the conclusion. It's the evidence... oh and here's a really cool dinosaur you wanna read up on too. You ignore physiological homology of theropods to dinosaurs to the point that it's just unforgivable. Just because YOU don't get it doesn't mean it isn't or hasn't been explained. It has. You're ignoring it.

BTW, I'm calling it now; I bet you read Denton with a hard on...

 

[Roboramma]

Let's not even look at the whole bird and whole reptile, just the heart and lung. The DNA, the INFORMATION for directing the formation/creation of a reptile heart/lung and a bird heart/lung are different. And the question is, given the great difference between how a bird heart/lung works and how a reptile heart/lung works, it is not at all obvious how the reptile heart/lung information coding "mutated", morphed, into that coding for a bird's.

That something isn't obvious doesn't really tell us anything. It's not obvious gravitation is caused by the bending of spacetime, but it's true, just the same.

Many many many changes, in aggregate, of infinite complexity,

Actually, not of infinite complexity. Hint: infinite doens't mean "very big".

going from point REPTILE HEART/LUNG to point BIRD HEART/LUNG. "How can that happen?", is the question.

Through natural selection.

The truth of the matter is, we have no evidence, no details.

We also don't have details about how the laws of physics worked on the earth 100 million years ago, but I'm still confident that the reason dinosaurs didn't go floating off into space was that gravitation was acting. I'm confident in that because we understand how the mechanism works today and because all the evidence we have (including looking at distant galaxies) shows that it was also acting in the past. Guess what? The same is true of natural selection: we can see it acting today and all the evidence we have shows that it was operating in the past.

We observe nothing now that might help us. As pointed out, penicillin sensitive bacteria to penicillin resistant bacteria is no proof for dinosaur to bird heart/lung informational change anymore than as with the case in my analogy, showing a balloon can fly most certainly does not mean one can take the balloon to the moon.

It may not be proof but it certainly is evidence, and science doesn't work in proof.

As for your balloon, showing that a can fly means that, if no other mechanism gets in the way, one could take a balloon to the moon. I am aware of something else getting in the way, however.

As best we can tell, natural selection as observed, provides only for very limited changes, in the same way balloon flight provides only for limited travel destinations.

What evidence do you have of something that limits the action of natural selection?

By your logic the rotation of the earth is also limited: we only have evidence that the earth rotated in the past (and present), not that it will continue to do so. So I suppose you predict that the sun won't come up tomorrow.

 

[Krikkiter]

Patrick1000, why don't you just lay your cards on the table and come right out with:

1. Your alternative to the current evolution model

2. Your reasoning (with evidence) for the above?

So far it just seems like your just trying to start interwebz arguments for the hell of it and as far as I'm concerned that equates to trolling.

 

[PixyMisa]

You also are making my point PixyMisa.

Let's not even look at the whole bird and whole reptile, just the heart and lung.

Okay.

The DNA, the INFORMATION for directing the formation/creation of a reptile heart/lung and a bird heart/lung are different.

Of course. Otherwise the resulting organisms would be the same.

And the question is, given the great difference between how a bird heart/lung works and how a reptile heart/lung works it is not at all obvious how the reptile heart/lung information coding "mutated", morphed, into that coding for a bird's.

Well, yes, it is obvious when you examine the evidence.

Many many many changes

Yes, of course.

in aggregate

In conjunction.

of infinite complexity

NO.

going from point REPTILE HEART/LUNG to point BIRD HEART/LUNG.

Yes.

"How can that happen?", is the question.

And "One mutation at a time." is the answer.

The truth of the matter is we have no evidence, no details.

No, that's the opposite of the truth.

We observe nothing now that might help us.

Except for vast amount of molecular, fossil, and morphological evidence.

As pointed out, penicillin sensitive bacteria to penicillin resistant bacteria is no proof for dinosaur to bird heart/lung informational change anymore than as with the case in my analogy, showing a balloon can fly most certainly does not mean one can take the balloon to the moon.

As pointed out, this is irrelevant to the point of dishonesty. We have observed many instances of new species arising.

As best we can tell, natural selection as observed, provides only for very limited changes, in the same way balloon flight provides only for limited travel destinations.

Nope. This is completely untrue. There is no mechanism, observed or theoretically plausible, to stop the process of evolution.

This does not mean biologic systems do not evolve, and do not evolve by way, at least in part, of informational change, DNA change, over time. Indeed, that must be the case if evolution is real, and it seems to be, at least to some lesser or greater degree. But we have no good idea really how this is happening. Saying a series of relatively spontaneous, unrehearsed, random, unintentional, undirected, unrelated mutations over time accounts for the transformation of a dinosaur into a bird does not make it true.

You again ignore natural selection. This has been pointed out several times. This is simply dishonest.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The truth of the matter is we have no evidence, no details.

[...]

And we should not buy into such a silly notion without evidence. Was there actually evidence for such, it wouldn't be so silly now would it.

Alas, but there is none........

What this sounds like is that you don't have evidence. The only possible reason for that can be that you've somehow missed that gigantic mountain of evidence that is supported by biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and nuclear physics.

 

[SezMe]

This is exactly the Apollo hoax thread just in a different area. Unwarranted assertions will be made. Facts will be ignored. P1K,s facts will turn out to not be facts. P1K will learn absolutely nothing.

Lather, rinse, repeat. What a waste.

 

[Patrick1000]

You are making my point as well

What this sounds like is that you don't have evidence. The only possible reason for that can be that you've somehow missed that gigantic mountain of evidence that is supported by biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and nuclear physics.

You are making my point as well. To be honest, I actually expected a lot more substance in terms of a debate here. Instead of making this general vacuous claim about the pile of evidence H'ethetheth, provide me with something specific, molecular evidence wise, something that demonstrates a series of mutations(random, undirected, unintentional, unrelated) turned a dinosaur into a bird, or an early mammal into both a bat and a whale. Doesn't matter to me. Give me something tangible, just a whiff of proof is all that I am asking for.

Again, the point cannot be overemphasized, what is at issue is not that a dinosaur may have become a bird, but how was it that this came about. It would seem we really haven't a clue.

THAT, is my claim.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Anyone else share my skepticism?

Yes, I am skeptical of evolutionary theory. I have exercised this skepticism by looking at the evidence for evolutionary theory, from a layman's perspective, finding it to be not only a satisfactory explanation for the diversity of living forms but the only satisfactory explanation we have available, noting its predictive power in the biological sciences, and hence adopting as a provisional conclusion that evolutionary theory is a useful and reasonable description of nature. It's not your skepticism I don't share, but your willingness to be convinced by your own irrationally derived incredulity.

Dave

 

[Soapy Sam]

Out of interest, what evidence do you have that a dinosaur could be a parent to another dinosaur?

You do accept that creatures have offspring?

You have molecular evidence to support your belief?

 

[Krikkiter]

To be honest, I actually expected a lot more substance in terms of a debate here.

Well, why didn't you just come out and say you wanted a debate rather than an education?

 

[Wudang]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial][SIZE=-1] "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[bjornart]

Let's not even look at the whole bird and whole reptile, just the heart and lung. The DNA, the INFORMATION for directing the formation/creation of a reptile heart/lung and a bird heart/lung are different. And the question is, given the great difference between how a bird heart/lung works and how a reptile heart/lung works, it is not at all obvious how the reptile heart/lung information coding "mutated", morphed, into that coding for a bird's. Many many many changes, in aggregate, of infinite complexity, going from point REPTILE HEART/LUNG to point BIRD HEART/LUNG. "How can that happen?", is the question.

Have you actually looked at the DNA involved in hearth/lung formation in various birds and reptiles? Have you read or seen analyses of the differences between the DNA involved? Do you know anything of the variation in heart/lung formation between various birds, or between various reptiles?

Everywhere where it's been examined on a biochemistry or physiological level, the genetic variation between closely related species and the number of and type of mutations between more remote species match what evolutionary theory predicts.

The variation in the morphology of heart/lung in birds and heart/lung in birds is simply not "infinitely complex", and you've only your own incredulity as evidence for that statement.

 

[JJM 777]

I read every post of Patrick1000 in this thread, and he seems to think that evolution is a fact, at least to some extent. At least to an extent that even some Creationists would agree to.

What I fail to see is what else than small mutations and natural selection Patrick1000 suggests as the explanation for evolution. Intelligent design? A pantheistic god, mother nature? I think the discussion is meaningless before he reveals this card.

As for evidence for evolution, Patrick1000 essentially says that some pieces of evidence exist, but they are quite scattered and remote from each other, and therefore much of the line of evolution is a conclusion and assumption between the pieces of evidence, rather than actual evidence itself. So he requires that more dense pieces of evidence need to be found (maybe it will happen, maybe not), and/or other potentially possible explanations need to be speculated in the unknown grey areas between the pieces of evidence. But he does not reveal his cards, what other explanations than small mutations and natural selection he has in mind.

 

[Kid Eager]

I read every post of Patrick1000 in this thread, and he seems to think that evolution is a fact, at least to some extent. At least to an extent that even some Creationists would agree to.

What I fail to see is what else than small mutations and natural selection Patrick1000 suggests as the explanation for evolution. Intelligent design? A pantheistic god, mother nature? I think the discussion is meaningless before he reveals this card.

As for evidence for evolution, Patrick1000 essentially says that some pieces of evidence exist, but they are quite scattered and remote from each other, and therefore much of the line of evolution is a conclusion and assumption between the pieces of evidence, rather than actual evidence itself. So he requires that more dense pieces of evidence need to be found (maybe it will happen, maybe not), and/or other potentially possible explanations need to be speculated in the unknown grey areas between the pieces of evidence. But he does not reveal his cards, what other explanations than small mutations and natural selection he has in mind.

Do a search and replace: "Evolution" for "Apollo 11" - look familiar?

Now replace "Apollo 11" with "Pearl Harbor" Hmmmm....

What's next? Bigfoot? Big Bang? The Jesus Factor?