Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Acleron]

Let us hope that the creationist "micro-evolution cannot lead to macro-evolution" fallacy is not the next thing to raise its ugly head.

That was twenty or so pages ago

 

[AdMan]

If you're going to emulate Patrick's annoying posting style, Reality Check...

There is a TON of evidence for evolution Reality check......and that includes the haemoglobin example. Zero argument from me there.

So we (and the scientific comunity) agree!
There is a TON of evidence evolution and there is no problem at all with species changing and new species evolving.

If you're going to emulate Patrick's annoying posting style, Reality Check...

Unlike him, can you at least use commas correctly?

 

[Wowbagger]

Patrick1000 has conceded the point to the good guys.

He always accepted evolution, it's the mechanism he doesn't accept. I suspect he still thinks there is a "missing ingredient" of some sort, to make it all more probable.

The trouble is he won't recognize the effectiveness of the mechanism we've outlined, not even in computer simulated form, for some reason.

 

[Aridas]

This was not addressed to me, but while I understand that how we evolve is a different question from how it got started, they've always been pretty closely related in my mind.

Related, sure. That said, evolutionary theory does not and cannot say anything about the origin of life. Abiogenesis does not and cannot say anything about evolutionary theory. Are there likely to be similarities, based on physics, chemistry, and how reasonable the concepts in question are? Of course. This is a fine video that addresses that point.

Now, to take a step away from that... is trying to use a "because we don't know for certain how life began, that is an argument against evolutionary theory in some way," a very, very common creationist argument (even when it is just used as an argument that we aren't omniscient)? Yes.

Like I said, I understand the difference, but to say the two topics are not relevant to each other is a bit of a stretch.

To note, my question and the intention was accurate, I think. The origin of life is not, in any way, relevant to evolutionary theory, given that evolutionary theory requires that life exists in the first place for *biological* evolution to occur. Evolution, in a more neutral sense, occurs in many other ways than biological, but biological evolutionary theory has been what's in question here, not any of the other forms.

He always accepted evolution, it's the mechanism he doesn't accept. I suspect he still thinks there is a "missing ingredient" of some sort, to make it all more probable.

The trouble is he won't recognize the effectiveness of the mechanism we've outlined, not even in computer simulated form, for some reason.

Yes, and because somehow, simulations are automatically "cheating."

 

[Dinwar]

You did not hurt my feelings.....But you did misrepresent my view. I am very pro trying to figure things out. I'll leave it at that and drop the subject.

Mere assertion without even a hint of evidence. in other words, your SOP.

Related, sure. That said, evolutionary theory does not and cannot say anything about the origin of life. Abiogenesis does not and cannot say anything about evolutionary theory.

It's akin to how birth and aging are both parts of a human life, but knowing all there is to know about one won't help know about the other.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, and because somehow, simulations are automatically "cheating."

That has been a disappointingly lame evasion of what could be an interesting discussion that appears to go to the heart of his problems with evolution.

 

[Mojo]

I add titles so that I may keep track of them.......If there are 1000 posts in a thread, how does one find the one he/she is looking for?

By using the search function.

With a title..... Make sense?

Since all your titles do is to repeat the first few words of your post, no.

 

[Mojo]

No. Abiogenesis says nothing about what happens after life arises, and evolution presupposes both life and diversity. One happens, then the other. It didn't necessarily have to be that way, but that's how it worked on our planet.

He already tried to introduce abiogenesis as a distraction back on page 4:

The question I have raised, the point I have made, regarding the implausibility of the conventionally presented mechanism whereby biologic information changes over time is not at all unlike the related problem of accounting for that information's inexplicable origin. About the later Francis Crick wrote in 1981;

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available now could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

And so, having gotten going, some way, some how, I would suggest, are there also many unrecognized and poorly understood conditions to consider, conditions having to do with the perpetuation of that information and its changing over time, a perpetuation and changing over time that includes a reptile's heart/lung becoming an avian one, a perpetuation and changing over time that we simply do not understand.

Honest biologists know both my point and Crick's to be so very true.

 

[Complexity]

He always accepted evolution, it's the mechanism he doesn't accept. I suspect he still thinks there is a "missing ingredient" of some sort, to make it all more probable.

The trouble is he won't recognize the effectiveness of the mechanism we've outlined, not even in computer simulated form, for some reason.

I thought if I said it quickly enough, no one would notice.

His opinions on these matters are irrelevant, of course.

I suppose that the cats can play with fly as long as they want to...

 

[Wowbagger]

I thought if I said it quickly enough, no one would notice.

His opinions on these matters are irrelevant, of course.

I suppose that the cats can play with fly as long as they want to...

We are making progress: He has conceded that the mechanism is possible, just not probable.

We can probably make more progress, by explaining in various ways, how natural selection actually makes it more probable a species will adapt, over time, (since "favored" adaptations are kept), instead of less probable (the mistaken assumption that evolution is mostly "random"). But, we keep going back to percieved issues with the nature of the mechanism, again.

 

[Patrick1000]

Are you asking if I be HAL, or if the other guy is HAL?

Are you, by any chance, HAL from Kubrick's 2001?

Are you asking if I be HAL, or if the other guy is HAL?

 

[Patrick1000]

You are a little funny with this stuff Mojo, wish it was nuclear.....

As I said, you were Going Nuclear:


If it's "beyond the ken of human ability" then, even if this means that your own ideas are not valid, neither are anyone else's.

You are a little funny with this stuff Mojo, wish it was nuclear.....

But we have mostly touched on mainstream stuff. There is not all that much new and nuclear here.

That said, the stuff on self direction of mine is way out there, so guess you could call me "crazy" with regard to that. Crazy like a fox that is........

 

[Patrick1000]

What's up with yrreg Complexity? Tell me about him....

I see that Patrick1000 is emulating one of our better-known posters in another respect...

yrreg likes to add titles to each of his posts as well.

What's up with yrreg Complexity? Tell me about him....

 

[Patrick1000]

I believe it was the thread's opening post where I first emphasized......

Well, I'm glad this thread can be closed.

Patrick1000 has conceded the point to the good guys.

I believe it was the thread's opening post where I first emphasized that I was convinced of the evidence for common ancestry. I believe I specifically mentioned the commonality of the genetic code as evidence that for me was/is particularly compelling.

By the way, since we are all sticklers for clarity here, common ancestry suites me best when referring to the notion that all living things ultimately claim the same pedigree. "Evolution" is a term used in so many, too many, confusing ways. Confusing, because the same term is used with reference to both hot air balloon like bacterial penicillin resistance acquisition, and at the same time, used with reference to rocket ship like JRANDI poster from reptile development.

 

[Reality Check]

By the way, since we are all sticklers for clarity here, common ancestry suites me best when referring to the notion that all living things ultimately claim the same pedigree.

By the way, that is blindingly obvious since - common ancestory is that there is overwhelming evidence that that "all living things ultimately claim the same pedigree", i.e. all living things have a common ancestor !

"Evolution" is a term used in so many, too many, confusing ways.
...nonsenses snipped...

Wrong: Evolution is a very clear term in science.

 

[Patrick1000]

I like that "missing ingredient".......

He always accepted evolution, it's the mechanism he doesn't accept. I suspect he still thinks there is a "missing ingredient" of some sort, to make it all more probable.

The trouble is he won't recognize the effectiveness of the mechanism we've outlined, not even in computer simulated form, for some reason.

I like that "missing ingredient" idea.......Kinda' like Albert Einstein's "missing variables" in his struggle with his detractors, not to mention in his struggles with the world at large, arguing over locality vs non locality......

 

[Robrob]

...(bacteria are) just as evolved as we are, which is another thing that I don't think Patrick gets.

It's one of those things that happens when you don't actually understand the thing you are complaining about.

You cannot "keep" a potentially advantageous mutation because 10,000,000 years from now it will be shown to be advantageous.

OTOH, you can use an advantageous mutation for 10,000,000 years and have it become even more advantageous over time. For example, gliding is an advantage that could eventually evolve into fully controllable flight.

Fling squirrels glide. Bats can fly. Hmmmm....

 

[Patrick1000]

The point is, the proicess of evolution, whatever it may be....,

It's one of those things that happens when you don't actually understand the thing you are complaining about.



OTOH, you can use an advantageous mutation for 10,000,000 years and have it become even more advantageous over time. For example, gliding is an advantage that could eventually evolve into fully controllable flight.

Fling squirrels glide. Bats can fly. Hmmmm....

The point is, the process of evolution, whatever that process may be may be, is not clairvoyant.

 

[Reality Check]

The point is, the process of evolution, whatever that process may be may be, is not clairvoyant.

The point is, no one thinks that the process of evolution, as described by the actual science (that you have agreed with) is clairvoyant.

The only person in this thread claiming that is it seems to be you.

 

[Patrick1000]

You missed my point.......

The point is, no one thinks that the process of evolution, as described by the actual science (that you have agreed with) is clairvoyant.

The only person in this thread claiming that is it seems to be you.

You missed my point.......

By clairvoyant I mean if you were a reptile and clairvoyant and you were becoming a bird, you WOULD KNOW you were becoming warm blooded before you were warm blooded. If you were a clairvoyant reptile you WOULD KNOW that your lungs were becoming one way air flow lungs a million years before they became one way air flow lungs........


But reptiles are not clairvoyant, and such is not allowed.......