Evolution: the Facts.

No freedom in Egypt, Tunisia:

What people do not understand: what is a dictator?
In my view a dictator is a group of people including generals, secret police, judges, intellectuals, journalists...who are controlling(stealing) by force the whole country.
If the leader of the group(named dictator) is eliminated the rest of the group will have the control of the country.

Another proof of my Evolution theory.
 
Just got here and not so interested in wading through 21 pages but do have a suggestion on the topic. Evolution if you want to talk about the science and looking at the data is a very broad subject that can often be better discussed and debated by breaking it down into parts, such as a thread for fossil evidence, for genetics, etc,.....

I am new and so if the above comment is out of line, please forgive me.
 
Tero said:
Many understand some basic concepts, but as soon as it gets into detail they lose interest because evolution cannot be possible. Otherwise "life has no meaning" and their value system collapses.
Click to expand...

my experience has been the exact opposite....it's very hard to engage evos in detailed discussion of the data once they see the argument going against them
 
randman said:
my experience has been the exact opposite....it's very hard to engage evos in detailed discussion of the data once they see the argument going against them
Click to expand...

Thread necromancy is not an example of "the argument going against them".
 
my experience has been the exact opposite....it's very hard to engage evos in detailed discussion of the data once they see the argument going against them
Click to expand...
My guess is that what you experienced was people refusing to believe your evidence. I've never met a researcher who studies evolution who will shut up once you get them going on their lines of evidence, and I've never encountered a conversation between a Creationist/ID advocate and a scientist who studies evolution where the evidence was on the side of the Creationist/ID advocate.
 
randman said:
my experience has been the exact opposite....it's very hard to engage evos in detailed discussion of the data once they see the argument going against them
Click to expand...

I am glad you found the science forum. If you want to discuss the mechanisms of evolution I will be happy to get into a detailed discussion of the data and theory and how it is strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.
 
randman said:
my experience has been the exact opposite....it's very hard to engage evos in detailed discussion of the data once they see the argument going against them
Click to expand...

You claimed that the evidence convergent evolution demonstrates today is actually not evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, but that you alone had figured out that it is actually a trick of logic and if we'd only think about it we'd see it was evidence against evolution.

The problem is, you claimed random mutation would not have repeated convergent similar designs because, you claim, mutations are random.

The fundamental thing you've demonstrated an ignorance of by saying that is that while mutations are random, the process by which they are selected for is not random. The subtly of this continually eludes you so far when this is pointed out to you. You seem unable to see the issue of probability at play here, or unwilling.

One would expect if natural selection is true to see similar forms being selected for in animals of shared descent. Like the basic wing, the shape of a body which is optimal for gliding through water, multiple limbs and duplicated organs, binocular vision for hunters and predators, lungs for terrestrials, gills for aquatics.

You chose Australian marsupial mice as your example, ignoring the fact that these mice are only somewhat similar in body shape to the placental rodent mouse it has evolved to resemble, and not identical.

You fail to grasp the subtle distinction, which when considered objectively without an agenda to confirm is not really subtle at all.

You chose to use a baited and manipulative format in your inquiries for many pages of the thread before ever coming clean with what your position was, ( Intelligent Design) which seemed not only disingenuous, but patronizing.

I think you genuinely feel you are correct, but you're wrong. You display many of the traits of classic denialism and the Dunning–Kruger effect.

You attack the few gaps you can seize upon and ignore the many, many correlations in geology, biology, genetics, and other fields. You seem to ignore that evolutionary theory has many aspects to it that are still being debated, and you seize on these questions and glorify them as errors.

You claim the possible discovery of trace elements of red blood cells in a T Rex fossil and the scaled skin of a duckbilled dinosaur is CLEAR evidence that dinosaurs were alive within 10,000 years of today. Ignoring the alternatives explanations in favor of your agenda.

In a predictable demonstration of projection, you've then accused "evos" of not being objective or considerate of the evidence.

The biggest problem of all is, your personal case is a customized amalgam of facts and recorded objections that hasn't been shared by any other people who seem to be arguing for the same basic side, that of Intelligent Design. Unique among even your peers, you are presenting yourself as the lone intellect capable of grasping the bigger picture which eludes us all.

This should set off an alarm for any objective listener.
 
ThunderChunky said:
I am glad you found the science forum. If you want to discuss the mechanisms of evolution I will be happy to get into a detailed discussion of the data and theory and how it is strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the origin and development of genes? Genetic sequences are thought to evolve along with the development of new traits through mutation, adaption and natural selection is the basic mechanism as I understand it.
 
You claimed that the evidence convergent evolution demonstrates today is actually not evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, but that you alone had figured out that it is actually a trick of logic and if we'd only think about it we'd see it was evidence against evolution
Click to expand...
.

Halfcentaur, where did you see me claiming "I alone" had figured something out? I stopped reading there and will stop reading your responses.

I can't tell if you are just not following along or just making things up to try to provoke but am done with it. I don't want to get banned and reading your comments fabricating what I said, questioning my motives and maligning my character is not fun.

So if it makes you feel better posting something that I fail to respond to, nor read, then you can win.
 
Last edited:
Halfcentaur, where did you see me claiming "I alone" had figured something out? I stopped reading there and will stop reading your responses.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you've completely discredited your demands for honest debate by repeatedly refusing to read what the opposition has to say.
 
Sorry for the double post, but after reading randman's statements in the other anti-evolution thread he's in I've begun to wonder: How much of what he's calling backpeddling is really just the scientists and science advocates using more fundamental theoretical frameworks to dismantle his ideas? Randman's tactic seems to be to latch on to a handful of journal articles and demand that we address them; if anyone dares to comment on the context of the articles, or to make statements that don't specifically deal with what he's talking about (meaning, in this case, that his opposition uses general principles to demonstrate his arguments cannot possibly be right, rather than pulling specific finds/experiments out of the literature to show his conclusion is wrong) he states that they're backpeddling and refusing to deal with the issue. I've seen this before with Creationists: As soon as you start discussing the theoretical framework of the theory of evolution they declare that you're backpeddling.
 
randman said:
How do you explain the origin and development of genes?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the first genes that would have originated at the beginning of life or the development of new genes that came afterward as life evolved? If you are referring to the first genes there is no great answer currently available. We simply do not know how life originated.

We do know a lot about how life evolved by the time it had acquired DNA genomes. We know how new genes are created and how existing genes can be lost or modified. This part I can explain more if that is what you had in mind.

Genetic sequences are thought to evolve along with the development of new traits through mutation, adaption and natural selection is the basic mechanism as I understand it.
Click to expand...

The change in DNA sequence is what confers the new traits, but yes, you have the basic idea. But the mechanisms that allow "micro evolution" are the same ones that allow "macro evolution." In other words, if you accept micro evolution and the mechanisms known to allow it, there is no jump to macro evolution. It's just a longer journey doing the same things.
 
Last edited:
ThunderChunky said:
Are you referring to the first genes that would have originated at the beginning of life or the development of new genes that came afterward as life evolved? If you are referring to the first genes there is no great answer currently available. We simply do not know how life originated.

We do know a lot about how life evolved by the time it had acquired DNA genomes. We know how new genes are created and how existing genes can be lost or modified. This part I can explain more if that is what you had in mind.
Click to expand...

It's a trap. Read this thread to see where he's going with this.
 
Are you referring to the first genes that would have originated at the beginning of life or the development of new genes that came afterward as life evolved? If you are referring to the first genes there is no great answer currently available. We simply do not know how life originated.

We do know a lot about how life evolved by the time it had acquired DNA genomes. We know how new genes are created and how existing genes can be lost or modified. This part I can explain more if that is what you had in mind.
Click to expand...

Both but since we agree there is no explanation yet for their origin originally, though that'd be an interesting discussion in terms of how information is originated, let's talk about the 2nd part.

The change in DNA sequence is what confers the new traits, but yes, you have the basic idea. But the mechanisms that allow "micro evolution" are the same ones that allow "macro evolution." In other words, if you accept micro evolution and the mechanisms known to allow it, there is no jump to macro evolution. It's just a longer journey doing the same things.
Click to expand...

I don't see the incrimentalism of NeoDarwinism (microevolution) as producting macroevoution at all since the process decreases genetic variability. Natural selection is a conservative process, not one that adds to the genome over and above the rate of loss of genes through sexual and geographic isolation as subgroups split off.

But rather than jump into that immediately, what are the predictions of NeoDarwinism in terms of the earliest creatures? Specifically, since mutations occur over time and are sequential to each generation of offspring, shouldn't we expect to see a gradual accumulation of genes and expansion of the genome as new traits are added and adapted for?

Edit to add: it's not a trap but a discussion of predictions and data. To septic tank, bringing up a challenge to evolution is a trap. Can't admit some data or analysis that can be challenged as the goal is not understanding the data and process but just trying to score points.

Hopefully, you will have the confidence to dive in here rather than avoid as some do. Go where the evidence leads. You may not abandon Neodarwinism over this line of thinking but I think you and evos generally will reassess their preconceived ideas in some respects. Certainly, some evos have done that already in their published papers.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Both but since we agree there is no explanation yet for their origin originally, though that'd be an interesting discussion in terms of how information is originated, let's talk about the 2nd part.
Click to expand...

OK. However, we can discuss how new information originates within the existing system though, there are genetic mechanism that do this.

I don't see the incrimentalism of NeoDarwinism (microevolution) as producting macroevoution at all since the process decreases genetic variability. Natural selection is a conservative process, not one that adds to the genome over and above the rate of loss of genes through sexual and geographic isolation as subgroups split off.
Click to expand...

That is one of the points I would like to discuss. There are many genetic mechanisms that actually increase the genetic variability of a population. Natural selection can act to either increase or decrease variability depending on what is and is not being selected. In general, a population will be stronger if it has more genetic variability, but it can lose variability if certain genes are selected against or if the population shrinks.

But rather than jump into that immediately, what are the predictions of NeoDarwinism in terms of the earliest creatures?
Click to expand...

When you say 'prediction' it is kind of tricky because there is an important distinction between prediction and inference. For example, we can infer that DNA genomes came after RNA genomes, but the theory of evolution itself does not predict that. In general, evolution (over long periods of time) can only predict possibilities, but not outcomes.

The earliest organisms would have been single cells that reproduced asexually. I don't think much more can really be said about them. They would probably be slow and inefficient compared to modern organisms.

Specifically, since mutations occur over time and are sequential to each generation of offspring, shouldn't we expect to see a gradual accumulation of genes and expansion of the genome as new traits are added and adapted for?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about one specific lineage or all lineages of life? If we are talking about one specific lineage, you cannot predict. Some genomes will be selected for small size and efficiency, so they will lose lots of genes and traits that are not needed (this doesn't mean they still cannot acquire new genes at the same time). Other genomes will be selected for increased complexity and will acquire new traits over time as you say.

If we are talking about all life, again it's tough to make a prediction. In general I would think the diversity would increase, but it would depend on the time frame being looked at. In periods where life is flourishing I would expect more genes to be added over time, in periods of mass extinctions the genetic diversity might be decreasing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom