Origins Thread

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,737
Reaction score
3,557
The primary mistake you keep making is thinking that EBNS 'knows' anything. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to. Evolution by natural selection works by throwing out random mutations in a given species population, and if these accrue some kind of survival benefit in a practical, real-world setting, they persist in the gene pool simply as a matter of due process.These changes might make no difference at all and still persist in the gene pool, however.
Tell us exactly how this mechanism works, because as best as I can determine, the argument is a circular one that goes like this:

Animals breed, the offspring that are brought forth are fitter, merely by virtue of being born, and so 'natural selection' has just won another victory.

Is that the sum of it? Natural selection is really just a fancy term that attempts to invoke some kind of 'magical process', while in fact being nothing more than nature taking its course?

How exactly does 'natural selection' throw out or keep anything? What is the bio-chemical mechanism at work, the term refers to?

And there is still no examples of positive mutations in nature. I'd be happy to break down the sickle cell fallacy for those still flogging that horse.
 

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
1,548

This is an interesting video. I would personally recommend Tank watches it, as he thinks dog variation is literal evolution.

In the video the presenter mentions the bear variation from Brown bear to Polar bear, but doesn’t go into much detail about the negative mutations that brought about the polar bear. The scientists who studied the mutations in the gene showed that they too were damaging to its function.

In fact, of all the genes that were most highly selected, half damaged the function of the respective coded proteins.

In addition, since most altered genes bore several mutations, three to six out of seventeen genes were free of degrading changes. To put it another way, 65 to 83 percent of helpful, positively selected genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation.

The Polar bear has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. So, rather then evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving.
 
Last edited:

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
1,548
Tell us exactly how this mechanism works, because as best as I can determine, the argument is a circular one that goes like this:

Animals breed, the offspring that are brought forth are fitter, merely by virtue of being born, and so 'natural selection' has just won another victory.

Is that the sum of it? Natural selection is really just a fancy term that attempts to invoke some kind of 'magical process', while in fact being nothing more than nature taking its course?

How exactly does 'natural selection' throw out or keep anything? What is the bio-chemical mechanism at work, the term refers to?

And there is still no examples of positive mutations in nature. I'd be happy to break down the sickle cell fallacy for those still flogging that horse.
I think this reference to biochemical evidence will be the key to arriving at anything close to truth regarding evolution.

Darwin himself felt that his theory would be tested properly only with the ability to study the biochemical evidence versus the phenotype conjecture.

The storytelling side of evolution which is not backed up by credible evidence should be ignored.
 
Last edited:

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
1,548
You do realise that Behe is a theistic evolutionist?
I don’t think he is. I’m not sure why you think this.

I believe he ascribes to Intelligent Design.

It’s probably better if he explains it himself in his own words.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Active member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2023
Messages
131
Reaction score
48
I don’t think he is. I’m not sure why you think this.

I believe he ascribes to Intelligent Design.

It’s probably better if he explains it himself in his own words.

Theistic evolution is a form of intelligent design.
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Top Bottom