Origins Thread

Do you believe in evolution?

  • Total voters
    13
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Tuco Salamanca said:
luckily for you, I'm a relatively nice bloke. If I really wanted to make a fool of you, you'd know all about it, plunkw1tt.

Unfortunately (or otherwise, depending how you look at it) you do a good enough job of that yourself.
Click to expand...
Tuco, I welcome your contribution to this thread, but can I ask that you don’t lower the tone with the silly aggressions.

Simply debate the facts.

That’s it.
 
Last edited:
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Tuco Salamanca said:
He accepts common descent

A review of 'The edge of evolution' (Michael Behe)

The edge of evolution reviewed by Gert Korthof
wasdarwinwrong.com wasdarwinwrong.com
Click to expand...
Firstly he’s opinion has altered since 2007, and also, just to say it…a belief in common descent does not make someone a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution is a specific perspective that combines the scientific understanding of evolution with the belief in a deity guiding the process.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Tuco Salamanca said:
There is absolutely no distinction between so called 'micro evolution' and macro evolution.

The taxanomical distinction between species is little more than a haphazard convention. There is no sharp lines of demarcation between species, Rather, a continuum exists.

Why on earth would anyone accept 'micro evolution' but then draw the line at the arbitrarily delineated species boundary and assert that all distinctions from that point on were magical conjured into existence in an instant?

Add this to your Xmas reading list.

Amazon product ASIN 0970066414View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drive-Yourself-Sane-Uncommon-Semantics/dp/0970066414/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1V4WPZWC4EX7C&keywords=general+semantics+kodish&qid=1700868239&s=books&sprefix=general+sematics+kodish%2Cstripbooks%2C90&sr=1-1
Click to expand...
Of course you are wrong again.

Small scale changes in a gene pool over a short period, (always within a single species) versus large scale (imagined, with no evidence) changes over a large time scale are very different.

One is observable, the other is not.

Don’t spoof. Nobody likes a spoofer.
 
Fishalt

Fishalt

Well-known member
New
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
2,692
PlunkettsGhost said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean, Plunkett. You're still not understanding how it works.

Animals breed and produce offspring. These may have genetic mutations, they may not. If they do have mutations, these might accrue those offpsring a survival advantage or they may not. In fact it's likely only a decimal point of offspring born with a mutation see any benefit from this. The vast, vast majority of mutations will have no meaning at all. Some will offer only a survival disadvantage--and these mutations will be weeded out by environmental forces.

Let me give you an example:

Let's say you have a species of moth that feeds on the foliage of a certain type of bush. This moth is predated by birds. Now let's say a mutation emerges in that moth population that causes produces a generation of moths that is very, very slightly more like the colour of the foliage of the bush.

Both the ordinary moths and the moths that carry the mutant gene will still get predated by birds quite a lot. Most will die. But it's likely that the moths with gene that makes them slightly more like the foliage of the leaves will get eaten slightly less, because they are slightly less easy to see by predating birds due to camuoflage. What this then means is that the mutant moths are more liekly to breed in greater numbers, which in turns means the mutated gene is passed on at a higher rate than the non-mutated moths. Eventually, that species of moth will all carry the mutant phenotype. This process will continue, all thye time accentuating the mutation until such a time some other mitigating environmental factor puts a stopper in it.

Does this make sense?
 
Last edited:
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Tuco Salamanca said:
Then explain to me the following.

1. Why the taxonomical demarcation between species is anything other than a convention (some species less genetically similar than humans and chimpanzees can interbreed -- ie horses and donkeys)

2. Why the distinction between so called 'micro evolution' and macro evolution goes beyond mere scale.
Click to expand...
Ok, for the intellectually impaired….

‘Micro evolution’ = contained, naturally occurring changes within an organism. Differences can arise through mutations, genetic recombination during reproduction and other processes.


‘’Macro Evolution’ = Large scale changes, which allegedly occur over large periods of time which allegedly lead to a new species.

Timespans are not enough to mask over significant changes. Biomolecular evidence is need at this point.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Fishalt said:
This is what I mean, Plunkett. You're still not understanding how it works.

Animals breed and produce offspring. These may have genetic mutations, they may not. If they do have mutations, these might accrue those offpsring a survival advantage or they may not. In fact it's likely only a decimal point of offspring born with a mutation see any benefit from this. The vast, vast majority of mutations will have no meaning at all. Some will offer only a survival disadvantage--and these mutations will be weeded out by environmental forces.

Let me give you an example:

Let's say you have a species of moth that feeds on the foliage of a certain type of bush. This moth is predated by birds. Now let's say a mutation emerges in that moth population that causes produces a generation of moths that is very, very slightly more like the colour of the foliage of the bush.

Both the ordinary moths and the moths that carry the mutant gene will still get predated by birds quite a lot. Most will die. But it's likely that the moths with gene that makes them slightly more like the foliage of the leaves will get eaten slightly less, because they are slightly less easy to see by predating birds due to camuoflage. What this then means is that the mutant moths are more liekly to breed in greater numbers, which in turns means the mutated gene is passed on at a higher rate than the non-mutated moths. Eventually, that species of moth will all carry the mutant phenotype. This process will continue, all thye time accentuating the mutation until such a time some other mitigating environmental factor puts a stopper in it.

Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
Fishalt, you’re a nice guy.

Thank you for contributing to this thread.

However can you accept that what you are presenting as scientific evidence, is more or less makey uppy storytelling that mutations are always positive. This is simply not accurate as a driver of evolution.
 
Fishalt

Fishalt

Well-known member
New
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
2,692
Tiger said:
Fishalt, you’re a nice guy.

Thank you for contributing to this thread.

However can you accept that what you are presenting as scientific evidence, is more or less makey uppy storytelling that mutations are always positive. This is simply not accurate as a driver of evolution.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all. I specifically said that most mutations will either not be positive or will have no meaning. If you're asking me why we don't see negative mutations more commonly, the answer is quite simply; the organisms that presented them are dead. They didn't work. They were the chaff seperated from the wheat.

A way to think of it is that genetics throw out random mutations, and environment decides whether or not these mutations work or don't. The driver of this process is sex and death.

For what it's worth, I gave an example of moths. We can actually see evolution just like this quite recently in the Peppered moth. It became dark coloured during the Industrial revolution in industrial areas due to smog. Since the clean air act of 1956, the older type that is lighter coloured is becoming more common again.

https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/the-peppered-moth/
 
Last edited:
Fishalt

Fishalt

Well-known member
New
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
2,692
And on the note of sex and death, take a look at the most popular types of culture--especially cinema. Game of Thrones etc.

What do they have a lot of? Hmmmm.....
 
K

Kangal

Guest
Tiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is embarrassing. Absolutely cringe.

There is no such thing as devolution. There is no such thing as "degrading" genes. Thats an entirely subjective view.

Genes are selected based on environmental pressures. Genes (mutated or not) that present an advantage for the living thing in that environment are most likely to be passed on to the generation. That's all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PlunkettsGhost

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
3,763
Drew Berry produces amazing animations based on cellular bio mechanics. Darwin had no idea the cell was so complex. Darwin's view of the cell as being a simple blob of goo was partly to blame for his notions related to the ability of complex life to form from simpler precursors.

The single cell is what's known as an irreducibly complex system. If you remove any one part the whole system collapses. Cells need to be able to capture energy and break it down for the needs of all the constituent parts. Cells need to have the ability to reproduce and repair themselves, as well the individual functions of the various kinds of cell. They are very complex machines. Drew's animation exposes for us, visually, how incredibly complex the cell and its various functions are. They are tiny bio-factories.

Evolutionary theory says a lightning bolt jump started some proteinoid goo in a primordial puddle, and instantly created the first viable cell, capable of all the functions necessary to even the most simple cellular creature, for survival . The word 'simple' here, is a misnomer. Another wizard word (like natural selection) to make things more digestible for the average imagination. There is nothing simple about the cell. They are incredible.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY
 
Last edited:
Z

Zipporah's Flint

Guest
PlunkettsGhost said:
🤦‍♂️

Your responses suggest otherwise.

Also known as the second law of thermodynamics in fact.
Click to expand...

Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?
 
Fishalt

Fishalt

Well-known member
New
Joined
Mar 13, 2023
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
2,692
Zipporah's Flint said:
Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?
Click to expand...

“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.”​

 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Zipporah's Flint said:
Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?
Click to expand...
The word devolution is controversial word play for evolutionists as it could suggests a predetermined direction and then a reversal of that. Terms like ‘regression’ or degeneration’ are preferred. Of course if you’re not an evolutionist you don’t need to worry about this word play.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
PlunkettsGhost said:
Drew Berry produces amazing animations based on cellular bio mechanics. Darwin had no idea the cell was so complex. Darwin's view of the cell as being a simple blob of goo was partly to blame for his notions related to the ability of complex life to form from simpler precursors.

The single cell is what's known as an irreducibly complex system. If you remove any one part the whole system collapses. Cells need to be able to capture energy and break it down for the needs of all the constituent parts. Cells need to have the ability to reproduce and repair themselves, as well the individual functions of the various kinds of cell. They are very complex machines. Drew's animation exposes for us, visually, how incredibly complex the cell and its various functions are. They are tiny bio-factories.

Evolutionary theory says a lightning bolt jump started some proteinoid goo in a primordial puddle, and instantly created the first viable cell, capable of all the functions necessary to even the most simple cellular creature, for survival . The word 'simple' here, is a misnomer. Another wizard word (like natural selection) to make things more digestible for the average imagination. There is nothing simple about the cell. They are incredible.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY
Click to expand...

Spoiler alert* You’re unlikely to get anyone on this forum to solve the challenge of irreducible complexity.

This video shows Behe responding to one particular challenge we’re a team of scientists are trying to provide a Darwinian explanation for the origins of a complex molecular machine like the flagellum motor.

 
Last edited:
K

Kangal

Guest
Tiger said:
Spoiler alert* You’re unlikely to get anyone on this forum to solve the challenge of irreducible complexity.

This video shows Behe responding to one particular challenge we’re a team of scientists are trying to provide a Darwinian explanation for the origins of a complex molecular machine like the flagellum motor.

Click to expand...

Just one example to the contrary. And that's all we need to debunk Behe.

biologos.org

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - Article - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.
biologos.org biologos.org
 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Kangal said:
Just one example to the contrary. And that's all we need to debunk Behe.

biologos.org

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - Article - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.
biologos.org biologos.org
Click to expand...
Before getting into the merit of that challenge.

I presume you were not aware (when you did your random google search to pretend to find an answer), that the author you found is an EC, an ‘Evolutionary Creationist’ who believes Gods hand guides all evolution?
 
K

Kangal

Guest
Tiger said:
Before getting into the merit of that challenge.

I presume you were not aware (when you did your random google search to pretend to find an answer), that the author you found is an EC, an ‘Evolutionary Creationist’ who believes Gods hand guides all evolution?
Click to expand...
I thought it would spice things up. Though I was hoping to mention it later. ;)
Though I think she has accepted evolution as-is without needing to lean on a God.

Over to you.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
2,354
Kangal said:
I thought it would spice things up. Though I was hoping to mention it later. ;)
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone will believe that, do you?

I think they’ll presume (correctly) that you jumped in underpants first again, with the first thing you found on the internet.
 
K

Kangal

Guest
Tiger said:
I don’t think anyone will believe that, do you?

I think they’ll presume (correctly) that you jumped in underpants first again, with the first thing you found on the internet.
Click to expand...
You obviously want to talk about anything else but what she says about Behe. Funny that.
 
K

Kangal

Guest
And these explain the problems in his thinking well.

www.newscientist.com

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that...
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com

 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Top Bottom