Origins Thread

[Tuco Salamanca]

Did you watch the video of him speaking directly relating to this?

Where does he deny evolution?

 

[Tiger]

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.

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.

 

[Tiger]

Where does he deny evolution?

In the video clip I shared he says he’s not a theistic evolutionist.

It couldn’t be clearer.

 

[Tiger]

Where does he deny evolution?

It’s probably a good time to bring up ‘micro evolution’ versus macro evolution debate.

Micro ‘evolution’ is basically variations within a kind/species. Macro evolution is a new species coming into being.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

In the video clip I shared he says he’s not a theistic evolutionist.

It couldn’t be clearer.

He accepts common descent

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

The edge of evolution reviewed by Gert Korthof

wasdarwinwrong.com

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

He accepts common descent

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

The edge of evolution reviewed by Gert Korthof

wasdarwinwrong.com

He's changed his tune since 2007 (the date of your link). I encourage you to read his more contemporary literature and see his more recent interviews.

 

[Tiger]

He accepts common descent

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

The edge of evolution reviewed by Gert Korthof

wasdarwinwrong.com

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.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

It’s probably a good time to bring up ‘micro evolution’ versus macro evolution debate.

Micro ‘evolution’ is basically variations within a kind/species. Macro evolution is a new species coming into being.

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 magically conjured into existence in an instant?

Add this to your Xmas reading list.


View: 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

 

[Declan]

He’ll be let of the looney bin in a week. He’ll troll here straight away (does he do anything else?) and be immediately banned again.

You can ban anyone you like off this thread yourself

 

[Tiger]

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.


View: 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

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.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

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.

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.

 

[Fishalt]

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.

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?

 

[Tiger]

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.

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]

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?

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, 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.

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/

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

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.

Your distinction between micro and macro evolution doesn't exist. Micro and macro evolution are not two separate phenomena; rather, they represent different scales of the same evolutionary process.

The accumulation of microevolutionary changes over extended periods can indeed lead to macroevolutionary outcomes, resulting in the emergence of new species.

Here's just one example.

Genomic Evidence for Speciation with Gene Flow in Broadcast Spawning Marine Invertebrates

How early stages of speciation in free-spawning marine invertebrates proceed is poorly understood. The Western Pacific abalones, Haliotis discus, H. madaka, and H. gigantea, occur in sympatry with shared breeding season and are capable of producing viable ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Fishalt]

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.....

 

[Kangal]

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.

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.

 

[Kangal]

You can ban anyone you like off this thread yourself

Oh dear. I just noticed that. I'll drop off this thread now.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

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