What's so hard about evolution?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

We are talking about DNA, not acids and salts. You have specific nucleotide bases that pair up, and their is no chemical means for them to do so.

Really? You just proved you have no idea what your talking about, do you even know what DNA is? Here's a hint..It's a chemical! Specifically, Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Deoxyribonucleic acid is the molecule that encodes the genetic instructions.

Sorry, there is no pixie dust in the mix!

a reply to: Astyanax

Darwin called natural selection 'the winnow of nature.' Obviously it is not a god. It is not an objective entity of any kind. It is more akin to tidal action or nuclear fusion: the shaping of matter by energy according to normal physical laws.

Yes, Darwin was quite the poet, but even a puff of wind requires a causal agent. He can call it anything he wants but he's still a creationist at heart.

It's odd though. You readily acknowledge that NS is neither objective nor a physical entity yet proceed to refer to it as some sort of energy. But I'm the one acting like a creationist?

No, I'm sorry. NS is nothing at all. There is no force, or energy "acting on" or "selecting" the most fit organisms. There is literally no external physical mechanism doing the 'chaffing', 'milling' or 'editing', whatever the eloquent analogy of the day is.... The fact that Darwin referred to NS as a wind is telling. The winnow of NS is a delusion; as imaginary a "force " as the creationist's man in a white robe. The modern day god of the gaps if you will. Oh no, are you at risk of being just like the rest of them?

Your conception of a soul inherent in living matter that shapes it according to some mysterious inner impulse to diversify and evolve makes you (I am sorry to say) a creationist. I know you're not calling it a soul, but that is what it is.

Come on, I never said or referred to a soul. You did. I said life is inherently intelligent. But I know, you need me to have said soul so you can build up your straw man. You and the others around here, I'm sorry to say, are like the modern day witch hunters of Salem with your pitchforks and torches patrolling the forums for creationists to hunt and flame. Naturally anyone who is even suspected as being in opposition to the "worldview" must be burned at the stake.

How about thinking for yourself. The herd mentality can lead to pitfalls. The only reason why you and your pals have something to grasp on to defend so vehemently is because the almighty Darwin had his own ideas and thoughts. As did Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton.

Believe it by all means, but our conversation about evolution must end here. You have dealt yourself out of the discussion at this table.

Oh come on now Asty. You know full well this conversation is not over. You don't want it to be. And you don't want to disappoint your audience. They're relying on you for entertainment. And I think I've been gracious enough to provide the fodder for your show, so the least you can do is indulge me a little.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Even a puff of wind requires a causal agent.

Nobody is arguing that the process of natural selection lacks causes. Its causes are the everyday events of the natural world.

You readily acknowledge that NS is neither objective nor a physical entity yet proceed to refer to it as some sort of energy. But I'm the one acting like a creationist?

I said it was 'not an objective entity'. That is quite different from saying it is 'not objective' — whatever that means. And no, it is not a physical entity, it is a name we give to the result of a set of (very ordinary) physical events.

No, I'm sorry. NS is nothing at all. There is no force, or energy "acting on" or "selecting" the most fit organisms.

I did not say it was a force or energy. That's your department.

There is literally no external physical mechanism doing the 'chaffing', 'milling' or 'editing', whatever the eloquent analogy of the day is....

What is a predator, if not an 'external physical mechanism'? What is a parasite? What is a mate that rejects one suitor and favours another?

I said life is inherently intelligent.

And you said, or implied, that this intelligence is behind evolution. Therefore you are — as I said before, it is regrettable — a creationist. What is this 'life' that is intelligent? You don't mean actual living things, because plants and bacteria are not, in any meaningful sense, intelligent, and neither are the vast majority of animals. Therefore you don't mean life in the concrete, you mean 'life' in the abstract, and you endow it with intelligence. What is that if it isn't a soul?

Oh come on now Asty. You know full well this conversation is not over. You don't want it to be. And you don't want to disappoint your audience. They're relying on you for entertainment. And I think I've been gracious enough to provide the fodder for your show, so the least you can do is indulge me a little.

All right, consider yourself indulged. What shall we talk about next?

a reply to: Astyanax

Nobody is arguing that the process of natural selection lacks causes. Its causes are the everyday events of the natural world.

Right, I'm actually arguing that the idea of NS lacks complete existence. All Darwin did was replace the word 'God' with 'Natural'. But I'm open to hear why I might be wrong about this.

I said it was 'not an objective entity'. That is quite different from saying it is 'not objective' — whatever that means. And no, it is not a physical entity, it is a name we give to the result of a set of (very ordinary) physical events.

I should've inserted the word "an" before objective, my mistake. Don't like it much when people twist your words do you? At least we have that in common...

We are all the result of Natural Selection. It has a really nice ring to it, I'll admit. But is it necessary? How about life is simply the result of what life does? Life drives it's own evolution. Are there outside environmental pressures (e.g deforestation, ice ages, global warming) that come into play. Yes, who can deny that. But life always finds a way around it. Variety is life's solution.

Another issue with NS is that it relies heavily on competition to weed out the "unfit" organisms. But this perspective completely ignores one of the main principles of life that can be found on all levels- COOPERATION. You can not exist if it weren't for the trillions of microbes and cells working together to make up your physical body. Reproduction generally requires the cooperation between two organisms. Survival tactics generally require the cooperation of multiple organisms. When needed, successful competition, I will argue, generally requires cooperation first. Why would Darwin leave this crucial fact out of his theory? And why doesn't the modern synthesis even discuss it? Oh wait, they'll just say that natural selection "favors" cooperation. Amen to that.

What is a predator, if not an 'external physical mechanism'? What is a parasite? What is a mate that rejects one suitor and favours another?

A predator, a parasite, or sexual mating rituals all represent different forms of life doing what it does. It's not natural selection doing anything. It's life interacting with itself. Call it 'Life Selection'. At least that can be verified.

And you said, or implied, that this intelligence is behind evolution. Therefore you are — as I said before, it is regrettable — a creationist.

Yes, I did say that. See, no need to inject a soul into the discussion. Your insistence on making the leap to creationism is confusing.

What is this 'life' that is intelligent? You don't mean actual living things, because plants and bacteria are not, in any meaningful sense, intelligent, and neither are the vast majority of animals. Therefore you don't mean life in the concrete, you mean 'life' in the abstract, and you endow it with intelligence. What is that if it isn't a soul?

What do you mean by "what is this life that is intelligent?" I absolutely mean ALL living systems, including plants, bacteria, worms, cells and even viruses. Life is inherently intelligent. I'm referring to the ability to respond to stimuli in meaningful ways. It's information transfer. It's communication or signaling. It's problem solving. It's basic cognition. Every living system exhibits these qualities in one way or another. Survival absolutely depends on it. You need to get caught up on what's going on. It's too bad- because here I thought I was the one being cynical about your custom title.
Here since you provided links for me Ill return the favor. This is just the start of it:
Plant intelligence
en.wikipedia.org...(physiology)
Nitrogen fixations
www.nature.com...
Bees and plants communicate using electricity
phys.org...
Kin relationship


phys.org...
Marsh plants engineer
phys.org...
Basil and chilli communicating
phys.org...
Plants perform math
www.nature.com...
Bacterial intelligence
tamar.tau.ac.il...

No brains or cns required. You can deny it all you want, I really don't care. Just please don't project your ignorance onto others without doing your homework first.

All right, consider yourself indulged. What shall we talk about next?

Great. I feel like I'm only getting warmed up. How about intelligent evolution?

I fully agree, bu t would it also be an abuse not to genetically manipulate if it meant preventing some genetic alformation. (Assuming both were possible)

So genetic manipulation t choose a preferred eye colour = Abuse
No genetic manipulation to prevent blindness = abuse

Tricky!

originally posted by: [post=17945471]borntowatch[

If the human gave birth to a human with wings, that would be evolution

This is a real question.

No, that would be a miracle there by proving evolution wrong and prooving the existence of some sort've supernatural influencer.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The Institute of Creation Research??

Haha thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

How about you show me data that proves that what is stated in their articles is false?

Sure - Select any "scientific" article on that website, post it here, and I'll show you the data that proves it's false.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

but you cannot say i am wrong.

Your wrong..

Systems can and do arisen by biological means..
NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O

That describes a real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. That we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain, i.e. intelligent designer..

When you mix an acid and a base, its makes a salt. That just happens. The only code to explain is the one we invented to talk about the reaction.

We are talking about DNA, not acids and salts. You have specific nucleotide bases that pair up, and their is no chemical means for them to do so. Scientist say right now that they believe the base pairs match up based on spatial reasons, but they are presupposing that DNA wants to fit into a double-helix without stating why. When they pair up in a specific way they code for a specific protein not just a random one. I am not talking about the code that we give to the substances. Their is a code independent of our perceptions we are just blessed with the ability to recognize and describe it. For example, even before we knew of the microscopic world our bodies still functioned as we describe them functioning today. THe Human Genome still expresses the information needed to express that individual.

The "chemical means" of base pair bonding is self assembly. It is ubiquitous throughout nature. DNA can self assemble without any outside intervention. This is been proven in laboratory experiments many times.

"Self-assembly is the spontaneous formation - through free energy minimization - of reversible aggregates from basic building blocks. The size of the aggregating units, e.g. simple molecules, macromolecules or colloidal particles, can vary from a few angstroms to microns, thus making self-assembly ubiquitous in nature and of interest in several fields, including material science, soft matter and biophysics. Self-assembly is one of the most promising routes for the realization of novel materials, because tuning shape, valence, flexibility and mutual interactions of the individual building blocks can finely control the physical properties of these new colloid-based materials. In addition, these properties can be tailored for replicating on different time- and length-scales the behavior of atomic systems. In fact, one of the dreams of soft matter scientists would be to use such wide portfolio of physical and chemical interactions to realize materials with novel properties and functions i.e. the materials of the future."
www.cecam.org...

The helical shape is no mystery - the shape is determined by bonding energies - hydrogen bonds, phosphate bonds.

Ken Hamm is perpetrating a fraud - he's organized a cult of disinformation to suck people in. Show me any article from his website and I'll prove that it's bogus.

Which came first plant life or animal life? Where was the evolutionary split in the tree of life? Have animals evolved from plant life or have plants evolved from animal life?

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is thought to have been a complex cell, before splitting up into the 3 main branches of life.
curiosity.discovery.com...

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

The current theory is as WASTYT posted - the last universal common ancestor. There's some evidence to support the theory, but at the moment it's still a theory based on extrapolation with some support from DNA similarities.

But there are other intriguing possibilities. What about simultaneous but independent ancestors? In terms of self assembly, nucleic acids can self assemble easily. So why not totally independent ancestors using the same self assembly mechanism? Chances are we'll find that other planets as well.

This article is very interesting - his theory doesn't defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics, yet is very unique in the way this scientist has approached the question. What's your opinion of the article (anyone)?:

A New Physics Theory of Life

www.simonsfoundation.org...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

All Darwin did was replace the word 'God' with 'Natural'

The theory of selection among variants by natural causes was precisely Darwin's contribution to history. It was so revolutionary that some people are still struggling to understand it over 150 years later.

To say that Darwin substituted natural selection for God is laughable. Show me anything, written by any author prior to 1859, which suggests that God causes plants and animals to evolve their forms through competition among variants, and I will grant your point. But there is no such document.

But is (natural selection) necessary? How about life is simply the result of what life does? Life drives it's own evolution.

Why does life do that? Why has it — as you appear to be saying — a propensity to evolve into a variety of (often very elaborate) forms? 'Life doing what it does' is a meaningless answer, no better than 'God did it'. After all these wordy posts, that flamboyant display of casuistry and pseudoscience, is this really what your position comes down to? Life did it?

But never mind. Let's assume you're right. How, then, does Life do it?

How does Life cause variation to emerge? Does it employ some mechanism of your own invention, or will random mutation caused by the usual agents do? How does your hypothesis differ from standard evolutionary theory?

How are new traits diffused through a population? Does Life employ the same commonly-understood gene transport mechanisms to do that, or do you favour some other process, different from those we discussed earlier? How does your hypothesis explain how variation is propagated? How does it differ, in this sense, from standard evolutionary theory?

And, crucially, how does Life, doing what it does, select among variant forms? It is plain to see that selection occurs, for otherwise the incidence of genetic diseases and deformities would be far higher than it is. Does Life use the same agents as natural selection — disease, predators, sexual competition, geophysical processes, etc — to do the weeding, or does it employ some other means? Can you show evidence for some other mechanism?

And if you cannot, how does 'life doing what it does' differ from the theory of evolution by natural selection?

I'll tell you how. It differs in no material way. It simply introduces a nonphysical, teleological agency for which there is absolutely no necessity, simply because you, like all creationists, cannot conceive — or perhaps cannot bear the thought — of design without a Designer.

This is the crux of your position: a superfluous volitional element in evolution for which there is neither evidence nor need. Being too sophisticated to count yourself among the fundamentalists, you give it the name Life instead of 'God' and conceive of it as some sort of pantheistic Presence in which all living things partake. Plotinus, Spinoza and Liebniz all got there before you, and to this day there isn't a penn'orth of evidence to support their ideas. Yet you want to go on discussing this obsolete, discredited hypothesis as if it were still worth talking about, as if it made an atom of sense, as if there were any fact that could not be explained without it, as if it were worth any fraction of an intelligent person's time!

You presume too much on behalf of your ideas, my friend. They are not worthy of the attention you demand I pay them. But since I have started, I will go on to demolish the rest of your argument (such as it is) in my next post.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

This one, fortunately, need not be long.

Life is inherently intelligent. I'm referring to the ability to respond to stimuli in meaningful ways. It's information transfer. It's communication or signaling. It's problem solving. It's basic cognition. Every living system exhibits these qualities in one way or another. Survival absolutely depends on it.

By this definition, a simple thermostat exhibits basic cognition, and any feedback loop or homeostatic system is intelligent.

But — even if this is granted — whence comes the ability to respond to stimuli in meaningful ways? Whence the mechanisms of information transfer? How did organisms acquire the ability to communicate, to solve problems, to think?

Are they an inevitable consequence of being alive, as you seem to argue? But that is like saying 'grass is green because it is green,' or at best, 'grass is green because it's good for grass to be green.' You'll have to do better than that. A whole lot better, if you want to refute evolution by natural selection.

Come on: show yourself worthy of my — of anyone's — continued attention.

a reply to: Phantom423

A New Physics Theory of Life

An intriguing hypothesis, which supports a thought that has probably occurred to many of us: natural selection is a particular case of a much wider, indeed universal principle.

Did I say 'universal'? Make that 'multiversal', since the physicist Lee Smolin believes that natural selection obtains among universes! Cosmological natural selection

I started an ATS thread on Dr England's hypothesis some time ago. Of course, it veered off into fundamentals pretty quickly once the creationists piled in. It's no good trying to discuss anything but the most basic of basics with these folk.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
Ok- so what I'm wondering is- if a novel behavior is driven by a single initial mutation- how do the same types of instincts, say nest building, appear across various species? Is this the result of the same mutation occurring across all of these species?

The mutation could go completely unnoticed for generations, and then bang. The environment shifts and only that one genetic line survives while the other 90% die out. The trait then becomes dominant and species wide. Something like building a nest, probably saved the species at one point. And again, it's not something as simple as nest building. It's a creature's ability to use it's intellect to protect itself. It's logical for a creature to want to build a protective home or nest. It is far more likely to survive and produce surviving offspring.

a reply to: Astyanax

Everyone has this emotional response to "life" - like it's something special or unique. I doubt that it is. The universe is very efficient - energy is never "wasted". So it's not so strange that what we perceive as "life" is just an ongoing process that is a fundamental part of all nature. We might be the highest form of life on this planet, but what is the next step in evolution and will we find it first on other planets. I think it's just a matter of time and technology.

The universe (the one we live in at least) may be a Carnot cycle - "The efficiency of a quasi-static or reversible Carnot cycle depends only on the temperatures of the two heat reservoirs, and is the same, whatever the working substance. A Carnot engine operated in this way is the most efficient possible heat engine using those two temperatures" - with the appearance of "life" as part of the evolutionary process.

Scientists like England appear to be thinking outside the box, but in truth, what they're doing is simply unifying energy transitions to be inclusive of what we see around us, including ourselves.

I'm sure that Ken Hamm and his crowd of screwball "scientists" will come up with another road show when this happens, but by then, let's hope that some positive mutation takes place for the current believers.

BTW, no one took me up on my offer to prove that any article at ICR.org is bogus. The offer remains open.

^ICR articles are often terrible. They don't have any real science behind them, unless it's thrown in there to make you think the exaggerations are also true. I often see they cite several facts about DNA and then use it to form an unrelated conclusion about how it can't arise naturally. People think that the facts hidden between the assumptions make the assumptions true, but their argument breaks down as soon as you map it logically.

Here's some evidence of evolution right at home. I recently got a new kitten. She has a 6th toe that looks like a thumb. It's really cool actually. I haven't seen that yet on a cat, but I've heard of them. Apparently it's a rare trait, but if the cat with the toe breeds with a cat without it, it's a 40-50% chance for each kitten in the litter, otherwise it's drastically lower. The mutation already exists in a large portion of genetic lines, but it's rare.

Admittedly, the natural evolution of pussy cats is kind of dependent on humans right now, but if something happened and humans were wiped from the planet, cats could be the ones to inherit the earth in the future. The thumb toe will favor cats that climb and give them a better ability to grab things. It will probably one day become a dominant trait and if their intelligence also increases over time, we're looking at the real possibility that your ordinary house cat will become rulers of the earth. Humans have been here a mere 200,000-300,000 years. A lot can change in 10 million years, we have no comprehension of that time scale, let alone 50-100 million years. Its not out of the realm of possibility that bipedal felines with hands become as intelligent or more so than humans are now. Would the cat then still be considered a cat? Will they search for the "missing link" between modern intelligent cats and the house cat from 10 million years prior? I wonder if there will be creationist cats. I have doubts, however especially if they surpass us intellectually. Part of me thinks I shouldn't spay this kitty, just so she can keep the thumb trait going in her line.

originally posted by: Phantom423
BTW, no one took me up on my offer to prove that any article at ICR.org is bogus. The offer remains open.

Ummm . . . I believe it was asked of you to actually post an article, so that it may be "critiqued". However, you simply ignored that to say . . . "See, no one took me up on my offer". A little disingenuous, IMO.

Well . . . let's look at their newest addition, shall we?

Sometimes little things matter a lot. For example, consider how some tiny creatures fully depend upon each other for survival in a relationship called symbiosis. This very clearly showcases divine creation. How could two unrelated creatures have this relationship unless they were intentionally crafted that way from the beginning? Otherwise, they would die while waiting for a perfect partner to evolve. Has evolutionary faith blinded biologists from seeing the forensic clues within the insect symbiosis they study?

This is the first paragraph of the piece . . . Right off the bat, the author who apparently holds an M.S., makes a giant assertion that has no basis in fact or evidence. "This clearly showcases divine creation" is neither supported or "clear". The only audience that doesn't stop athe the third sentence of the whole article and say "WTF" will be creationists. The author then goes on to assert (again with no evidencial backing) that symbiotic organism can only survive with the host and would never evolved to their current form without a host at current form. This implies both were "created" together. This is a huge fallacy and a misrepresentation of the evolution of symbiotic relationships.

What the author doesn't touch on is that all organisms share a "symbiotic relationship" with at least one other organism. Also, there are multiple types of relationships (antagonistic, cooperative, and mixed) along the symbiotic continuum. The type of interaction relies on the benefits/disadvantages gained/lost by the host and symbiont.

Symbiotic relationships exist everywhere we look; they are beginning to seem like the very essence of biology. They occur between the most distantly related organisms, such as bacteria and eukaryotic cells, as well as between closely related species, such as ants. Relationships encompass all degrees of intimacy, from the tight symbioses of mitochondria with their host eukaryotic cells to the more loosely crafted partnerships between entirely separate organisms. Examples covered in this review range from marine invertebrates with their symbiotic algae to the gastrointestinal tracts of animals with their associated microbial symbionts.

The whole article is nothing but a god of the gaps/argument from incredulity.

The Miami University press release said, "The findings of these studies show that symbiotic relationships have the power to shape animal evolution at the genetic level." Wait a second. Do any of their observations really show that "the power" to shape genes came from "symbiotic relationships" instead of from the Lord?

So . . . where has the author shown any support for this "Lord", whom he claims is responsible. Shouldn't he have to show that his causal agent actually exists before claiming it is the causation? Of course not . . . only scientists have to answer every question about everything before it is not considered "junk" . . . religious people just have to claim truth for something to be valid. Hypocrites and charlatans, these evangelical creationists are.

Where they came from falls outside the realm of direct experiments and instead fits the realm of forensic clue-gathering.

In conclusion, he brings up forensics (study of information from the past), but says symbiosis couldn't have evolved because "no one has seen it happen". Which of course, is the exact opposite of forensic studies, as forensics doesn't rely on "eyewitness" testimony or observation.

It starts with the assumption that the organisms have always existed in their present form (creationist), then asserts that the organism could not survive on it's own (false). All organisms have developed such relationships. Relationships which not only evolved along with the symbiont, but were also effected by the evolution of the host. In essence, natural selection. Those organisms which found a way to make survival less of a struggle took advantage of it and and further evolved the behavior until dependence.

Natural selection is the key to understanding how symbiosis evolves. In a given population, some organisms will have traits that are more advantageous to successful reproduction than others. Organisms with those traits are therefore more likely to pass them along to succeeding generations, while those without them have a greater chance of dying before they reproduce. Thus, over many generations, the population will tend to look more and more like the individuals with the successful traits.
The success or failure of traits depends on population pressure -- circumstances that make it more difficult for individuals to survive. Traits that allow a creature to take advantage of the other life forms in its environment will be just as successful as the traits that allow it to escape (or eat) them.

Furthermore the author throws this hilarious quote in . . .

Incredible stories require crystal clear support. So, if we are to buy into this story of how symbiosis supposedly evolved, researchers should at least supply examples of other creatures developing new and functional proteins like this transporter. They should also supply examples of how those creatures incorporated the new proteins into a biochemically intricate symbiosis between two previously unassociated organisms.

So according to the author, the predictive abiltiy of the hypothesis and genetic comparisons of the organisms do not offer "clear support". Despite this claim that "incredible stories require crystal clear support", he promotes a story that is not only infinitely more "incredible", but also has absolutely no support (let alone "crystal clear") . . . creation by supernatural means. Seems the author has a very duplicitous definition of "crystal clear support" . . . or simply doesn't turn the same "critical eye" to his preferred beliefs.

ICR
Evolution of Sybiosis
Biology of Symbiosis

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Phantom423
BTW, no one took me up on my offer to prove that any article at ICR.org is bogus. The offer remains open.

Ummm . . . I believe it was asked of you to actually post an article, so that it may be "critiqued". However, you simply ignored that to say . . . "See, no one took me up on my offer". A little disingenuous, IMO.

This is exactly what I said:

"Ken Hamm is perpetrating a fraud - he's organized a cult of disinformation to suck people in. Show me any article from his website and I'll prove that it's bogus. " No one asked me to post an article. Please show me the post where I was asked to post an article to be "critiqued".

Not sure about the rest of your post. We know Hamm is a fraud. The convoluted explanations at his website are probably one of the few self-evident truths in the universe. No further explanation required.

edit on 28-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)