What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

... it's still a hypothesis:

Panspermia

OK, I'll concede that Panspermia has insufficient evidence to be regarded as a scientific theory.

But do these semantic games either support or disprove my statement that 'Biological Evolutionary Theory, as it is currently defined, is insufficient to account for biodiversity and change rates that are observed; and that, therefore, factors outside that theory must be invoked'?

I think the easiest way to understand(and remember) what (biological)evolution is...is by recounting the title of this little book entitled...

On the Origin of Species....

It clearly says right there in the title of the book what (biological)evolution is all about.....the origin of species....

and then when we consult a dictionary for the term "species" we understand it even more...

"a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus"

So it doesn't have anything to do with the origin of LIFE...but only with the origin of these smaller groups of animals and plants and how they came to exist....

Sorry if my post seems patronizing or anything...I just...I don't know how else to put it LOL

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I think the easiest way to understand(and remember) what (biological)evolution is...is by recounting the title of this little book entitled...

On the Origin of Species....

It clearly says right there in the title of the book what (biological)evolution is all about.....the origin of species....

and then when we consult a dictionary for the term "species" we understand it even more...

"a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus"

So it doesn't have anything to do with the origin of LIFE...but only with the origin of these smaller groups of animals and plants and how they came to exist....

Sorry if my post seems patronizing or anything...I just...I don't know how else to put it LOL

A2D

I totally agree and it needed to be stated, thank you.

Invariably when this topic comes up, people start arguing Evolution vs Creationism, neither of which has anything to say, disprove or prove about the other.

Creationism is a possible method of abiogenesis. Evolution is a possible method of bio-diversification.

Neither are the only methods we can conceive of that would achieve the respective outcomes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

The simplest refutation of the "defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" dispute is to just say that Earth isn't a closed system. It receives much of its energy from the sun. The 2nd law applies to closed systems where no new energy is being supplied to the system.

But the universe....now what kind of system is the universe? (this could get tricky!)

A2D

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not sure what your point is about epigenetics. There is nothing about epigenetics that goes against current evolutionary models. There is currently a lot of research going on with epigenetics and its role in the evolution of the organisms that researchers have studied.

Epigenetics is nothing more than the environment effecting hormone/protein regulation. We already know about the mechanisms, as they operate at the cellular level in the same way that genes regulate hormones/proteins that effect development.

Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as "the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms."[18] Thus epigenetic can be used to describe anything other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.

The more recent usage of the word in science has a stricter definition. It is, as defined by Arthur Riggs and colleagues, "the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence."[19] The Greek prefix epi- in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" genetics; thus epigenetic traits exist on top of or in addition to the traditional molecular basis for inheritance.

The term "epigenetics", however, has been used to describe processes which have not been demonstrated to be heritable such as histone modification; there are therefore attempts to redefine it in broader terms that would avoid the constraints of requiring heritability. For example, Sir Adrian Bird defined epigenetics as "the structural adaptation of chromosomal regions so as to register, signal or perpetuate altered activity states."[2] This definition would be inclusive of transient modifications associated with DNA repair or cell-cycle phases as well as stable changes maintained across multiple cell generations, but exclude others such as templating of membrane architecture and prions unless they impinge on chromosome function. Such redefinitions however are not universally accepted and are still subject to dispute.[4] The NIH "Roadmap Epigenomics Project," ongoing as of 2013, uses the following definition: "Epigenetics is an emerging frontier of science that involves the study of changes in the regulation of gene activity and expression that are not dependent on gene sequence. For purposes of this program, epigenetics refers to both heritable changes in gene activity and expression (in the progeny of cells or of individuals) and also stable, long-term alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell that are not necessarily heritable. While epigenetics refers to the study of single genes or sets of genes, epigenomics refers to more global analyses of epigenetic changes across the entire genome."[20]

Epigenetics Wiki


Even wikipedia, the most bland, layman's description of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis includes mention of recent findings on heredity and epigenetics.

Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by changes to the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA. These phenomena are classed as epigenetic inheritance systems.[59] DNA methylation marking chromatin, self-sustaining metabolic loops, gene silencing by RNA interference and the three-dimensional conformation of proteins (such as prions) are areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.[60][61] Developmental biologists suggest that complex interactions in genetic networks and communication among cells can lead to heritable variations that may underlay some of the mechanics in developmental plasticity and canalization.[62] Heritability may also occur at even larger scales. For example, ecological inheritance through the process of niche construction is defined by the regular and repeated activities of organisms in their environment. This generates a legacy of effects that modify and feed back into the selection regime of subsequent generations. Descendants inherit genes plus environmental characteristics generated by the ecological actions of ancestors.[63] Other examples of heritability in evolution that are not under the direct control of genes include the inheritance of cultural traits and symbiogenesis.[64][65]

Evolution Wiki

This is a new field of study and while it may modify theory in the future . . . it has absolutely no bearing on the current model being valid or stands no chance of replacing whole parts of model.

Are you arguing because you don't think biologists are working with epigenetic principles or because you assert that epigenetics can turn modern evolutionary synthesis on its head?

Seems like a lot of posts about something that falls right in line with evolution . . . environment promotes change in the organism.

You wouldn't need secret vaccination courts to protect you if you were offerring anything even remotely safe. Show me an independent study of someone not part of the FDA or the drug companies indicating safe and proven "cure" of a given pathogen and I will listen more to your argument. Dr Gary Null , google that. a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You wouldn't need secret vaccination courts to protect you if you were offerring anything even remotely safe. Show me an independent study of someone not part of the FDA or the drug companies indicating safe and proven "cure" of a given pathogen and I will listen more to your argument. Dr Gary Null , google that. a reply to: chr0naut

MMR

Before the widespread use of a vaccine against measles, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes."[7] Today, the incidence of measles has fallen to less than 1% of people under the age of 30 in countries with routine childhood vaccination.[citation needed] Reported cases of measles in the United States fell from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year following introduction of the vaccine in 1963.

Smallpox

Smallpox was eradicated by a massive outbreak search and vaccination program started in 1967, organised and co-ordinated by a World Health Organisation (WHO) unit set up and headed by Donald Henderson. The last case in the Americas occurred in 1971 (Brazil), south-east Asia (Indonesia) in 1972, and on the Indian subcontinent in 1975 (Bangladesh). What, after two years' intensive searches, proved to be the last endemic case anywhere in the world occurred in Somalia in October 1977

Polio

The development of two polio vaccines led to the first modern mass inoculations. The last cases of paralytic poliomyelitis caused by endemic transmission of wild virus in the United States occurred in 1979, with an outbreak among the Amish in several Midwest states.[20] A global effort to eradicate polio, led by the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and The Rotary Foundation, began in 1988 and has relied largely on the oral polio vaccine developed by Albert Sabin.[65] The disease was entirely eradicated in the Americas by 1994.

You asked for one . . . so, here's three. Now, you'll claim this is the "mainstream" FDA response or something, but the eradication of these viruses is evidence enough . . . no need for an "official" statement. The only instances of these viruses causing outbreak today is in populations that weren't inoculated due to years of viral absence among the population. Or, in the case of this year's MMR cases in America . . . parents who fall for the "don't vaccinate your kids" campaign . . . and then their kids get MMR.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "secret vaccination courts"? Are you referring to the fact that vaccine manufacturers are given immunity from civil action and lawsuit?

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was enacted in the United States to reduce the potential financial liability of vaccine makers due to vaccine injury claims. The legislation was aimed at ensuring a stable market supply, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. Under the NCVIA, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems like a lot of posts about something that falls right in line with evolution . . . environment promotes change in the organism.

So, that is the definition of Evolution, is it?

I think if you remove mechanism from Evolutionary Theory, it doesn't leave much of a theory.

I have previously made reference to several theories (and hypotheses) which may have a bearing on biodiversity and therefore are alternate to Evolutionary Theory (with its rigidly defined mechanisms). You just responded to one of them, namely, Epigenetics.

(I also note that your second quote speaks about the heretability of Epigentically activated attributes, so perhaps it should not be considered as a future inclusion in Evolutionary Theory, but a present one).

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You wouldn't need secret vaccination courts to protect you if you were offerring anything even remotely safe. Show me an independent study of someone not part of the FDA or the drug companies indicating safe and proven "cure" of a given pathogen and I will listen more to your argument. Dr Gary Null , google that. a reply to: chr0naut

I believe that solomons path speaks more eloquently than I, in answer to your post.

I also Google'd Mr Null but much of what came back seemed less than complementary, so I'm not sure what point you were making there in regards to Evolutionary Theory?

Sorry man, Wikipedia is not a credible source of any useful information. It is a mix and match of people inserting information that no one reviews or much less gives a crap about so try and get me some peer reviewed journals or actual " scientific " papers. To not pass go, do not collect $200.

You have a few other things a bit backwards too. Your 8 examples of "evolution" are also not from a verifiable or credible source, that was essentially a blog dude LOL... I'm a millionaire! I claimed it on a website! It must be true! Pa-Lease....

Vestigial organs, if we evolved to not need them, then why we would even grow them in the first place? Thats a pretty big logic fail.

Charles darwin is NOT a scientist, Naturalists are not scientists. Thats why they're called, you know, naturalists. Those who typically have no formal training in biology or ANY specialization of scientific research. Here's an example of a credible source on Charles darwin :

" www.egs.edu... "


"Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire England in 1809. By 1825 he was an apprentice doctor at the University of Edinburgh Medical school but he did not like the work involved.( Probably too much thinking for him ) In his second year he joined the Plinian Society, a student natural history group that engaged in discussions of radical materialism. He assisted Robert Edmund Grant in the research of marine invertebrates' anatomy and life cycle and in 1827 presented one of his own findings of black spores to the Plinian Society. Darwin also assisted collections at the University Museum. Darwin's voracious interest in natural history angered his father and he was sent to Christ's College at Cambridge in 1828 to study to become a parson but was unqualified to take anything but the ordinary degree course. " LOL...Yeah but he's got the world figured out and how it works right?

So , fine you believe in Evolution. Do you believe there is a God at all? or do you think you just randomy appeared here by means of a chain of other random events? Evolution doesn't explain the origin of our world, us, the universe. There is nothing random about anything here or in the universe. I'm sure you know about the Fibonacci Sequence? There is mathmatical PRECISION in everything all around you. measure the tip of your finger and follow every bone back to your shoulder, you will see that sequence, same with sunflowers, pineapples, a fly's eyeball and dozens of other examples. Its the same mathmatical formula that is being used to create it all.

My " creator god " is not just mine, but everyones. Just because you don't see it like your parents, or a TV, or anything else physical doesn't mean it isn't real man. Thats just my rant, take it for what you will. God Bless


reply to: Prezbo369

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You wouldn't need secret vaccination courts to protect you if you were offerring anything even remotely safe. Show me an independent study of someone not part of the FDA or the drug companies indicating safe and proven "cure" of a given pathogen and I will listen more to your argument. Dr Gary Null , google that. a reply to: chr0naut

"Secret vaccination courts"??? WTF are those?

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Vestigial organs, if we evolved to not need them, then why we would even grow them in the first place? Thats a pretty big logic fail.

We evolved them, they had use, no they have no use. No environmental pressures to lose them = carry around them as vestigials. Explain the logic why they would be designed with these useless parts.

a reply to: GetHyped

WTH has this BS gone on for 16 pages? The OP was never interested in honest answers or debate.

Why even bother with these people? They have their minds made up, and nothing will change that save perhaps their own personal journey of discovery. That's just an unfortunate fact of human existence - you can't change minds, people need to change their own mind through their own discovery.

This debate was settled a long, long time ago, at least as far as the the scientific community is concerned. That does not concern the OP - they will just continue to put their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"

They only have a problem with evolution (and with some of them, climate science). They don't put all of science up to the same standard, they just pick on the parts they do not like and which do not conform to their worldview.

Let the baby have their bottle. The OP wants to believe in fairy stories, let them.

OTH - there are people reading this who may be on the fence, and in this regard many of the answers here have been very relevant. To those people I implore you to honestly seek out the evidence with a truly open mind. Don't listen to the creationist propaganda, do your own research independently, the truth of it is there for you to find out, but only if you have the courage to confront your own preconceptions.

The truth really is out there, but you are going to need true courage and intellectual honesty to find it.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Let the baby have their bottle. The OP wants to believe in fairy stories, let them.

I wish things were that simple. For example, my 4 year old loves Pokemon - he believes they are real, even he never seen one except on TV. No big harm, eventually he will figure out that Pokemon is just product of someone's imagination.

But in OP case, this is person that by all standards should be able to differentiate between made up folklore stories and reality. Believe that there is little angry man in the sky who watches everything we do and cares for each one of us... that there was virgin birth 2k years ago, that kid walked on water, made wine into water, healed sicks, died, came back... and interestingly even we know that story got copied from Hinduism, people still believe all that?!

Now, that might not be a problem in Australia, where I believe you are from, but here in USA - those people are trying to place their beliefs in public schools, student's text books etc... Just look at this article... blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Those people are not joke... and avoiding confrotation might not be an option, or our kids might learn that earth is created in 6 days as part of history?!

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

The simplest refutation of the "defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" dispute is to just say that Earth isn't a closed system. It receives much of its energy from the sun. The 2nd law applies to closed systems where no new energy is being supplied to the system.

But the universe....now what kind of system is the universe? (this could get tricky!)

A2D

The universe's system is undefined.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

... it's still a hypothesis:

Panspermia

OK, I'll concede that Panspermia has insufficient evidence to be regarded as a scientific theory.

But do these semantic games either support or disprove my statement that 'Biological Evolutionary Theory, as it is currently defined, is insufficient to account for biodiversity and change rates that are observed; and that, therefore, factors outside that theory must be invoked'?

It isn't semantic games. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is VAST. To confuse the two is folly and then to try to dismiss it like it is no big deal is even worse. There is nothing semantic about it. That's like trying to say a typewriter is the same as a computer. Sure you could upgrade the typewriter (turn it into a keyboard) and attach it to a computer, but they certainly aren't the same thing nor are comparable. Therefore your entire conclusion "Biological Evolutionary Theory, as it is currently defined, is insufficient to account for biodiversity and change rates that are observed; and that, therefore, factors outside that theory must be invoked" has no supporting premises or reasoning.

But besides that, it is incorrect. If a factor outside of Evolutionary theory is discovered that helps manipulate biodiversity is discovered, it is incorporated into Evolutionary theory. That is how science works. It adapts to new information and modifies existing theories to account for them. The only time it doesn't work that way is if the new evidence DIRECTLY conflicts an existing theory. But that doesn't hold true for anything you've said.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Sorry man, Wikipedia is not a credible source of any useful information. It is a mix and match of people inserting information that no one reviews or much less gives a crap about so try and get me some peer reviewed journals or actual " scientific " papers. To not pass go, do not collect $200.

Actually wikipedia is highly sourced. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, it shows you where all the information came from. Also it is HEAVILY moderated. If you try to put incorrect information up, especially for a popular topic like evolution, it will be taken down quickly and you will probably have your account infracted. It may not be the BEST source you could use, but it is far and away not the worst.

Vestigial organs, if we evolved to not need them, then why we would even grow them in the first place? Thats a pretty big logic fail.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We grew them in the first place because they had a purpose at the time. Eventually as evolution changed our bodies, we don't need them anymore, but they haven't evolved completely away or they are adapting to new functions. How about explaining why a god would give us useless organs?

Charles darwin is NOT a scientist, Naturalists are not scientists. Thats why they're called, you know, naturalists. Those who typically have no formal training in biology or ANY specialization of scientific research. Here's an example of a credible source on Charles darwin :

Who cares about Charles Darwin and what he thinks anyways? The theory of evolution has moved FAR beyond what Charles Darwin first spoke about.

So , fine you believe in Evolution. Do you believe there is a God at all? or do you think you just randomy appeared here by means of a chain of other random events? Evolution doesn't explain the origin of our world, us, the universe. There is nothing random about anything here or in the universe. I'm sure you know about the Fibonacci Sequence? There is mathmatical PRECISION in everything all around you. measure the tip of your finger and follow every bone back to your shoulder, you will see that sequence, same with sunflowers, pineapples, a fly's eyeball and dozens of other examples. Its the same mathmatical formula that is being used to create it all.

I'm agnostic. But as far as a god existing, evolution doesn't disprove god. They can exist together. In fact if a god exists, they probably do exist together.

Nope evolution doesn't explain the origin of anything. Science has different theories and hypotheses about that. This thread is about all of them (by mislabeling them all as evolution)

My " creator god " is not just mine, but everyones. Just because you don't see it like your parents, or a TV, or anything else physical doesn't mean it isn't real man. Thats just my rant, take it for what you will. God Bless

Prove it and I'll be happy to believe in it.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
You wouldn't need secret vaccination courts to protect you if you were offerring anything even remotely safe. Show me an independent study of someone not part of the FDA or the drug companies indicating safe and proven "cure" of a given pathogen and I will listen more to your argument. Dr Gary Null , google that. a reply to: chr0naut

do you remember smallpox or polio?

a reply to: chr0naut
A very succinct and simplified definition. Maybe better stated as a "summation".

It seems epigenetics is beginning to to be incorporated into Evolutionary Theory. However, theories "evolve" and just like Evolution, it takes time for acceptance by all. That acceptance is based on gathering enough support (evidence) to show the validity of the data.

Patience grasshopper . . .

It's funny that you've brought up epigenetics. The new episode of the show "Wormhole" dealt with current research indicating that poverty influences genetics or is even determined by genetics. However, what they were talking about is really epigenetics, as it was the conditions of living in poverty or not that was responsible for this change.
(I wish I could be more specific, but I admit that is was simply on in the background. I'll have to sit down to watch again to be more specific, but I'm sure one could find something on the internet that speaks to this research.)

EDIT - Ah heck . . . here is the google search page for "Is Poverty Genetic?" . . .
Google - Is poverty genetic

a reply to: wyrmboy12

I know you weren't responding to my Wiki inclusions about vaccines, but to Prezbo. However, as I posted the most recent Wiki involved response to you . . . I'll address that. Well, actually it already has been! And Krazyshot is right . . . wiki entries are sourced, if you have a problem with the info. I post wiki for easy access to the most condensed info on a subject. However, if any of that is wrong . . . please introduce me to these modern post-vaccine Americans living with polio, smallpox, or rubela. I'm sure since vaccines are all a scam, you should be able to round up quite a few?

In Darwin's day there was no formal "Biology" or "Biologists" . . . It was an emerging field and most naturalists were what we consider today to be biologists.

Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history

So then I guess Newton was also not a "scientist"? After all . . . he was not a physicist, even though he wrote about it and his work is "promoted" by physicists. Poor argument buddy. Science can be practiced by anyone . . . it relies on evidence and the validity of the evidence . . . not labels.

The rest of your post sounds like you get too much of your own info blogs and churches. I know this, as you are using age old creationist arguments.