What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Barcs

The research of Dr Mengele produced on twins was supposedly to identify that heredity was more important than environment. These twins had limbs amputated unnecessarily and were infected with various diseases just to compare progress. One instance was that two twins were sewn together back to back to simulate cojoined twins. They died of gangrene. Most of the victims were then either sent to the gas chambers or killed by lethal injection (personally administered by Mengele)

Mengele published three peer reviewed scientific papers from his research.

It was a case of the misapplication of science.

Actually . . . I think you are seeing this wrong, as well.

The issue wasn't "a misapplication of science". The "science" involved or that he was looking into wasn't "misapplied". The objections to his work rested in ethics (or lack there of) and the fact that most of his work had no medical relevancy.

The main issue with Mengele's work was his methodology. It was the fact that he used live human subjects. It was extremely unethical and even grotesque. But, the "science" had nothing to do with his work. He was simply a deranged individual who enjoyed playing "erector set" with living subjects . . . basically, a serial killer who happened to be a doctor.

Once again, it was a case of an immoral man who saw no issue carrying out experiments on those that were deemed "inferior" and therefore not worthy of raising the normal moral objections or ethical concerns.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut
science is a tool that can be used for good and evil. the actions of man is a different discussion. you can't discredit science because it was used for evil by evil ppl.

i don't understand how you explain a natural observation with a god. i have to stress this point.

but i think i know. you assume god created everything therefore everything is a product of god. a rather large assumption that i would say requires a very big leap of faith.

Christianity is a tool that can be used for good and evil. the actions of man is a different discussion. you can't discredit Christianity because it was used for evil by evil people.

i don't understand how you explain a natural observation without a God. i have to stress this point, life is far more complex than mere chance, everything is far more complex as the OP states.

but i think i know. you assume chance created everything therefore everything is a product of chance. a rather large assumption that i would say requires a very big leap of faith.

a reply to: borntowatch

It's not chance though.

a reply to: borntowatch

i don't understand how you explain a natural observation without a God.

It's easy.. Most natural laws are well understood and all without a puppet master.
When you understand how you dismiss other gods you will understand how to dismiss yours.

well explain them, thats all I asked in the opening post

You say its not chance, then why the Big Bang, why abiogenesis, why did it all start.

What cased the beginnings of all the non chances

Go read the opening post and explain why its not chance to you.

By all means dismiss God, dont dismiss the questions I asked

a reply to: borntowatch

That's not fair to ask. You asked about the theory of Evolution, as per your title. No, you didn't even ask, you asserted that it isn't what some think. If you have to ask now, I guess you were right that it isn't what "some" (you) thought, so that's fair, but you didn't ask about the Big Bang or abiogenesis. You asserted that those things were "evolution" based on a biased website. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think it's honest and I don't particularly like dishonesty. (Do not misinterpret, I don't mind you asking these questions, I just want you to approach it honestly.)

To help answer, currently science is limited in understanding what has happened to mere moments after the Big Bang. I'm not an expert, but (I play one on tv... no, wait...) I have a vague understanding of physics, despite theoretical physics being way beyond me(see, honesty). I'd suggest reading some general information about the Big Bang from wikipedia and moving into the source material they cite. Everything after the Big Bang is pretty reliably understood, though, mostly. (Especially when you get to the macro scale.)

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

That's not fair to ask. You asked about the theory of Evolution, as per your title. No, you didn't even ask, you asserted that it isn't what some think. If you have to ask now, I guess you were right that it isn't what "some" (you) thought, so that's fair, but you didn't ask about the Big Bang or abiogenesis. You asserted that those things were "evolution" based on a biased website. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think it's honest and I don't particularly like dishonesty. (Do not misinterpret, I don't mind you asking these questions, I just want you to approach it honestly.)

To help answer, currently science is limited in understanding what has happened to mere moments after the Big Bang. I'm not an expert, but (I play one on tv... no, wait...) I have a vague understanding of physics, despite theoretical physics being way beyond me(see, honesty). I'd suggest reading some general information about the Big Bang from wikipedia and moving into the source material they cite.

Everything after the Big Bang is pretty reliably understood, though, mostly. (Especially when you get to the macro scale.)

Stop it, stop framing my question to avoid answering it

Evolution means
evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛv-/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
2.
the gradual development of something.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More www.google.com.au...=Evolution+define

So read point 2, gradual development.....even language evolves


Now what has your answer got to do with natural law, how does natural law explain the big bang or abiogenesis


and it might be reliably understood but its not scientifically proven

a reply to: borntowatch

In terms of evolution itself (not talking about the big bang or abiogenesis here) it is an entirely non-random process.

Mutations are random, yes, but then the process of selection applies a non-random element.

Imagine if you were trying to guess a combination lock of six digits.

Randomly guessing the entire sequence would in all probability take you many eons to complete.

However, imagine if you had a mechanism for checking each digit as you entered it. As you enter each digit, some mechanism will tell you if that number is correct or if it is incorrect.

Under this regime, guessing the sequence will take you a considerably lesser amount of time.

Your random number generator guesses 6 for the first digit. Your checking mechanism tells you this is wrong. You try again, your mechanism tells you your guess of 8 is wrong. You try again. You guess 4. Your mechanism tells you this guess is correct.

You proceed to the next number.

Using this process, in quite a short amount of time you have the combination code.

This mechanism is a form of selection. It is directly analogous to natural (or artificial) selection.


Basically you have non-random selection acting upon a random number. The result is a non-random process.

a reply to: borntowatch

Now what has your answer got to do with natural law, how does natural law explain the big bang or abiogenesis

What are you going on about? you seem to be very confused about natural processes.
Are you suggesting that the big bang or abiogenesis violat the physical laws of nature?
If so, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally...Magic? If magic is responsible then you have all the answers, why do you even care what I know?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: borntowatch

Now what has your answer got to do with natural law, how does natural law explain the big bang or abiogenesis

What are you going on about? you seem to be very confused about natural processes.
Are you suggesting that the big bang or abiogenesis violat the physical laws of nature?
If so, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally...Magic? If magic is responsible then you have all the answers, why do you even care what I know?

I am just asking for a reasonable explanation as to how they happened.

Your post has given me no new insite, and yes they seem to violate the physical laws of nature, unless you can explain how they happened

Sounds like you dont know to much or hiding something

originally posted by: chr0naut
There were several equally likely and reasonable conclusions. They only published one. Up until the time they published, the most likely common ancestor was the Chimp/Human one at 50 million years. Their work identified that there was a possibility that a Gorilla/Human common ancestor existed much more recently, although there is no other corroborative evidence for this. I would conclude that they chose the most sensational conclusion so that they would get recognition, academic and popular.

POSSIBLY. No need to go further. I don't know if you are quoting the study or not, but to say something is possible doesn't even remotely suggest that it is definite. And they are most likely correct that there IS a common ancestor with a gorilla more recent than 50 million years.

They should have stuck to conclusions supported by the data. The minute that they raised a speculative conclusion, they should have identified it as such and mentioned alternate possibilities suggested by the data as being equally valid.

Why does the conclusion that there MIGHT be a common ancestor with a gorilla less than 50m years ago bother you so much? Sounds like you are just nitpicking a study, which I haven't yet seen. What's the name of it again? If you posted it, I can't find it or it was from a while back. I can search google scholar with the best of them, so all I need is the name.

To write their conclusion and name their article in such a way as to suggest it was the only, or most likely conclusion, was unethical, but it did give the authors recognition. Their motivation is clear.

If you are suggesting that Gorillas and humans do not share a common ancestor within 50m years, then you are off your rocker. 8-10m with chimps, why would Gorilla be 50m+ years? That doesn't even make sense.

Evolution and classification
The closest relatives of gorillas are chimpanzees and humans, all of the Homininae having diverged from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago.[6] Human gene sequences differ only 1.6% on average from the sequences of corresponding gorilla genes, but there is further difference in how many copies each gene has.[7]

Gorilla wiki seems to agree with the study you are referring to.

It was a case of the misapplication of science.

Bingo. You got it. It was the human that misapplied it. It wasn't the fault of science. Researching nuclear bombs is scientific. Deciding to use them is not. Heredity is equally important as the environment in evolution, but since the environment changes, no species or race is really favorable to others, aside from the short term. If some event or natural disaster happened and the average temperature of the world increased by 10 degrees, there's a good chance that many humans die out as a result and the ones more tolerant to heat and less susceptible to skin cancer survive (people of African descent with more melanin). If that happened and Hitler had been successful exterminating all non aryans, the human race could go extinct because of his unscientific stupidity. Now, if it dropped 10 degrees, it would probably favor a completely different group of humans. Sometimes it's just pot luck. Genetic divergence can only take you so far. The environment ultimate decides who is favored or "fit" at the time.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

In terms of evolution itself (not talking about the big bang or abiogenesis here) it is an entirely non-random process.

Mutations are random, yes, but then the process of selection applies a non-random element.

Imagine if you were trying to guess a combination lock of six digits.

Randomly guessing the entire sequence would in all probability take you many eons to complete.

However, imagine if you had a mechanism for checking each digit as you entered it. As you enter each digit, some mechanism will tell you if that number is correct or if it is incorrect.

Under this regime, guessing the sequence will take you a considerably lesser amount of time.

Your random number generator guesses 6 for the first digit. Your checking mechanism tells you this is wrong. You try again, your mechanism tells you your guess of 8 is wrong. You try again. You guess 4. Your mechanism tells you this guess is correct.

You proceed to the next number.

Using this process, in quite a short amount of time you have the combination code.

This mechanism is a form of selection. It is directly analogous to natural (or artificial) selection.


Basically you have non-random selection acting upon a random number. The result is a non-random process.

ahh so evolution is like a padlock, like a blind watchmaker

Come on you dont really expect me to believe a single cell turned in to a human, based on a combination code


Codes are made by code makers and cracked by code crackers, they dont just form by chance, so i dont see how they could form by chance or what ever in nature with out design
as for complexity increasing, no i dont see that in nature eitrher without design, you know, entropy


what i dont understand is how you cant understand why i dont accept evolution
its beyond me that you cant see the issues i have with what you believe and accept them

a reply to: borntowatch

I am just asking for a reasonable explanation as to how they happened. Your post has given me no new insite, and yes they seem to violate the physical laws of nature, unless you can explain how they happened Sounds like you dont know to much or hiding something

Did it ever occur to you that the "reasonable explanation" is we don't know?
But "we don't know" does not in any way suggest that we will never know. However, if we invoke gods or magic then the buck stops there and we will in fact... never know.
Just think about it, if scientist just gave up on the hard questions and simply inserted their favorite deity in the gap, we would still be living in caves worshiping son gods.

originally posted by: borntowatch
well explain them, thats all I asked in the opening post

You say its not chance, then why the Big Bang, why abiogenesis, why did it all start.

What cased the beginnings of all the non chances

Go read the opening post and explain why its not chance to you.

By all means dismiss God, dont dismiss the questions I asked

You are bringing up irrelevant issues. Why did it all start? Nobody knows. Is there even an answer to the why? You are asking the wrong questions. Scientists are asking "HOW" not "WHY". If god did it, that is HOW he did it and HOW it functions (evolution & abiogenesis or panspermia). Why not just let scientists keep working to try to figure out the answer instead of proclaiming them all wrong in their efforts to study it, before they have even found a conclusion? Lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't automatically mean god did it. Sorry, but that argument has been destroyed dozens and dozens of times, it has no logical roots whatsoever. Lack of understanding doesn't equal a god or creator. If you want to talk about any of those subjects in the OP you need to be specific. You are simply making extremely broad statements and grouping several entire fields of science into a few sentences each. It doesn't do the science justice. If you've like to bring up a specific point about the big bang, abiogenesis or evolution, then please do it. Simply proclaiming that things are too perfect to happen naturally is just stating your opinion and has no relevance if you are trying to debate science or answer the big question.

and it might be reliably understood but its not scientifically proven

You have that backwards, my friend. It IS scientifically proven, but it's not reliably understood what caused it.

Also when people talk about evolution they are talking about biological evolution, def#1. Big bang / abiogenesis has nothing to do with it. Big bang - abiogenesis - evolution are all completely unrelated.

am just asking for a reasonable explanation as to how they happened.

So are the scientists. I would just let them do their job instead of fighting them every step of the way because of a holy book assembled and written by humans. If we have this reasonable explanation in 20 years, will you accept it? I doubt it.

Come on you dont really expect me to believe a single cell turned in to a human, based on a combination code

And this is why you fail. A single cell did not turn into a human. You have no understanding of evolution, and simply thrive on blanket statements and broad generalizations.

what i dont understand is how you cant understand why i dont accept evolution
its beyond me that you cant see the issues i have with what you believe and accept them

Because your reasoning is nonsensical. You haven't brought up a single point against the science behind evolution. Not a single one. You just make claims using buzz words and catch phrases. Until you address the actual science, you are doing nothing more than preaching, I'm sorry.

a reply to: borntowatch

You are doing the same thing for the word "evolution" that is constantly done with the word "theory". You are conflating the scientific definition with the every day meaning. So either you don't understand that the same word can have different meanings, based on context, or you are intentionally being obtuse as those that try to conflate scientific theory with the other usage of "theory" in everyday context (which is more like a guess).

Biological evolution (Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or ToE) does not employ the same processes, mechanisms, laws that biogenesis ("a" or otherwise) or cosmology operate under. So, they are NOT "various types of evolution".

By your own post above with the dictionary, where you copy and pasted the definition, there is clearly a demarcation between the two meanings . . That is why they are numbered 1 and 2.

You are also being dishonest in your searching for an "answer" as mentioned already. This is an internet forum . . . not a science lecture or class. You didn't wander into a meeting of cosmologists, chemists, biologists here . . . If you are truly seeking answers, go to authorities on the subject and give yourself a foundation of knowledge first. If you aren't willing to do that, then you are just trying silly parlor tricks to score one for your (and your god's) ego.

You are broaching subjects that each have their own specialized fields that you could spend a lifetime learning in . . . That is why a cosmologist or astrophysicist may be able to give you a general overview of the processes that lead to biological evolution, but if you wanted to argue the "fine points" they would tell you to "go talk to an evolutionary biologist or biochemist". . . . And, vice versa. Expecting posters on a gD conspiracy site to fill you in to all things natural is disingenuous . . . and yet, many have answered your questions and tried to give you a basic understanding. Which you simply ignore and keep asking the same questions . . . special pleading at best . . . and ? at worst.

You also don't seem to understand (or intentionally conflating for effect of confirmation bias) that asking "why" to matters of science is never going to get you a clear answer. In your specific instances, "why" is a philosophical question and has no bearing on the evidence or natural processes that lead to the outcome. You are not "stumping" anyone with them and they do not support your notion that "scientists don't really know what they are talking about". In fact, they point to just the opposite . . . that you have no idea what you are talking about when trying to discuss such matters.

When "science" answers questions like "WHY are roses red"? . . .It is not actually answering "WHY", it is an explanation of HOW our eyes see roses as red (wavelengths, lensing, absorption, reflection, electrical translation). Just a simple of explanation of the processes, not the "motivation" of the flower or the emotions elicited by sight.

You seem to not only want the "detective" to use forensics to tell you HOW the killer pulled it off, but also explain to you WHY the killer did what he did and what his motivations were. And, when the "detective" cannot satisfy the last requirement, you seem to think this means the "detective" obviously has to be wrong about the HOW and therefore we should let the killer go and "fire the detective for incompetence". Sounds rational, huh?

a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy again,

You didn't seem to get my last post. You asked for an answer on the origins of the universe, and I said I didn't have it. Now, just because I don't have one doesn't automatically make your assertion of god correct, so don't try that one, alright? ;D I do believe someone has already mentioned that to be the God of the Gaps argument, and I'll leave it at that.

Now, you also seemed critical of my negativity towards your blatant redefinition of the term evolution. In science, words mean very specific things. Scientists operationalize what the terms they use so that other scientists can understand exactly what they mean in an attempt to replicate experiments and truly interpret data. I must insist that we use standardized scientific definitions, as they are indeed important to understanding what you want to know.

Also, your recent post indicates you want to learn about arguments people have offered refutations for. If you'd like to learn and don't wish to read, The Richard Dawkins Foundation... has a wonderful series on youtube called "Waking Up in the Universe" entirely free and at a basic level of understanding. (It was originally for younger thinkers, but I still find the series excellent for getting someone a basic understanding.)

You also erroneously call into play entropy, for reasons beyond my understanding. I must therefore assume you do not understand thermodynamics... I assume, so please correct me if I am wrong, that you think complexity cannot develop on the Earth because, generally, the universe tends toward total entropy. I will refute this by simply stating that that is only the case for non-open systems. The Earth is an open system, receiving energy from the sun (eventually the sun can no longer fuse elements, running out of energy, preserving total entropy...). This solar energy allows organisms on the Earth to move away from entropy and develop complexity. See, total entropy preserved, localized ability to grow complexity.

I really do recommend that series by the way. Douglas Adams makes an appearance(so it might be a bit dated). I only ask that you sit through it despite Dawkins's nasally voice and general arrogance.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

In terms of evolution itself (not talking about the big bang or abiogenesis here) it is an entirely non-random process.

Mutations are random, yes, but then the process of selection applies a non-random element.

Imagine if you were trying to guess a combination lock of six digits.

Randomly guessing the entire sequence would in all probability take you many eons to complete.

However, imagine if you had a mechanism for checking each digit as you entered it. As you enter each digit, some mechanism will tell you if that number is correct or if it is incorrect.

Under this regime, guessing the sequence will take you a considerably lesser amount of time.

Your random number generator guesses 6 for the first digit. Your checking mechanism tells you this is wrong. You try again, your mechanism tells you your guess of 8 is wrong. You try again. You guess 4. Your mechanism tells you this guess is correct.

You proceed to the next number.

Using this process, in quite a short amount of time you have the combination code.

This mechanism is a form of selection. It is directly analogous to natural (or artificial) selection.


Basically you have non-random selection acting upon a random number. The result is a non-random process.

ahh so evolution is like a padlock, like a blind watchmaker

Come on you dont really expect me to believe a single cell turned in to a human, based on a combination code


Codes are made by code makers and cracked by code crackers, they dont just form by chance, so i dont see how they could form by chance or what ever in nature with out design
as for complexity increasing, no i dont see that in nature eitrher without design, you know, entropy


what i dont understand is how you cant understand why i dont accept evolution
its beyond me that you cant see the issues i have with what you believe and accept them

There you go again inventing straw men . . . But, how else can you create an appeal to emotion and philosophical objection to simple facts of nature.

Nothing in nature happens by "chance" and no scientific field of study claims such. IF biology started on this planet through means of Abiogenesis . . . then the conditions that led to it were not "chance". Each condition was a result of the effects of the previous condition. Elements all have unique properties that determine their behavior and interactions with other elements. Properties and behaviors we understand quite well . . . SO THERE IS NO CHANCE.

That is an age old argument, created by creationists (religious people), to pull on the heart strings of gullible believers, in order to keep them from straying from the flock. And, is based (as stated previously) on the appearance of the word "random" in "random mutations" and not understanding (or in the case of the religious science deniers) or intentionally trying to confuse the audience of the meaning. Either you know this . . . or you are one of the gullible.

And PLEASE don't tell me you actually tried to employ the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics against evolution? You really should brush up on your arguments and bring them "up to date" . . . that has been thoroughly debunked since the 60's and never applied to the evolution or life on this planet anyway, as they are NOT CLOSED SYSTEMS. Even creation.com lists it in its "Arguments we think creationists should not use" page. Really?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: borntowatch
Did it ever occur to you that the "reasonable explanation" is we don't know?
But "we don't know" does not in any way suggest that we will never know. However, if we invoke gods or magic then the buck stops there and we will in fact... never know.
Just think about it, if scientist just gave up on the hard questions and simply inserted their favorite deity in the gap, we would still be living in caves worshiping son gods.

Thanks I am aware that we dont know, hence my issues with your beliefs and why I have mine.

I am not stopping science from investigating anything, nor condemning your beliefs, I accept them as reasonable and dont have an issue with people who accept evolution.

I am just trying to explain why this hat doesnt fit my head.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy again,

You didn't seem to get my last post. You asked for an answer on the origins of the universe, and I said I didn't have it. Now, just because I don't have one doesn't automatically make your assertion of god correct, so don't try that one, alright? ;D I do believe someone has already mentioned that to be the God of the Gaps argument, and I'll leave it at that.

Now, you also seemed critical of my negativity towards your blatant redefinition of the term evolution. In science, words mean very specific things. Scientists operationalize what the terms they use so that other scientists can understand exactly what they mean in an attempt to replicate experiments and truly interpret data. I must insist that we use standardized scientific definitions, as they are indeed important to understanding what you want to know.

Also, your recent post indicates you want to learn about arguments people have offered refutations for. If you'd like to learn and don't wish to read, The Richard Dawkins Foundation... has a wonderful series on youtube called "Waking Up in the Universe" entirely free and at a basic level of understanding. (It was originally for younger thinkers, but I still find the series excellent for getting someone a basic understanding.)

You also erroneously call into play entropy, for reasons beyond my understanding. I must therefore assume you do not understand thermodynamics... I assume, so please correct me if I am wrong, that you think complexity cannot develop on the Earth because, generally, the universe tends toward total entropy. I will refute this by simply stating that that is only the case for non-open systems. The Earth is an open system, receiving energy from the sun (eventually the sun can no longer fuse elements, running out of energy, preserving total entropy...). This solar energy allows organisms on the Earth to move away from entropy and develop complexity. See, total entropy preserved, localized ability to grow complexity.

I really do recommend that series by the way. Douglas Adams makes an appearance(so it might be a bit dated). I only ask that you sit through it despite Dawkins's nasally voice and general arrogance.

Clearly I didnt get your last post
and I didnt say my God belief was correct (though I believe it is)
Do you see your belief is correct, do you say that and demand I believe?

again as for the choice of words, I will agree with your wishes...IF...you can supply an alternate word/s to define the other theorys that I can only define as evolutions.

As for entropy, that little nutcracker. Where does/did the sun receive its energy from

The earth is an open system but is the sun, is the universe, doesnt seem so


I am not arguing with you, this isnt a fight, I totally understand why you cant accept "God did it". What I dont understand is how (all?) evolutionists cant understand the creationists perspective at all.

a reply to: borntowatch

You misunderstand.

I am not saying evolution is a code or a padlock. I am trying to show you how a non-random selection process acting upon a random event works and how small cumulative changes made this way can add up to huge results.