Watch Evolution in Action

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am sure someone will perform necromancy on this thread in the coming weeks and months.

hopefully they reboot it the way other threads keep getting rebooted...you know...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh I am sure it will reincarnate next week in that case. Same words, different face saying them

a reply to: whereislogic

youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

Nice videos. You could be half way to a compelling case, so I rounded up and gave you a star. I think the things mentioned in the videos you posted are worth examining, but you also need to look at the other side. Around 6:00 into the first one he says evolutionists admit their theory is fatally flawed and basically retreat to a faith position. Somehow, I don't think he's giving an accurate explanation of their position. Can you show a respected evolutionist speaking for their self on this matter?

As I understand it, genetic entropy is supposed to be the driving mechanism for mutation and evolution. As he said, a small percentage of those mutations are 'good'. Remember, in terms of natural selection, good genes are those that allow the organism to survive and pass their genes down to the next generation, while 'bad' genes are those which reduce the organism's chances of passing down their genes. So, geriatric diseases are 'neutral', or even 'good' (handicapping or eliminating the parents can mean less competition for the offspring), as long as those carrying those genes can pass them successfully to the next generation. He didn't seem to be using 'good' and 'bad' in the sense the evolutionists use them. He also seemed to be talking about artificial selection rather than natural selection. As long as some mutations are beneficial (which he acknowledged), I don't see what would stop natural selection from leading to 'better' (as in: more likely to pass down genes) generations over time.

youtu.be...

Now we see quotes from a bunch of people who believed in, and even contributed to the theory of evolution, stating that the majority of mutations are harmful. I think you would do well to do more research into the people quoted in this video. You should either find why they are justified in promoting their theory despite the quotes presented here, or find where they went wrong and correct their mistakes. Once again, even if a fraction of these normally lethal mutations are beneficial, it seems to me natural selection can still work its wonders. Why does it put the eye as an example of something evolutionists have no explanation for?

I'd suggest you do some research on every claim made, and every person quoted in that video. But speaking generally on how things can evolve mechanisms which they rely on... Their ancestors supposedly didn't rely on those things (wings, spider webs, mammary glands etc...). If they could get by without them why did they develop? According to the theory of evolution, it was because of random mutations. Darwin didn't say mutations were created purposefully to solve problems or improve situations (remember all those quotes saying the majority of mutations were actually detrimental). He said mutations that happen to improve survival and reproduction rates would increase the statistical representation of those carrying the mutations due to natural selection.

So, the ancestors didn't need things like webs or mammary glands. Mutations gave advantages to some decedents. Natural selection fine tuned the advantageous mechanisms to their current state of sophistication. If the adaptation is reliable enough, the old mechanisms the ancestors relied on may even be lost. So, if you see something with a sophisticated mechanism that it can't do without, I think that's the evolutionist explanation.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I think we have a consensus that you only blabber your side of your argument. Psychobabble.

Aren't you the Lamarckist?

"The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. "

That's Lamarckism^ Not Darwinism/Modern-evolutionary-synthesis. Do you know what you believe?

Why don't you argue the evidence rather than repeating ad infinitum your fabricated positions which are based on no evidence? Very disingenuous and telling that you NEVER respond in kind - you only respond repeating your own mantra.

Which came first the gene or the chaperonin genes necessary for proper expression of the gene? There's other necessary modulatory mechanisms and they could not have all evolved at once, yet, one is useless without the other. We see these interdependent proteins in the simplest bacteria, Even Prokaryotes, indicating there are no living organisms without these mechanisms.

What do chaperonins have to do with the papers which I cited in this link in response to your position :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why don't you respond to the previous responses to your posts which you still have not done. If you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion, then say so and we'll move on.

I won't allow you to change the subject merely because you choose to do so. When you respond to the link above, then we'll move on to chaperonins. Agreed?

And while you're at it, how about responding to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You accused some posters of an absolutely ridiculous notion. Please substantiate your claim. Thanks.

a reply to: VP740

A few quick things to point out:

The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral, not harmful. Beneficial (Good) or Harmful(bad) mutations are rare. This is why I don't buy the argument that more harmful mutations bears any indication on the genome breaking down.

Genetic entropy is not the explanation for mutations. Environmental factors can cause mutations, as well as copying mistakes. I'm not sure what you mean by genetic entropy. A google search returned mostly creationist links that talk about DNA breaking down over time, but I don't see any reason for this to happen, since the vast majority of mutations are neutral and the harmful ones don't last. It sounds like the genetic entropy proponents are basically re-branding genetic drift, but I don't see how this is bad for evolution in any way.

I'll second the notion to research every claim made, especially in regards to the people that were interviewed. I would definitely not take any video at face value that uses terms like "evolutionist" "darwinist" etc.

a reply to: Barcs

As far as I can tell "genetic entropy" has only ever been used by the creationist camp. It was I think (its hard to tell) coined by John A. Sanford. That gentleman is not an unbiased commentator. A quick amazon search shows this in spades.

a reply to: Barcs
OK, so most genetic mutations are neutral. I guess they meant when mutations alter the phenotype it's usually detrimental? But even assuming most mutations are bad, natural selection eventually steps in to save the day!

I didn't invent the term genetic entropy. As near as I can tell, genetic entropy means copying mistakes, or any unpredictable changes to the genetic code. Here's the information theoretic definition of entropy: Wikipedia. Environmental factors can cause mutations, but evolution seems mainly gene driven.

Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I understand the other sides neighbour, ( there are many sides to the argument) and you've gone and made it all dualistic, which is a little stereotypical, even for a creationist.

There is a couple things going on here, the attempt to create the illusion that science and religion are equally valid options, selling the idea that science is unreliable and touting creationism, as if it had any possible legitimacy.

One approach.. the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, AKA "false dilemma". The two model approach creationists claim to have created a valid dichotomy, but it is instead a false dichotomy. They posit two and only two models, their "creation model" and their "evolution model" and they claim to be mutually exclusive. which is a logical fallacy and a common means of deception and of demagoguery.

The second.. Is the creationist false equivalence, this is done by projecting their fallacies onto the scientist or like minded debating them.

It’s an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow equally valid options, as if science were unreliable or as if creationism ever had any possible legitimacy.
The game is played by creationists pretending to be objective when we know they are not, while projecting all of their own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course will not share any of those flaws.
That game typically has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:
* That evolution is a religion
* That science relies on faith, just like religion does
* That science is biased just like religion is
* That there is no evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc.
* That there is evidence for creation, Noah’s flood, God, etc.
* That religion is reasonable just like science is
* That religion can be confirmed empirically and experimentally just like science
* That creationism is somehow scientific

Link

You can see these dishonest tactics all over these forums, it's a distraction because they don't have any evidence for their creation model. And actually presenting their "creation model" would reveal their deception, cause there is no such thing as a creation model.

a reply to: flyingfish

I am well aware of whats going on I've played this game for decades with creationists. All the while laughing when I get called an athiest. I'm more theistic than creationists (more Gods ) .

Like I said there are many sides here, and its as usual Abrahamic duality that assumes it is only two. Mean while the vast majority of Abrahmic folk are face palming at the Zealots.

a reply to: Noinden
I admire your honesty and integrity, you are a rare bird in these parts.

a reply to: flyingfish

I am impelled by my spirituality to "an fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil". This is the truth against the world. Speak the truth no matter how unpopular. As an intellectual (thus the equivalent of my ancestral Druids, Bards, etc) it is a moral requirement. That is as far as my spirituality influences my science.

I work in a CRO (Contract Research Organization) as a process development Chemist. I take the bench scale dreams of clients, and make them kilo to ton realities, so they can see if they cure the ills of the world. I speak the truth to my clients as well.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Barcs
OK, so most genetic mutations are neutral. I guess they meant when mutations alter the phenotype it's usually detrimental? But even assuming most mutations are bad, natural selection eventually steps in to save the day!

Correct, and that's why I do not see the logic in their argument. Detrimental mutations die out, so they don't affect the long term gene pool. The ones that stick around are either neutral or beneficial. It doesn't matter that beneficial are the most rare. They happen and they stick.

I didn't invent the term genetic entropy. As near as I can tell, genetic entropy means copying mistakes, or any unpredictable changes to the genetic code. Here's the information theoretic definition of entropy: Wikipedia. Environmental factors can cause mutations, but evolution seems mainly gene driven.

Information theory is a bit shaky if you are trying to explain genetics because DNA is not really computer software. It has a code, but seemingly no program, the physical mechanisms drive it. There's no reason to expect the same type of decay we see with digital software and information on computers. Evolution is gene driven. Genes don't necessarily decay, they change over time.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: whereislogic
...even if a fraction of these normally lethal mutations are beneficial, it seems to me natural selection can still work its wonders.

That's because you haven't given it much thought. If certain types tell you a convincing story that this is possible (as if natural selection is a magic wand), you will believe and trust them. And you are reluctant to think this through*.

Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge.
...
The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14)

Source: Understanding: Insight

The effects of natural selection have already been accounted for in the video from the geneticist. It doesn't change what he's saying. I also tried to remind people of that when I was referring to the effect of "mutations acted upon by natural selection" over multiple generations (also because I was thinking of the thoughts you just expressed and attempting to address those right away, I'm often hoping to skip the figurative 'surface' of the line of argumentation). That longterm effect is genetic degredation according to all the statistics that have been observed in relation to what one could interpret as "beneficial", "detrimental" or "neutral" to the organisms (regarding their fitness for survival in a given environment and their overall health). As well as according to direct experiments of genetic lineages (organisms that are known to be genetically related through direct experimentation with those organisms, usually lineages of bacteria cause they reproduce nice and fast; but much experimentation has also been done with plants).

What you're perhaps thinking about is that somehow somewhere 1 organism gets a mutation that's beneficial but none of the detrimental ones, that is unrealistic if you observe how mutations work. If you're thinking (or acknowledging) that if 1 organism gets 1 beneficial mutation for every 10000 or more "detrimental" ones (I'm not exaggerating the actual statistics), that you can still think of that organism being fitter for its environment and going in the direction of for example prokaryotic unicellular bacteria to humans, then you're deceiving yourself with false reasoning.

Perhaps this video can be of help for those who don't get bogged down on the word "information" or the term "new information", regarding this subject of a slow but steady degredation of the information that is specifically required for the operations within living cells (note that I'm using the word "information" in the same way it is used in many textbooks, teachings and instructional videos concerning cell biology, it's not a complicated word requiring 'debate about words', a behaviour described in the bible regarding a specific type of people):

Note once more (cause I have a feeling some people might not be able to resist starting that debate I'm thinking about now, in spite of my double 'note' now) that I'm not sharing the video above regarding the subject or terminology "increase of information" but regarding the subject of "a slow but steady degredation of the information that is specifically required for the operations within living cells" which is speaking of going from a state of functional order for this information that is specifically required for these specific operations, to a state of disfuntional disorder for this information that is specifically...yadayada (that's a lot more specific and has been observed statistically and experimentally in the way I described earlier in the comment).

* (at the beginning of this comment), especially regarding whether or not you really understand what you believe natural selection (Mother Nature/Gaia, the laws of nature, natural processes, etc.) is capable of.

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. - Isaac Newton

originally posted by: Phantom423

What do chaperonins have to do with the papers which I cited in this link in response to your position :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why don't you respond to the previous responses to your posts which you still have not done. If you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion, then say so and we'll move on.

I won't allow you to change the subject merely because you choose to do so. When you respond to the link above, then we'll move on to chaperonins. Agreed?

And while you're at it, how about responding to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You accused some posters of an absolutely ridiculous notion. Please substantiate your claim. Thanks.

In my opinion material reductionism is a ridiculous notion.

Just relax.

You still never found the paper from that post you're getting excited about.

a reply to: Barcs

There may be 'information' beyond the genetic code involved, but information theory applies perfectly to the sequences of molecules composing DNA. If I understand correctly, increase in genetic entropy means increase in genetic complexity due to random mutation. This is not only compatible with the theory of evolution, it's like they're rephrasing the theory, and saying evolution is impossible if you phrase it this way!

a reply to: whereislogic

That's because you haven't given it much thought. If certain types tell you a convincing story that this is possible (as if natural selection is a magic wand), you will believe and trust them. And you are reluctant to think this through*.

I have a question for you. Does this quote apply to you? How much time have you spent considering the standard explanations on evolution with an open mind? When a creationist says something about an evolutionist or an evolutionist's theory, do you just listen and take them at their word, or do you question them and do research to see if what they're saying is true? And are you really insisting that one must believe in the supernatural to understand the world correctly, while you accuse me of believing in a 'magic wand'?

Here's the thing, he says the degradation of the genetic code over time is inevitable. What genetic code? The original. This shouldn't bother the evolutionists at all, as they believe the replacement of the original code with the more complex code is exactly what evolution is.

a reply to: VP740

This shouldn't bother the evolutionists at all, as they believe the replacement of the original code with the more complex code is exactly what evolution is.

I'm not sure what you mean by evolutionist (there are biologists and geneticists who study evolution, of course) or complex code. But evolution has nothing to do with increasing complexity of genetic information. It is about changes in the genetics of a population.

If any particular genetic mutation (change) proves to enhance the likelihood that an organism will reproduce, the population of which that organism is a member will, over time, produce more individuals with that mutation than those without. It's a pretty obvious and basic concept.

Mutation does not imply greater complexity. The mutated genes which cause blue eyes are not more complex than the "original" genes, they are different versions of them.

a reply to: VP740

Whats an evolutionist? No seriously, if you do science, you accept theories. Evolutionists are not a sect in science. There are no Thermodyamicist, kineticists, gravitationalists, or SN1ists for example. all of those are theories in science, and I mean theory in the scientific sense in that "there is evidence that has been tested".

So to use the phrase evolutionist, or Darwinist labels you either a Victorian era time traveler, or someone ignorant of the facts. Which is it ?

a reply to: Phage

But evolution has nothing to do with increasing complexity of genetic information. It is about changes in the genetics of a population.

You're right, but if we're allowed to make changes which increase the length of the code, the code will most likely become more complex over time, if we keep making random changes to it. If we'r not allowed to increase the length of the code, that will set a theoretical limit (though it may be a large one) as to how far evolution can 'go'.

a reply to: Noinden

So to use the phrase evolutionist, or Darwinist labels you either a Victorian era time traveler, or someone ignorant of the facts. Which is it ?

OK you caught me. I'm a Victorian era time traveler.

Actually, I'm just borrowing the language I hear from the other side that I'm talking to. It seems likely that evolutionist means anyone who believes in evolution. I hope I'm using their language correctly.