It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't READ - that's why you don't understand PROCESS.


JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Role of Randomness in Darwinian Evolution*

www.jstor.org...

Abstract

Historically, one of the most controversial aspects of Darwinian evolution has been the prominent role that randomness and random change play in it. Most biologists agree that mutations in DNA have random effects on fitness. However, fitness is a highly simplified scalar representation of an enormously complex phenotype. Challenges to Darwinian thinking have focused on such complex phenotypes. Whether mutations affect such complex phenotypes randomly is ill understood. Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation. Thus, living beings may translate DNA change into nonrandom phenotypic change that facilitates Darwinian evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

It's statistically obvious that intelligent agency is more likely to create ordered systems than by random chance.

So what's the fundamental difference between an "ordered system" and "random chance"? How did you calculate those "statistics"? Where's your model? Where's your numbers? Where's the math?

Here's some help (which you badly need): download a copy of Mathematica - work out the numbers and then come back.
www.wolfram.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423


So what's the fundamental difference between an "ordered system" and "random chance"? How did you calculate those "statistics"? Where's your model? Where's your numbers? Where's the math?

You are purposefully ambiguating obvious concepts. Ordered systems are put in order by intelligent agencies. Ask Ford, ask Tesla, ask Edison, ask any inventor. And you want proof that machines need a creator? Or that coding needs a coder? Does an automobile assemble itself? Do robots assemble themselves? Humans are organic robots, and we replicate with the genetic code. It's called code for a reason. If you want to purposefully avoid the obvious answer that's ok. Every computer I have ever used required a programmer - including my body.

Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation.

Of course adaptation mechanisms are non-random. Don't you see the obsessive compulsion to try to make it seem like evolution did it? These adaptation mechanisms are tightly-knit homeostatic mechanisms that ensure organisms can adapt to extreme environments. Again, does a thermostat self-assemble? No, it require an intelligent electrician to hook it up to the electrical mainframe.

a reply to: cooperton

You are purposefully ambiguating obvious concepts. Ordered systems are put in order by intelligent agencies. Ask Ford, ask Tesla, ask Edison, ask any inventor. And you want proof that machines need a creator? Or that coding needs a coder? Does an automobile assemble itself? Do robots assemble themselves? Humans are organic robots, and we replicate with the genetic code. It's called code for a reason. If you want to purposefully avoid the obvious answer that's ok. Every computer I have ever used required a programmer - including my body.

I understand your logic and it makes sense if you're thinking like a layman with no science background - if DNA is a code, who and where is the coder?? But that just leads to a circular argument because we can't prove that there's a coder, nor can we prove there isn't. All we have is models and experiments that we design and execute in the lab. From the results, we calculate the statistics and probability that result "x" has a high or low probability of occurring naturally. A mutation is a perfectly natural event - happens hundreds of times a day. Does mutation require an outside trigger? No. Is it random? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I'm not disagreeing with your analogy. What I disagree with is a lack of interest in the past, present and future of research that deals with complex problems. A scientist doesn't relegate what he/she doesn't understand or can't figure out to an outside force that can't be proven. A scientist continues to accumulate information in the hope of adding more knowledge to the database of existing knowledge.

Think of all the unsolved problems in quantum mechanics. They're tough and complex. Does the scientist just give up and say "a super being must have done it". Does the scientist just drop the ball and walk away?

You obviously know quite a bit about science and how it works. So you should know that until there's hard evidence to back up your opinion, it remains an open question. And once again, the data accumulated in the field of evolution is enormous. Therefore, one of two things need to happen here: 1) scientists who oppose the theory need to prove that the research is faulty or 2) proof that another theory (any theory including a god-designer) has enough evidence to supplant the current view.

Of course adaptation mechanisms are non-random. Don't you see the obsessive compulsion to try to make it seem like evolution did it? These adaptation mechanisms are tightly-knit homeostatic mechanisms that ensure organisms can adapt to extreme environments. Again, does a thermostat self-assemble? No, it require an intelligent electrician to hook it up to the electrical mainframe.

This is really the same argument as above. It's logical to think that a car cannot self assemble. But is it logical to think that micelles cannot self assemble? No. Because the weight of the evidence says that they do self assemble. Does the phenomenon of self assembly occur in nature. Yes it does. So how do you approach the problem of DNA? Can it self assemble or does it require outside input? We don't know the complete answer. But we have enough evidence to say that it's worth continuing the search for more knowledge about the process. If you relegate the answer to a god-designer, then you may as well shut down the lab and stop asking questions.

a reply to: Phantom423

This is what religious followers almost demand we do... give it all up and accept that God did it... not just God but their god of course.

Funny thing is even when one actually agrees with the idea.. then it comes down to your god vs mine

They only attack evolution because it disagrees with their ancient holy text... which is why most will not even attempt to read a scientific journal on the subject

Heaven forbit something show their texts to be outdated or just wrong

a reply to: Akragon

Religion doesn't conflict with science. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims accept evolution as a scientific phenomenon. And they understand that the Bible isn't a work of science.

Creationism, however, isn't a religion nor is it Christian. I'ts a cult based on fraud and deception. Ken Ham latched on to the movement and has exploited pseudoscience and ignorance to make millions, even while bankrupting a whole town in Kentucky to create his Disneyworld of Creationism.

Followers usually fall into the lame, lazy and crazy category and have no concept of real science. I have no objection to what people believe - they can have all the pet dinosaurs they want. What I object to is outright fraud and exploitation.

a reply to: Phantom423

See you know this, I know this, most people know this. However we've seen time and time again on here, Zealots, who call those who understnad this, "not real Christians/Jews/Muslims" and thus begins the "no real Scotsman" fallacy that always enters here.

a reply to: Phantom423

Basically fundamentalism... not sure i'd call it a cult though. Theres far to many factions to be considered a single entity... its more of a belief system based on literal translation of their texts.

And of course their "god" either wrote or inspired/dictated the whole thing so anything that doesn't agree with said doctument is easily dismissed... theres no need to even read anything that disagrees with it because we're talkkng God here... scientists are only human

And its almost always, if not exclusively christian... which is a term that can barely even be defined anymore with 40k plus flavors

plus i can't say i've ever seen an athiest that denies sciences. I mean even flat earthers who are just uneducated dolts still point to the bible

I attended one of these churches a number of years back... unfortunately its incredible what one will do for a woman

a reply to: cooperton

Humans are organic robots, and we replicate with the genetic code. It's called code for a reason. If you want to purposefully avoid the obvious answer that's ok. Every computer I have ever used required a programmer - including my body.

Hey Coop -

What about all other organisms? Including on other planets?

What about viruses? What are they programmed to do?

a reply to: Noinden

You're right. And the Christians in particular offer the "flavor of the month" choice - you don't like what they're teaching today, move on to the next one. If you can't find a compatible Christian sect, then start your own! It's ridiculous IMO, but that's just me. Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. As a Jew myself, I wish they would get over it already! And given what goes on at the Vatican, it's beyond comprehension that anyone practices Catholicism any more.

a reply to: Akragon

The reason I chose the word "cult" is because Creationist talking points are so out of touch with reality that the only comparison I can make is with the likes of the Jim Jones cult in Guyana. I wouldn't put it past Ken Ham to do something similar - as long as he's making money. Ham has more money schemes than Al Capone.

originally posted by: Phantom423
A scientist doesn't relegate what he/she doesn't understand or can't figure out to an outside force that can't be proven. A scientist continues to accumulate information in the hope of adding more knowledge to the database of existing knowledge.

Certainly, and I think the data has been demonstrating for a long time that organisms, solar systems, and physical forces are meticulously designed systems that act according to very particular laws to maintain their equilibrium. Science grants us the empirical evidence to make our conclusions on the world view. I am only presenting the information that insists on an intelligent force responsible for the creation of the world we see around us. Because of the inherent short-comings of scientific observation - epitomized by the observer effect - we are left to use our deduction ability to interpret the data in an all-encompassing manner. A theory of everything if you will. For me, evolutionary theory was a dead end, and I could no longer reconcile various observable phenomenon with its various postulates.

My biggest quom with zealous adherents to evolutionary theory is that they do not leave room for more comprehensive ideas to be conceived, because they hold evolutionary theory as dogmatic truth. When in actuality, Lamarckism has more credibility that Darwinian evolution at this point.

I did not come to these conclusions through blind zeal for any religious belief, I came to my current belief system by critically analyzing empirical observations without bias.

originally posted by: Akragon

plus i can't say i've ever seen an athiest that denies sciences.

I have denied no science. Point to any comment I have made in the past 6 months where I am denying an empirical observation as reality. You equate my scrutiny of a popular scientific theory with science denial. It is this sort of religious zeal that prevents actual scientific progress. The blind followers are the fuel.



"It is popular opinion among scientists to believe it, it must be true! I'll relegate all my thinking to them"

game over

a reply to: cooperton

Certainly, and I think the data has been demonstrating for a long time that organisms, solar systems, and physical forces are meticulously designed systems that act according to very particular laws to maintain their equilibrium. Science grants us the empirical evidence to make our conclusions on the world view. I am only presenting the information that insists on an intelligent force responsible for the creation of the world we see around us. Because of the inherent short-comings of scientific observation - epitomized by the observer effect - we are left to use our deduction ability to interpret the data in an all-encompassing manner. A theory of everything if you will. For me, evolutionary theory was a dead end, and I could no longer reconcile various observable phenomenon with its various postulates. My biggest quom with zealous adherents to evolutionary theory is that they do not leave room for more comprehensive ideas to be conceived, because they hold evolutionary theory as dogmatic truth. When in actuality, Lamarckism has more credibility that Darwinian evolution at this point. I did not come to these conclusions through blind zeal for any religious belief, I came to my current belief system by critically analyzing empirical observations without bias.

Your empirical observations are your observations. It is not empirical evidence publishable in a scientific journal. You're certainly entitled to your conclusions but they don't hold up against the preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution.

To have any validity at all, you would have challenge the current research data including the methodology and compare it to your own. I and others have asked you to do this but to this day, you have not.

There's no dogma to evolution or any other tenet of science. It's knowledge added to knowledge. Anyone is free to challenge the knowledge with competing evidence. You don't do that. You only compete on a personal opinion level - nothing more.

Blind zeal applies to the person who holds an opinion that can't be backed up with hard evidence.

And once again, as I have asked on many occasions, pick out a few papers in a recognized journal and discuss them. Why are they wrong and how does your evidence prove that they're wrong. This is how science is done. If your conclusions are merely based on your own observations and faith, then so be it. But at least admit it.

a reply to: Phantom423

creationists accept evolution because it is useful to base your fictions on a kernel of truth. there is no supernatural factor in the process of modern evolutionary synthesis but they will still insist that evolution is a part of the holy plan. like those group projects where you do all the work and everyone else just shows up and accepts the good grade you earned by yourself.