It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Seeking Help: My Problem with Evolution
page: 2share:
reply to post by TheAlmo
I apologize for also being part of the agnostic side-topic. I was attempting to offer a defense from the "You have to be agnostic", and "Agnostics are bad" arguments, which I saw as both flawed and Off-topic.
However.. just to finish that:
reply to post by Blaine91555
Exactly, it's the meaning behind words. However, for example, if I said being christian meant being a baby killer, that wouldn't mean that you aren't a christian(Unless you are actually a baby killer, which seems unlikely). It would mean that my definition is wrong, and you would dismiss it as wrong right away.
To not belief in any deities, which is what most atheists are saying when they describe themselves as atheists, is not saying they have 100% proof no deities exist. No where in the definition of 'atheism' does it say that a person beliefs they do. Gnostic Atheists believe such, but they are a minority, and are their own classification. So your whole argument, fails short on the fact that it's targeting a belief that most atheists don't have.
I don't have 100% proof the Easter bunny doesn't exist. I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof that all the conspiracies on this site are wrong, I still don't believe any of them either.
I don't have 100% your god doesn't exist, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof someone elses god doesn't exists, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof Russel's Teapot doesn't exist, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof real psychics exist, I still don't believe in them.
You could say I'm agnostic about all of the things above, but it doesn't change that I don't believe in them.
When something is unsupported, and you have no given reason to belief in it, you don't. There are many things I'm sure you don't believe in under that reasoning. You don't need 100% proof to not believe in. If there's an absence of reason to believe in something(Such as proof supporting it), you don't believe.
Also...
If everyone on the planet shared my beliefs, there would be no wars, no violence, no hate and it's difficult for me to see the wrongness in that and yet many hate me because of that. Hate comes from fear always. What is it about the idea of loving each other as brothers and sisters on this planet that scares some so much. Even many who falsely claim to believe in something they don't practice engage in hate.
I can say it to and be equally true.
reply to post by TheAlmo
To help move things back on topic, there is a lot of documentation on the evolution of the eye. I don't know how much you've actually read about evolution, but I assure you that all your concerns have been touched on by science, and most(if not all) have been explained. I think you may need some clarifying on how the whole mutation and natural selection thing is proposed to work to build off first.
Here's an easy to swallow video that talks about the eye a lot, which you gave mentioned.
And the author even dedicated a video to the supposed rebuttals.
Hopefully, some clarification can be gained out of those.
~
Hope that helps some.
I apologize for also being part of the agnostic side-topic. I was attempting to offer a defense from the "You have to be agnostic", and "Agnostics are bad" arguments, which I saw as both flawed and Off-topic.
However.. just to finish that:
reply to post by Blaine91555
Exactly, it's the meaning behind words. However, for example, if I said being christian meant being a baby killer, that wouldn't mean that you aren't a christian(Unless you are actually a baby killer, which seems unlikely). It would mean that my definition is wrong, and you would dismiss it as wrong right away.
To not belief in any deities, which is what most atheists are saying when they describe themselves as atheists, is not saying they have 100% proof no deities exist. No where in the definition of 'atheism' does it say that a person beliefs they do. Gnostic Atheists believe such, but they are a minority, and are their own classification. So your whole argument, fails short on the fact that it's targeting a belief that most atheists don't have.
I don't have 100% proof the Easter bunny doesn't exist. I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof that all the conspiracies on this site are wrong, I still don't believe any of them either.
I don't have 100% your god doesn't exist, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof someone elses god doesn't exists, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof Russel's Teapot doesn't exist, I still don't believe in it.
I don't have 100% proof real psychics exist, I still don't believe in them.
You could say I'm agnostic about all of the things above, but it doesn't change that I don't believe in them.
When something is unsupported, and you have no given reason to belief in it, you don't. There are many things I'm sure you don't believe in under that reasoning. You don't need 100% proof to not believe in. If there's an absence of reason to believe in something(Such as proof supporting it), you don't believe.
Also...
If everyone on the planet shared my beliefs, there would be no wars, no violence, no hate and it's difficult for me to see the wrongness in that and yet many hate me because of that. Hate comes from fear always. What is it about the idea of loving each other as brothers and sisters on this planet that scares some so much. Even many who falsely claim to believe in something they don't practice engage in hate.
I can say it to and be equally true.
reply to post by TheAlmo
To help move things back on topic, there is a lot of documentation on the evolution of the eye. I don't know how much you've actually read about evolution, but I assure you that all your concerns have been touched on by science, and most(if not all) have been explained. I think you may need some clarifying on how the whole mutation and natural selection thing is proposed to work to build off first.
Here's an easy to swallow video that talks about the eye a lot, which you gave mentioned.
And the author even dedicated a video to the supposed rebuttals.
Hopefully, some clarification can be gained out of those.
~
Hope that helps some.
reply to post by Blaine91555
I pretty much agree with your statement, I don't believe we have enough data to know for sure what the universe is all about and we may not even be able to understand it if the knowledge were presented to us....i.e my reference to the chimpanzee comprehending the difference between diesel and unleaded fuel. You get a star!
I pretty much agree with your statement, I don't believe we have enough data to know for sure what the universe is all about and we may not even be able to understand it if the knowledge were presented to us....i.e my reference to the chimpanzee comprehending the difference between diesel and unleaded fuel. You get a star!
reply to post by TheAlmo
It wasn’t a design in the first place. It was an accident. It only became a design after the environment ‘approved’ it.
I am a writer and a musician. I create things for a living. I used to work in advertising, where I was usually part of a team with an art director or graphic designer. I am intimately familiar with the process of designing things, and I am happy to reveal to you that it is essentially one of choosing from amongst options that present themselves to the mind. Often we try these options out before making our choice, and a key element of the choice – always – is whether or not the creative option chosen will work when used together with choices already made. For example, as a writer, I could not give a character in a story an aversion to heights if I have already given him a job as a high-rise construction worker. If I were laying down a guitar track on a recording, I would have to reject all musical ideas that were in a different key or tempo from what was already recorded.
These are crude examples; usually the criteria of choice are much subtler than this. However, the point stands: the creative process is precisely one of choice – of selection – and a key criterion of choice is whether the creation works or not.
That is exactly what the environment does. The environment is the designer.
Nobody. And it doesn’t always go in a ‘constructive’ way. There are plenty of animals that have evolved eyes only to lose them again. The species of fish that answers to my screen name is one of them: Astyanax mexicanus
Yes, I do call it a coincidence. No, I don’t see a problem. As I said before, fish and insects have eyes that work perfectly well without eyelids. Starfish of some species have eyes (nothing more than photosensitive cells, really) scattered all over their bodies. Nothing at all like ‘eyes’ as you and I understand the term, but the starfish can ‘see’ well enough with them. Photosensitive cells that sense movement by registering sudden changes in ambient brightness offer a selective advantage to the worms that have them; they avoid predators by using them. From such humble beginnings, the sophistication and versatility of a human, bird or octopus eye may evolve. Or it may not.
How do ions precipitating out of a salt solution form such perfect geometrical crystals? How do snowflakes acquire their intricate ‘designs’? How do the strings of an Aeolian harp make music? How do social movements form out of the unplanned actions of thousands of human beings? How does history happen?
Why do the failed prototypes have to work? Failure in this context is precisely failure to work.
I think your problem with evolution is not intellectual but intuitive. You have a handle on the mechanics of the process but you can’t make yourself believe it actually works like that. This is partly because you are the victim of a few philosophical misconceptions, such as the belief that evolution is goal-oriented, or that a string of random processes always produces a random result.
Here’s a thought: from the issues you articulate, it is clear that you regard evolution as something that happens at the level of species. It is not. Evolution is best thought of, not as a competition between different species, or groups within a species, or even between individuals, but as competition between genes. Plants and animals are just the survival machines that genes build to help them keep going and reproduce.
Look at it from that perspective, and I think you will see a lot of your objections disappear.
The environment that you say is responsible for the design is not responsible for the design. It's responsible for APPROVING an already existing design that came about through the process of mutation which I think is not capable of producing anything at all. How did this mutation become what it is in the first place? That's my question.
It wasn’t a design in the first place. It was an accident. It only became a design after the environment ‘approved’ it.
I am a writer and a musician. I create things for a living. I used to work in advertising, where I was usually part of a team with an art director or graphic designer. I am intimately familiar with the process of designing things, and I am happy to reveal to you that it is essentially one of choosing from amongst options that present themselves to the mind. Often we try these options out before making our choice, and a key element of the choice – always – is whether or not the creative option chosen will work when used together with choices already made. For example, as a writer, I could not give a character in a story an aversion to heights if I have already given him a job as a high-rise construction worker. If I were laying down a guitar track on a recording, I would have to reject all musical ideas that were in a different key or tempo from what was already recorded.
These are crude examples; usually the criteria of choice are much subtler than this. However, the point stands: the creative process is precisely one of choice – of selection – and a key criterion of choice is whether the creation works or not.
That is exactly what the environment does. The environment is the designer.
Who made sure that the evolutionary path for the eye keeps going ONLY in a cumulative/constructive direction so it will turn from a bunch of photosensitive cells into the complete eye that we have?
Nobody. And it doesn’t always go in a ‘constructive’ way. There are plenty of animals that have evolved eyes only to lose them again. The species of fish that answers to my screen name is one of them: Astyanax mexicanus
So you call it a coincidence that this protective layer called eyelid got evolved even though no one is trying to make sure our eyes will be better off when they are protected? Can you see the problem here?
Yes, I do call it a coincidence. No, I don’t see a problem. As I said before, fish and insects have eyes that work perfectly well without eyelids. Starfish of some species have eyes (nothing more than photosensitive cells, really) scattered all over their bodies. Nothing at all like ‘eyes’ as you and I understand the term, but the starfish can ‘see’ well enough with them. Photosensitive cells that sense movement by registering sudden changes in ambient brightness offer a selective advantage to the worms that have them; they avoid predators by using them. From such humble beginnings, the sophistication and versatility of a human, bird or octopus eye may evolve. Or it may not.
A random process cannot produce any working prototypes. It just can't...
How do ions precipitating out of a salt solution form such perfect geometrical crystals? How do snowflakes acquire their intricate ‘designs’? How do the strings of an Aeolian harp make music? How do social movements form out of the unplanned actions of thousands of human beings? How does history happen?
You have to produce a lot of working prototypes and only those that are accepted by the filtering done by natural selection will be allowed in.
Why do the failed prototypes have to work? Failure in this context is precisely failure to work.
I think your problem with evolution is not intellectual but intuitive. You have a handle on the mechanics of the process but you can’t make yourself believe it actually works like that. This is partly because you are the victim of a few philosophical misconceptions, such as the belief that evolution is goal-oriented, or that a string of random processes always produces a random result.
Here’s a thought: from the issues you articulate, it is clear that you regard evolution as something that happens at the level of species. It is not. Evolution is best thought of, not as a competition between different species, or groups within a species, or even between individuals, but as competition between genes. Plants and animals are just the survival machines that genes build to help them keep going and reproduce.
Look at it from that perspective, and I think you will see a lot of your objections disappear.
edit on 18/11/11 by Astyanax because: of works.
reply to post by AQuestion
Interestingly, you are correct. The existing islands have only been sticking out of the water for a couple of million years or less. Most of them are less than seven hundred thousand years old.
Age of the Galapagos Islands at the University of Oregon
Evolutionary age of the Galápagos iguanas predates the age of the present Galápagos islands at PubMed
Are flightless Galapaganus weevils older than the Galápagos Islands they inhabit? at PubMed
This isn’t, however, the torpedo beneath the waterline of evolutionary theory that some might hope it is. Darwin did find inspiration, as well as evidence for his ideas concerning evolution by natural selection, in the Galápagos. But they did not come from iguanas or weevils; they came in the form of variations in the beaks of Galápagos finches, which had evolved different shapes to adapt to differences in diet and lifestyle between populations on different islands. That kind of variation – beak shapes – is not very radical, and a few tens of thousands of years should be more than enough to ensure it. In fact, it can happen in a few generations: ‘Instant’ Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches at National Geographic.
The finches, incidentally, arrived in the Galápagos between two and three million years ago, a comfortable million-plus years after the oldest existing island, South Plaza, emerged.
Besides, the islands presently above the surface of the ocean are not the whole story of the Galápagos. On this page at the Cornell University website, you will learn that there have been islands there, rising and sinking, for at least eight million years and most probably much longer; and the magma plume that forms them has existed for at least 90 million years.
But even if the discrepancy you mention couldn’t be accounted for, it would cast no doubt on the theory of evolution. That theory is not founded merely on Darwin’s observations in the Galápagos, nor even on the vast corpus of other observations Darwin made in his life. It is founded on a century and a half of observational and experimental verification by thousands of scientists, and nowadays on molecular-biological data that Darwin never dreamed existed, but which confirms his theory perfectly and pretty much unanswerably.
You, and others here reading, may not choose to believe it, but the theory of evolution is irrefutable. It has been that way for a very long time – generations, in fact.
You are right to disbelieve this. Evolution is still happening. It never stops in any living species. True, dogs still haven’t turned into some other kind of creature despite three thousand years (not much more than that) of selective breeding. All the same, it would be very difficult to mate a Chihuahua with a St. Bernard without a lot of artificial assistance. Although these two breeds are still members of the same species, they are already showing the beginnings of species divergence.
Magnificently, perhaps, but not perfectly. Surely God, if it had been He, would have made better job of us. It is clear from the flaws and compromises evident in the morphology of our species – not just from their existence, of course, but also their nature – that we were not created as we are, but evolved to our present state.
There is a problem, the islands have a series of animals on them that do not exist anywhere else in the world and the island is too young for them to have developed. It is also very ironic.
Interestingly, you are correct. The existing islands have only been sticking out of the water for a couple of million years or less. Most of them are less than seven hundred thousand years old.
Age of the Galapagos Islands at the University of Oregon
Evolutionary age of the Galápagos iguanas predates the age of the present Galápagos islands at PubMed
Are flightless Galapaganus weevils older than the Galápagos Islands they inhabit? at PubMed
This isn’t, however, the torpedo beneath the waterline of evolutionary theory that some might hope it is. Darwin did find inspiration, as well as evidence for his ideas concerning evolution by natural selection, in the Galápagos. But they did not come from iguanas or weevils; they came in the form of variations in the beaks of Galápagos finches, which had evolved different shapes to adapt to differences in diet and lifestyle between populations on different islands. That kind of variation – beak shapes – is not very radical, and a few tens of thousands of years should be more than enough to ensure it. In fact, it can happen in a few generations: ‘Instant’ Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches at National Geographic.
The finches, incidentally, arrived in the Galápagos between two and three million years ago, a comfortable million-plus years after the oldest existing island, South Plaza, emerged.
Besides, the islands presently above the surface of the ocean are not the whole story of the Galápagos. On this page at the Cornell University website, you will learn that there have been islands there, rising and sinking, for at least eight million years and most probably much longer; and the magma plume that forms them has existed for at least 90 million years.
But even if the discrepancy you mention couldn’t be accounted for, it would cast no doubt on the theory of evolution. That theory is not founded merely on Darwin’s observations in the Galápagos, nor even on the vast corpus of other observations Darwin made in his life. It is founded on a century and a half of observational and experimental verification by thousands of scientists, and nowadays on molecular-biological data that Darwin never dreamed existed, but which confirms his theory perfectly and pretty much unanswerably.
You, and others here reading, may not choose to believe it, but the theory of evolution is irrefutable. It has been that way for a very long time – generations, in fact.
There are those who believe (and I am not one of them) that these splits occurred a long time ago and don't happen anymore. There is no science behind it and no evidence.
You are right to disbelieve this. Evolution is still happening. It never stops in any living species. True, dogs still haven’t turned into some other kind of creature despite three thousand years (not much more than that) of selective breeding. All the same, it would be very difficult to mate a Chihuahua with a St. Bernard without a lot of artificial assistance. Although these two breeds are still members of the same species, they are already showing the beginnings of species divergence.
I think we are designed magnificently.
Magnificently, perhaps, but not perfectly. Surely God, if it had been He, would have made better job of us. It is clear from the flaws and compromises evident in the morphology of our species – not just from their existence, of course, but also their nature – that we were not created as we are, but evolved to our present state.
edit on 19/11/11 by Astyanax because: of nits.
reply to post by TheAlmo
Because if it goes through the directions that does not work, offspring will tend to die, if it chooses the direction that work, offspring will tend to survive more.
And remember, there is not only one direction that can work, only one that will be chosen. Many directions can work.
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation beg to differ
Who made sure that the evolutionary path for the eye keeps going ONLY in a cumulative/constructive direction so it will turn from a bunch of photosensitive cells into the complete eye that we have? If mutation is random and not maintained or governed by anyone, then why would the evolution of the eye choose that very cumulative direction every step of the way and not go through the unlimited other directions that ALL don't work?
Because if it goes through the directions that does not work, offspring will tend to die, if it chooses the direction that work, offspring will tend to survive more.
And remember, there is not only one direction that can work, only one that will be chosen. Many directions can work.
Yes... and all it takes for me is mutation randomness. I don't care what happens after that. A random process cannot produce any working prototypes. It just can't..
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation beg to differ
edit on 19/11/11 by
Maslo because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Astyanax
Dear Astyanax,
I am absolutely not attempting to debate evolution; but, I do wish to point out a couple of things. Darwin did not invent the idea, he stole it from someone else. Having said that, it doesn't in and of itself invalidate the theory; but, he himself is given more credit than he deserves. Whether islands rose and sank still does not explain the animals that do live there, they didn't just float on the water for a thousand years plus until new islands rose. Nor is that the standard answer offered by scientists, I like the one where they say that the animals floated over on logs from south America while dying off in their native habitats.
The real issue is have we ever found an animal that split species and the answer is that we have not. Might we someday, sure why not; but, until we do the case is not closed. If we are going to use the scientific method then we should never stop re-evaluating theories and considering additional information. We should not stop considering other possibilities. Recently, it was claimed that sub-atomic particles had moved faster than the speed of light bringing into question Einstein's theories (theories which I rather liked).
In my answer I explained my biases and did not give the "God" answer. The Galapagos islands present a mystery and true science should not just ignore it. It may be that evolution happens in jumps based on some factor that we are not aware of; but, it is not as complete a picture as some might like to think. I would like to also point out that I did not get into "Creationism science" because I have not found it compelling.
Your comment above seems odd. Why is it interesting that I am correct. I was not pushing an agenda, merely responding to his question with what I knew to be true. I study lots of things, I also find the age of the Sphinx to be fascinating based on questions raised by geologists and the apparent difference in age between the head of the Sphinx and the rest of the body and that has nothing to do with God or the bible at all. I think the real risk is in automatically accepting something just because a "scientist" said so. Lets face it, the temperature on all planets in our solar system went up at the same time not because of carbon emissions; but, because of solar activity as I am pretty sure we have not discovered cars and industry on other planets in our solar system yet.
A number of years ago one scientist claimed that there had been another planet in our solar system at one time, he was ridiculed and dismissed by most others working in the field. Within the last few weeks, science is now questioning if he was correct. True science as we are taught NEVER arrives at certainty, it's highest form is to arrive at a theory. As soon as I hear someone say something is certain, I remember that and discount their ideas because they are not following the rules of science.
I found your response civil and respectful, I do hope that you found mine the same because I meant it to be. When I was young (and an agnostic) I was told that giant squids did not exist and that the sailors who talked of such things were just superstitious, that has now been proven to be false, they do exist and we have filmed them. I was also told that oil came from dead dinosaurs. Oil companies actually had commercials showing how dinosaurs died off and created oil; but, this theory has also proven to be false. When I was in school these things were taught as facts and they are not, they were theories and science proved them to be wrong. I am a believer in the scientific method and embrace it's approach, I don't respect it when it is used to push any agenda or belief and is presented as fact. By the way, I am not accusing you of such a thing, I am talking about how we should view science in general.
As for people, I still say we are a magnificent creation. Consider self awareness and our ability to even ask or attempt to answer these questions. Science began in conjunction with philosophy, it lost it's way when it separated from it. The beginning of all knowledge is philosophy, "I think therefore I am", beyond that all else is an assumption and that is why nothing in science is ever considered to be certain. The problem is that once science separated from philosophy, it became just numbers. Be well and no offense intended.
Dear Astyanax,
I am absolutely not attempting to debate evolution; but, I do wish to point out a couple of things. Darwin did not invent the idea, he stole it from someone else. Having said that, it doesn't in and of itself invalidate the theory; but, he himself is given more credit than he deserves. Whether islands rose and sank still does not explain the animals that do live there, they didn't just float on the water for a thousand years plus until new islands rose. Nor is that the standard answer offered by scientists, I like the one where they say that the animals floated over on logs from south America while dying off in their native habitats.
The real issue is have we ever found an animal that split species and the answer is that we have not. Might we someday, sure why not; but, until we do the case is not closed. If we are going to use the scientific method then we should never stop re-evaluating theories and considering additional information. We should not stop considering other possibilities. Recently, it was claimed that sub-atomic particles had moved faster than the speed of light bringing into question Einstein's theories (theories which I rather liked).
In my answer I explained my biases and did not give the "God" answer. The Galapagos islands present a mystery and true science should not just ignore it. It may be that evolution happens in jumps based on some factor that we are not aware of; but, it is not as complete a picture as some might like to think. I would like to also point out that I did not get into "Creationism science" because I have not found it compelling.
Interestingly, you are correct. The existing islands have only been sticking out of the water for a couple of million years or less. Most of them are less than seven hundred thousand years old.
Your comment above seems odd. Why is it interesting that I am correct. I was not pushing an agenda, merely responding to his question with what I knew to be true. I study lots of things, I also find the age of the Sphinx to be fascinating based on questions raised by geologists and the apparent difference in age between the head of the Sphinx and the rest of the body and that has nothing to do with God or the bible at all. I think the real risk is in automatically accepting something just because a "scientist" said so. Lets face it, the temperature on all planets in our solar system went up at the same time not because of carbon emissions; but, because of solar activity as I am pretty sure we have not discovered cars and industry on other planets in our solar system yet.
A number of years ago one scientist claimed that there had been another planet in our solar system at one time, he was ridiculed and dismissed by most others working in the field. Within the last few weeks, science is now questioning if he was correct. True science as we are taught NEVER arrives at certainty, it's highest form is to arrive at a theory. As soon as I hear someone say something is certain, I remember that and discount their ideas because they are not following the rules of science.
I found your response civil and respectful, I do hope that you found mine the same because I meant it to be. When I was young (and an agnostic) I was told that giant squids did not exist and that the sailors who talked of such things were just superstitious, that has now been proven to be false, they do exist and we have filmed them. I was also told that oil came from dead dinosaurs. Oil companies actually had commercials showing how dinosaurs died off and created oil; but, this theory has also proven to be false. When I was in school these things were taught as facts and they are not, they were theories and science proved them to be wrong. I am a believer in the scientific method and embrace it's approach, I don't respect it when it is used to push any agenda or belief and is presented as fact. By the way, I am not accusing you of such a thing, I am talking about how we should view science in general.
As for people, I still say we are a magnificent creation. Consider self awareness and our ability to even ask or attempt to answer these questions. Science began in conjunction with philosophy, it lost it's way when it separated from it. The beginning of all knowledge is philosophy, "I think therefore I am", beyond that all else is an assumption and that is why nothing in science is ever considered to be certain. The problem is that once science separated from philosophy, it became just numbers. Be well and no offense intended.
reply to post by AQuestion
Neither am I, really; I was simply discussing an interesting and relatively little-known question you raised. I do not regard the theory of evolution as debatable; it is as effectively proven as any empirical proposition can be.
Because it raises an interesting question. How did speciation occur in the Galàpagos islands if the existing islands are too young to allow enough time for it?
Exactly.
And as the links I posted earlier clearly show, science does not ignore it.
The concept of evolution is as old as the Greeks, if not older. Darwin’s contribution was to show how it works: through natural selection. He turned evolution from speculation into science. That is why he is regarded as a great scientist.
Of course it does, and of course they didn’t. In a geologically active archipelago, islands rise and sink, but if the archipelago is big enough, a few islands will always remain above the surface, so that there is always a place for animals to perch upon. As has been repeatedly observed, colonization usually begins as soon as the rock is cool enough to support life. This is hardly controversial.
You are mistaken, and the ‘answer’ you supplied earlier actually explains something different, namely how terrestrial life reaches remote oceanic islands in the first place. At least, it describes one of the means; there are several others, and life uses them all.
What about these?
Allow me to ask you a question. Clearly you do not dispute what creationists call 'microevolution’; you just don’t believe that evolution can result in species differentiation or so-called ‘macroevolution’. Leaving proof by example aside for a moment, could you explain what, in principle, forbids speciation? If it doesn’t happen, why does it not happen?
I agree with you wholeheartedly; no grown-up person should accept a claim purely on the basis of authority. However, there is a slight problem. Very few people have the intellectual and educational wherewithal to be able to judge scientific claims meaningfully. What should such people do? Stick with ideas they can understand (i.e. that ‘make sense’ to them) even if those ideas are wrong? Or accept that there are some things they cannot work out for themselves, and take the word of the authorities? Or simply not bother their pretty little heads about it all?
I await your reply to these questions with deep interest.
I am absolutely not attempting to debate evolution...
Neither am I, really; I was simply discussing an interesting and relatively little-known question you raised. I do not regard the theory of evolution as debatable; it is as effectively proven as any empirical proposition can be.
Why is it interesting that I am correct?
Because it raises an interesting question. How did speciation occur in the Galàpagos islands if the existing islands are too young to allow enough time for it?
The Galapagos islands present a mystery and true science should not just ignore it.
Exactly.
And as the links I posted earlier clearly show, science does not ignore it.
Darwin did not invent the idea [of evolution], he stole it from someone else.
The concept of evolution is as old as the Greeks, if not older. Darwin’s contribution was to show how it works: through natural selection. He turned evolution from speculation into science. That is why he is regarded as a great scientist.
Whether islands rose and sank still does not explain the animals that do live there, they didn't just float on the water for a thousand years plus until new islands rose.
Of course it does, and of course they didn’t. In a geologically active archipelago, islands rise and sink, but if the archipelago is big enough, a few islands will always remain above the surface, so that there is always a place for animals to perch upon. As has been repeatedly observed, colonization usually begins as soon as the rock is cool enough to support life. This is hardly controversial.
Nor is that the standard answer offered by scientists.
You are mistaken, and the ‘answer’ you supplied earlier actually explains something different, namely how terrestrial life reaches remote oceanic islands in the first place. At least, it describes one of the means; there are several others, and life uses them all.
*
The real issue is have we ever found an animal that split species and the answer is that we have not.
What about these?
Allow me to ask you a question. Clearly you do not dispute what creationists call 'microevolution’; you just don’t believe that evolution can result in species differentiation or so-called ‘macroevolution’. Leaving proof by example aside for a moment, could you explain what, in principle, forbids speciation? If it doesn’t happen, why does it not happen?
I think the real risk is in automatically accepting something just because a "scientist" said so... I am a believer in the scientific method and embrace its approach, I don't respect it when it is used to push any agenda...
I agree with you wholeheartedly; no grown-up person should accept a claim purely on the basis of authority. However, there is a slight problem. Very few people have the intellectual and educational wherewithal to be able to judge scientific claims meaningfully. What should such people do? Stick with ideas they can understand (i.e. that ‘make sense’ to them) even if those ideas are wrong? Or accept that there are some things they cannot work out for themselves, and take the word of the authorities? Or simply not bother their pretty little heads about it all?
I await your reply to these questions with deep interest.
edit on 19/11/11 by Astyanax because: of flab.
reply to post by Astyanax
Dear Astyanax,
I found your questions polite and valid. I hope you find my responses the same. I will start by saying that I was at a wake today for a friend, so please recognize that I am not in my best state of mind.
I don't follow "creationism", I find it too biased. I am a Christian but that doesn't mean that I blindly follow every moron out their that says they are a Christian too. I wrote a thread on why I thought the moron that said the world was going to end a few months ago was a false prophet and was attacked by atheists more than other Christians.
I never said that speciation was impossible. What I said was that we needed evidence that such a thing occurred. In fact, I offered the possibility that these things could occur in jumps caused by something that we are not currently aware of. I believe in the scientific method and would never say that something is completely impossible. I deal with probabilities, I studied statistics among other things.
I respectfully disagree with the above quote. If we explain complicated things to people using philosophy rather than "proofs", most people can understand. I work with very highly technical people and very non-technical people and over the years I have found that you can interpret just about anything in both directions. The problem is never the receiver, it is the responsibility of the sender to make sure that they are speaking in a language that their receiver can interpret.
I wish to again reiterate that I have found your responses to be very civil and I do hope that you have found mine to be responsive and also civil. I am not looking for a fight and I do not believe you are either. May I now ask you a question? Math assumes that there can be a zero, nothingness if you will. Is this possible? You exist, you are self aware and if you are not, I exist and I am self aware. In algebra the truth that we know can only be expressed with the thought that in certain situations X cannot equal zero. Sentience is and that is the only that cannot be denied. There is intelligence in the universe; however, quantum physics says that there must be multi or alternate universes for any of this to make sense.
I have quite intentionally not gotten into a "God" discussion and I have not promoted a "creation science" agenda or discussion. If you wish to continue the conversation (and I have no problem with you, your questions or your approach) then I ask that you treat my comments and statements as someone who believes in the scientific method. If you wish to discuss my spiritual beliefs (and I am not accusing you of attempting to put me in this box) then I will suggest that we start a separate thread in the spirituality section.
Sentience (self awareness - not everyone knows the word, not aimed at you) did not develop from rocks and water. It is. That is a fact. Science continues to attempt to tell us that we have no free will or self directedness, that we are merely responding to stimuli. My question is simple, do you believe that you have free will? Now, if your answer is yes, please give me a scientific answer that responds to that. I am not coming at you from a religious perspective, I am addressing issues raised by philosophers for thousands of years and I happen to be Aristotelian in nature. I am enjoying our conversation and am more than happy to pursue it further as long as it remains civil and from what you have said so far, I believe you are capable of such a thing and I hope you believe I am capable of such a thing. Be well.
Dear Astyanax,
I found your questions polite and valid. I hope you find my responses the same. I will start by saying that I was at a wake today for a friend, so please recognize that I am not in my best state of mind.
Allow me to ask you a question. Clearly you do not dispute what creationists call 'microevolution’; you just don’t believe that evolution can result in species differentiation or so-called ‘macroevolution’. Leaving proof by example aside for a moment, could you explain what, in principle, forbids speciation? If it doesn’t happen, why does it not happen?
I don't follow "creationism", I find it too biased. I am a Christian but that doesn't mean that I blindly follow every moron out their that says they are a Christian too. I wrote a thread on why I thought the moron that said the world was going to end a few months ago was a false prophet and was attacked by atheists more than other Christians.
I never said that speciation was impossible. What I said was that we needed evidence that such a thing occurred. In fact, I offered the possibility that these things could occur in jumps caused by something that we are not currently aware of. I believe in the scientific method and would never say that something is completely impossible. I deal with probabilities, I studied statistics among other things.
I agree with you wholeheartedly; no grown-up person should accept a claim purely on the basis of authority. However, there is a slight problem. Very few people have the intellectual and educational wherewithal to be able to judge scientific claims meaningfully. What should such people do? Stick with ideas they can understand (i.e. that ‘make sense’ to them) even if those ideas are wrong? Or accept that there are some things they cannot work out for themselves, and take the word of the authorities? Or simply not bother their pretty little heads about it all?
I respectfully disagree with the above quote. If we explain complicated things to people using philosophy rather than "proofs", most people can understand. I work with very highly technical people and very non-technical people and over the years I have found that you can interpret just about anything in both directions. The problem is never the receiver, it is the responsibility of the sender to make sure that they are speaking in a language that their receiver can interpret.
I wish to again reiterate that I have found your responses to be very civil and I do hope that you have found mine to be responsive and also civil. I am not looking for a fight and I do not believe you are either. May I now ask you a question? Math assumes that there can be a zero, nothingness if you will. Is this possible? You exist, you are self aware and if you are not, I exist and I am self aware. In algebra the truth that we know can only be expressed with the thought that in certain situations X cannot equal zero. Sentience is and that is the only that cannot be denied. There is intelligence in the universe; however, quantum physics says that there must be multi or alternate universes for any of this to make sense.
I have quite intentionally not gotten into a "God" discussion and I have not promoted a "creation science" agenda or discussion. If you wish to continue the conversation (and I have no problem with you, your questions or your approach) then I ask that you treat my comments and statements as someone who believes in the scientific method. If you wish to discuss my spiritual beliefs (and I am not accusing you of attempting to put me in this box) then I will suggest that we start a separate thread in the spirituality section.
Sentience (self awareness - not everyone knows the word, not aimed at you) did not develop from rocks and water. It is. That is a fact. Science continues to attempt to tell us that we have no free will or self directedness, that we are merely responding to stimuli. My question is simple, do you believe that you have free will? Now, if your answer is yes, please give me a scientific answer that responds to that. I am not coming at you from a religious perspective, I am addressing issues raised by philosophers for thousands of years and I happen to be Aristotelian in nature. I am enjoying our conversation and am more than happy to pursue it further as long as it remains civil and from what you have said so far, I believe you are capable of such a thing and I hope you believe I am capable of such a thing. Be well.
reply to post by AQuestion
Evidence there is in plenty; even if you find the provided examples of currently observed speciation dubious, similarities between different taxa are most easily, fully and economically explained by past speciation. You may call this circumstantial, but it is still evidence.
My question was a little different, and I would like to see you address it directly. Why are you prepared to accept descent with modification within a species but not from one species to another? I’m afraid I must press you on this, since there is clearly no biological reason why matters should be arranged thus, and I am curious to learn what you think the impediment to speciation could possibly be.
Punctuated equilibrium, as proposed by that late, great Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a palaeontologist, not a biologist, and I think he was a little over-keen to explain away gaps in the fossil record. The jury is still out on whether evolution proceeds in jerks or continuously. The real answer is, probably, a little bit of both; see the link to the article on Darwin’s finches I supplied earlier. But, as I said before, evolution is happening all the time. We see it about us everywhere we look.
I’m not sure what you mean by philosophy. My university education was in physics. I have a hobbyist’s interest in philosophy. Although physics is certainly much harder work than philosophy, I would not say it is more difficult than the latter; at least in physics the quantities and values with which we work are clearly and unambiguously defined; in philosophy they are all over the shop. Philosophical definitions tend to be edged about with ambiguities and exceptions, every one an invitation to confusion and argument. That is why philosophy rarely makes any progress, whereas science moves forward in leaps and bounds.
I disagree with you that complex things can ever be explained simply as well as accurately. The hilarious incompetence of most science journalists, and the frightful misunderstandings they propagate among their readers, testify to this. It is true that you can make people seem to understand something more easily if you explain it in metaphors and similitudes. That kind of ‘understanding’, however, is always superficial and flawed; it is a case of trying to fit a quart into a pint bottle, and results only in the appearance of understanding, without its substance.
I should add, perhaps, that my opinion on the subject of explaining things is the opinion of an expert and a professional. I am a writer, and I worked in the advertising and communications industry for over 25 years. I am not boasting when I say that what I don’t know about explaining things to people isn’t worth knowing.
The existence of nothing has never been observed, nor does any physical theory predict it. However, the absence of a particular thing in a particular context is frequently observed, and that is always what zero stands for in mathematics.
This is only true if one is a solipsist. Accept the world as real and there is a great deal that cannot be denied.
No, I do not.
I never said that speciation was impossible. What I said was that we needed evidence that such a thing occurred.
Evidence there is in plenty; even if you find the provided examples of currently observed speciation dubious, similarities between different taxa are most easily, fully and economically explained by past speciation. You may call this circumstantial, but it is still evidence.
My question was a little different, and I would like to see you address it directly. Why are you prepared to accept descent with modification within a species but not from one species to another? I’m afraid I must press you on this, since there is clearly no biological reason why matters should be arranged thus, and I am curious to learn what you think the impediment to speciation could possibly be.
I offered the possibility that these things could occur in jumps caused by something that we are not currently aware of. I believe in the scientific method and would never say that something is completely impossible.
Punctuated equilibrium, as proposed by that late, great Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a palaeontologist, not a biologist, and I think he was a little over-keen to explain away gaps in the fossil record. The jury is still out on whether evolution proceeds in jerks or continuously. The real answer is, probably, a little bit of both; see the link to the article on Darwin’s finches I supplied earlier. But, as I said before, evolution is happening all the time. We see it about us everywhere we look.
If we explain complicated things to people using philosophy rather than "proofs", most people can understand.
I’m not sure what you mean by philosophy. My university education was in physics. I have a hobbyist’s interest in philosophy. Although physics is certainly much harder work than philosophy, I would not say it is more difficult than the latter; at least in physics the quantities and values with which we work are clearly and unambiguously defined; in philosophy they are all over the shop. Philosophical definitions tend to be edged about with ambiguities and exceptions, every one an invitation to confusion and argument. That is why philosophy rarely makes any progress, whereas science moves forward in leaps and bounds.
I disagree with you that complex things can ever be explained simply as well as accurately. The hilarious incompetence of most science journalists, and the frightful misunderstandings they propagate among their readers, testify to this. It is true that you can make people seem to understand something more easily if you explain it in metaphors and similitudes. That kind of ‘understanding’, however, is always superficial and flawed; it is a case of trying to fit a quart into a pint bottle, and results only in the appearance of understanding, without its substance.
The problem is never the receiver, it is the responsibility of the sender to make sure that they are speaking in a language that their receiver can interpret.
I should add, perhaps, that my opinion on the subject of explaining things is the opinion of an expert and a professional. I am a writer, and I worked in the advertising and communications industry for over 25 years. I am not boasting when I say that what I don’t know about explaining things to people isn’t worth knowing.
Math assumes that there can be a zero, nothingness if you will. Is this possible?
The existence of nothing has never been observed, nor does any physical theory predict it. However, the absence of a particular thing in a particular context is frequently observed, and that is always what zero stands for in mathematics.
Sentience is and that is the only that cannot be denied.
This is only true if one is a solipsist. Accept the world as real and there is a great deal that cannot be denied.
My question is simple, do you believe that you have free will?
No, I do not.
edit on 20/11/11 by Astyanax because: of an apostrophe.
reply to post by Astyanax
Dear Astyanax,
All your comments and questions and mine for that matter have become irrelevant with your last statement. You do not believe you have free will; therefore, no answer matters. You have said that you have a degree in physics. How can the double slit experiment be correct if there is no free will? We fundamentally disagree on the importance of people. You mistakenly accused me of being a solipsist when I stated in the beginning I am a Christian.
Dear Astyanax,
All your comments and questions and mine for that matter have become irrelevant with your last statement. You do not believe you have free will; therefore, no answer matters. You have said that you have a degree in physics. How can the double slit experiment be correct if there is no free will? We fundamentally disagree on the importance of people. You mistakenly accused me of being a solipsist when I stated in the beginning I am a Christian.
reply to post by AQuestion
I’m not at all sure I understand how that follows. However, this is not the right place to argue moral philosophy. U2U me if you really want to continue on the subject.
The double-slit experiment says absolutely nothing about free will. You must not believe everything you read on the internet.
Well, that depends on how important you think they are. In my world, nothing is more important than human beings.
I didn’t accuse you of anything. I just pointed out that your statement – that mind is the only reality – is true only if one is a solipsist. It is also true for idealists, but idealism and solipsism are in practice indistinguishable; if one is already an idealist, one may as well be a solipsist.
Since you are a Christian, you may wish to consult with your spiritual advisors on the proper philosophical position demanded of you by your faith. I think you will find that it is considered a sin for Christians to believe that the world is merely a mental artefact. It is equivalent to calling God a trickster or illusionist.
And by the way, you still haven’t answered this:
You do not believe you have free will; therefore, no answer matters.
I’m not at all sure I understand how that follows. However, this is not the right place to argue moral philosophy. U2U me if you really want to continue on the subject.
How can the double slit experiment be correct if there is no free will?
The double-slit experiment says absolutely nothing about free will. You must not believe everything you read on the internet.
We fundamentally disagree on the importance of people.
Well, that depends on how important you think they are. In my world, nothing is more important than human beings.
You mistakenly accused me of being a solipsist when I stated in the beginning I am a Christian.
I didn’t accuse you of anything. I just pointed out that your statement – that mind is the only reality – is true only if one is a solipsist. It is also true for idealists, but idealism and solipsism are in practice indistinguishable; if one is already an idealist, one may as well be a solipsist.
Since you are a Christian, you may wish to consult with your spiritual advisors on the proper philosophical position demanded of you by your faith. I think you will find that it is considered a sin for Christians to believe that the world is merely a mental artefact. It is equivalent to calling God a trickster or illusionist.
And by the way, you still haven’t answered this:
Originally posted by Astyanax:
Why are you prepared to accept descent with modification within a species but not from one species to another?
edit on 20/11/11 by Astyanax because: of the question.
reply to post by Astyanax
Dear Astyanax,
I have no idea why you wanted to continue this conversation. If you don't believe in free will then it appears you do not believe your thoughts are choices. Therefore what we say is meaningless. You also misunderstand what I was saying about sentience and you do not understand Christianity and I will remain constant and not get into religion as I had told the OP that I would not.
The only think that we can know for a certainty is that we exist. That goes beyond what science can tell as it does not believe in certainty. That is science's core principal. I don't have much to discuss with people who don't believe that they make choices and are responsible for everything they do because that is sort of a beginning point, a higher point than any other raised on this thread. We fundamentally disagree on a basic building block of any further discussion therefore our conclusions will also be different.
Be well and believe as you will.
Dear Astyanax,
I have no idea why you wanted to continue this conversation. If you don't believe in free will then it appears you do not believe your thoughts are choices. Therefore what we say is meaningless. You also misunderstand what I was saying about sentience and you do not understand Christianity and I will remain constant and not get into religion as I had told the OP that I would not.
The only think that we can know for a certainty is that we exist. That goes beyond what science can tell as it does not believe in certainty. That is science's core principal. I don't have much to discuss with people who don't believe that they make choices and are responsible for everything they do because that is sort of a beginning point, a higher point than any other raised on this thread. We fundamentally disagree on a basic building block of any further discussion therefore our conclusions will also be different.
Be well and believe as you will.
reply to post by AQuestion
No, none of that follows at all. Though, again, this is not the place to discuss it, I should be happy to do so in another, appropriate thread or by U2U.
I see you have not read Nietzsche on Descartes.
You appear upset, and are starting to become a little rude. Do you think people who disbelieve in free will are anti-social elements deserving of condemnation? And where ever did you get the idea that an absence of free will equates to an absence of responsibility?
Well, never mind all that. For the fourth and final time of asking, would you please answer this question?
If I do not get a reply, I shall be obliged to regard your last three posts as attempts to evade a question you cannot or dare not answer. That would be a pity.
I have no idea why you wanted to continue this conversation. If you don't believe in free will then it appears you do not believe your thoughts are choices. Therefore what we say is meaningless.
No, none of that follows at all. Though, again, this is not the place to discuss it, I should be happy to do so in another, appropriate thread or by U2U.
The only think that we can know for a certainty is that we exist.
I see you have not read Nietzsche on Descartes.
I don't have much to discuss with people who don't believe that they make choices and are responsible for everything they do because that is sort of a beginning point, a higher point than any other raised on this thread.
You appear upset, and are starting to become a little rude. Do you think people who disbelieve in free will are anti-social elements deserving of condemnation? And where ever did you get the idea that an absence of free will equates to an absence of responsibility?
Well, never mind all that. For the fourth and final time of asking, would you please answer this question?
Why are you prepared to accept descent with modification within a species but not from one species to another?
If I do not get a reply, I shall be obliged to regard your last three posts as attempts to evade a question you cannot or dare not answer. That would be a pity.
I really enjoyed reading the OP. I am a student in biotech. and although my objections with evolution (as currently proposed) are not the same as
yours, I do have objections.
I hear your dissatisfaction with the process of mutation. I do think that you are not completely understanding the complexity that the varying types of mutation can achieve. you have correctly identified a key component: working prototypes.
let us expand upon something Astyanax said earlier: evolution as a struggle among genes.
now, consider that the overwhelming majority of non-deleterious mutations involve some type of recombination or transposition of ALREADY EXISTING and FUNCTIONAL genes. like a musical motif which which repeats itself, occasionally expressing a slight difference in tone or rhythm or phrasing, and eventually becoming a symphony in several parts. the point is that mutation occurs using already formed and proven working prototypes.
now, what about those "slight differences in tone...etc"? these types of mutations which occur at only a single nucleotide position are almost ALWAYS deleterious (as you have also correctly identified). these happen all the time (constantly) and the cell is very busy employing machinery to fix this type of mutation.
the random generation of a raw sequence into a new functional gene is practically unthinkable. you are right: there is NO WAY that evolution could work that way.
I hear your dissatisfaction with the process of mutation. I do think that you are not completely understanding the complexity that the varying types of mutation can achieve. you have correctly identified a key component: working prototypes.
let us expand upon something Astyanax said earlier: evolution as a struggle among genes.
now, consider that the overwhelming majority of non-deleterious mutations involve some type of recombination or transposition of ALREADY EXISTING and FUNCTIONAL genes. like a musical motif which which repeats itself, occasionally expressing a slight difference in tone or rhythm or phrasing, and eventually becoming a symphony in several parts. the point is that mutation occurs using already formed and proven working prototypes.
now, what about those "slight differences in tone...etc"? these types of mutations which occur at only a single nucleotide position are almost ALWAYS deleterious (as you have also correctly identified). these happen all the time (constantly) and the cell is very busy employing machinery to fix this type of mutation.
the random generation of a raw sequence into a new functional gene is practically unthinkable. you are right: there is NO WAY that evolution could work that way.
Sentience (self awareness - not everyone knows the word, not aimed at you) did not develop from rocks and water. It is. That is a fact. Science continues to attempt to tell us that we have no free will or self directedness, that we are merely responding to stimuli. My question is simple, do you believe that you have free will? Now, if your answer is yes, please give me a scientific answer that responds to that. I am not coming at you from a religious perspective, I am addressing issues raised by philosophers for thousands of years and I happen to be Aristotelian in nature. I am enjoying our conversation and am more than happy to pursue it further as long as it remains civil and from what you have said so far, I believe you are capable of such a thing and I hope you believe I am capable of such a thing. Be well.
You do bring up an interesting point here, but I think first you need to define what free will actually is before you ask somebody if they believe in it. My guess is that you believe free will is something that allows us to think and make our own decisions. What exactly would this be? As a human, I can make decisions that affect my life. If I cross a busy street when there is a "do not walk" sign, I could get myself killed. I make the decision to wait until it says "walk" before crossing, because my survival depends on it. This is human intelligence and ability to analyze a situation to result in a positive outcome. This is not up for debate. Assuming "free will" is even necessary for us to make these kinds of decisions, is something I'd like to see evidence for. Animals have the ability to make decisions, just like humans do, but they don't think about it on our level, they rely more on instinct, but it varies from creature to creature. I'm interested in what freewill is, and how exactly it affects our decision making. Is there any legitimate reason to think we do not control our lives? Personally, I've just never really understood the concept of free will. It seems like an appeal to magic to be honest. The concept itself is derived originally from bible and I personally believe it refers to freedom from slavery, rather than a magical force that allows you to make your own decisions in life. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know.
I have no idea why you wanted to continue this conversation. If you don't believe in free will then it appears you do not believe your thoughts are choices. Therefore what we say is meaningless.
Okay, now I see why you asked that question. This is exactly why I asked you to define free will. It is very confusing concept. It seems like you were setting a trap for him, rather than asking an honest question. Please define free will and explain why it doesn't occur naturally (if that was the intent). Why is free will necessary to allow us to make our own decisions? Isn't our decision making in itself enough to prove that we do control our lives?
edit on 21-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tgidkp
To avoid confusing some of those reading the thread, I think it worth pointing out that a single nucleotide – that is, a single link in the DNA ‘chain’ – is not a gene.
For someone working in biotechnology, such as yourself, a gene is a length of chromosome that forms the blueprint for manufacturing a protein which, in turn, plays a part in building or regulating the functioning of some attribute of a living organism.
In evolutionary biology, however, genes are defined a little differently: a gene is ‘that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency’ (G.C. Williams) or ‘any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection (R. Dawkins). Of course these definitions aren’t entirely satisfactory, as this page points out before offering its own preferred definition.
This excellent article by Dawkins may help clear up some of the confusion. Of course, many creationists would rather die at the stake than read what the Devil’s Chaplain has written, but that is their loss. The rest of us may profit without reserve from his insight.
Genes, as I’m sure you’re aware, are actually pretty flexible in their ability to co-function with each other; and since they exist as components and are very complex in their functional interactions, there is plenty of scope for mixing and matching.
I don’t suppose any biologist seriously believes it does. But I am anticipating a little; would you like to explain in a little more detail the problems you mentioned having with regard to evolution?
Mutations which occur at only a single nucleotide position are almost ALWAYS deleterious (as you have also correctly identified). these happen all the time (constantly) and the cell is very busy employing machinery to fix this type of mutation.
To avoid confusing some of those reading the thread, I think it worth pointing out that a single nucleotide – that is, a single link in the DNA ‘chain’ – is not a gene.
For someone working in biotechnology, such as yourself, a gene is a length of chromosome that forms the blueprint for manufacturing a protein which, in turn, plays a part in building or regulating the functioning of some attribute of a living organism.
In evolutionary biology, however, genes are defined a little differently: a gene is ‘that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency’ (G.C. Williams) or ‘any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection (R. Dawkins). Of course these definitions aren’t entirely satisfactory, as this page points out before offering its own preferred definition.
This excellent article by Dawkins may help clear up some of the confusion. Of course, many creationists would rather die at the stake than read what the Devil’s Chaplain has written, but that is their loss. The rest of us may profit without reserve from his insight.
Genes, as I’m sure you’re aware, are actually pretty flexible in their ability to co-function with each other; and since they exist as components and are very complex in their functional interactions, there is plenty of scope for mixing and matching.
The random generation of a raw sequence into a new functional gene is practically unthinkable. you are right: there is NO WAY that evolution could work that way.
I don’t suppose any biologist seriously believes it does. But I am anticipating a little; would you like to explain in a little more detail the problems you mentioned having with regard to evolution?
edit on 21/11/11 by Astyanax because: of links.
This from the Dawkins article linked above:
The argument continues, I believe. On the one hand we have the function of a gene, which we owe to Grigor Mendel, an unaware contemporary of Darwin. On the other, we have the mechanism of it, which we owe to Crick and Watson and that good lady whose name presently escapes my mind. We've had both for a couple of generations now, but we still haven't nearly understood how the function maps to the mechanism – let alone figuring out, as Dawkins suggests, how memes come into it. We've advanced a long way from our state of primal innocence on the subject, but we haven't come close to figuring it all out yet. Creationists have used this to cast doubt on the whole concept of genetics, which is a bit silly when you consider how well established it is – at tgidkp will bear witness – as a technology. The mechanism is unbelievably subtle and complex, but we can already see, quite clearly, that there is a mechanism. And even in our present ignorance we have discovered how to exploit it in thousands of ways, on an industrial scale. No miracles are involved.
You know, I think it would be rather fun if someone did come up with a serious, rethink-demanding challenge to the theory of evolution. Even something as mildly worrying as the challenge those Italo-Swiss neutrinos seem to pose to relativity – AQuestion mentioned them earlier – would be mind-expanding, at the very least.
I suspect (and perversely hope) that future discoveries in molecular biology will radically modify our ideas about evolution. But I am willing to bet that the principle of natural selection will always come up trumps.
There is a problem over how large or how small a fragment of genome we choose to regard as a replicator. Is it one cistron (recon, muton), one chromosome, one genome, or some intermediate? The answer I have given before, and still stick by, is that we do not need to give a straight answer to the question. Nobody is going to be hanged as a result of our decision. Williams (1966) recognized this when he defined a gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency" (p. 24), and as "any hereditary information for which there is a favorable or unfavorable selection bias equal to several or many times its rate of endogenous change" (p. 25). It is clear that we are never going to sell this kind of definition to a generation brought up on the "one gene–one protein" doctrine, which is one reason why I (Dawkins, 1978) have advocated using the word "replicator" itself, instead of "gene" in the sense of the Williams definition. Another reason is that "replicator" is general enough to accommodate the theoretical possibility, which one day may become observed reality, of nongenetic natural selection. For example, it is at least worth discussing the possibility of evolution by differential survival of cultural replicators or "memes" (Dawkins, 1976; Bonner, 1980), brain structures whose "phenotypic" manifestation as behavior or artifact is the basis of their selection.
The argument continues, I believe. On the one hand we have the function of a gene, which we owe to Grigor Mendel, an unaware contemporary of Darwin. On the other, we have the mechanism of it, which we owe to Crick and Watson and that good lady whose name presently escapes my mind. We've had both for a couple of generations now, but we still haven't nearly understood how the function maps to the mechanism – let alone figuring out, as Dawkins suggests, how memes come into it. We've advanced a long way from our state of primal innocence on the subject, but we haven't come close to figuring it all out yet. Creationists have used this to cast doubt on the whole concept of genetics, which is a bit silly when you consider how well established it is – at tgidkp will bear witness – as a technology. The mechanism is unbelievably subtle and complex, but we can already see, quite clearly, that there is a mechanism. And even in our present ignorance we have discovered how to exploit it in thousands of ways, on an industrial scale. No miracles are involved.
You know, I think it would be rather fun if someone did come up with a serious, rethink-demanding challenge to the theory of evolution. Even something as mildly worrying as the challenge those Italo-Swiss neutrinos seem to pose to relativity – AQuestion mentioned them earlier – would be mind-expanding, at the very least.
I suspect (and perversely hope) that future discoveries in molecular biology will radically modify our ideas about evolution. But I am willing to bet that the principle of natural selection will always come up trumps.
edit on 22/11/11 by Astyanax because: of memes. They replicate.
reply to post by Astyanax
i often enjoy pointing out to people the profound nature of the word "biotechnology". the fact that such a technology should exist is astounding. and in my objections with evolution, i do not wish to refute the established mechanisms of molecular genetics.
however, we are dealing with livingness and/or consciousness, (intelligence?)....which always seems to be a subject to make scientists shifty. until watson and cricks (and the other lady's) discovery, biology had a bad wrap for constantly having to invoke "vitalism". and so using the DNA as a mechanical genetic syntax was jumped on by biologists in order to gain credibility. the majority of people who argue with certainty about evolutionary principles seem (to me) to do so out of desperation and apologetics.
but almost all of my biology professors continue to use phrases like, "the cell decides to do this or that..." which is an indication to me that no one has really 100% bought into the Life-as-Machine paradigm. and the reason that they havent bought it is because it is incomplete.
syntax is not semantics. and the evolutionary struggle between genes is not a struggle between sequences. it is a struggle between meanings. this type of emergent property, which can be observed at many different meta-levels of reality (particularly WRT living organisms), can never be fully explained by linear mechanics.
while continuing to avoid vitalism, it must be acknowledged that life in general IS *goal directed*, and does not only appear to be so: it actually is.
information is not built from the "bottom up". it is built from the "top down". and i feel confident that within the coming decade RELATIONAL evolution (the exchange of meanings) will become equally recognized as MECHANICAL evolution (exchange of syntax). this shift in perspective will allow us to solve problems such as protein folding, and understanding the nature of epigenetics, and possibly unlock the secrets of consciousness itself.
i often enjoy pointing out to people the profound nature of the word "biotechnology". the fact that such a technology should exist is astounding. and in my objections with evolution, i do not wish to refute the established mechanisms of molecular genetics.
however, we are dealing with livingness and/or consciousness, (intelligence?)....which always seems to be a subject to make scientists shifty. until watson and cricks (and the other lady's) discovery, biology had a bad wrap for constantly having to invoke "vitalism". and so using the DNA as a mechanical genetic syntax was jumped on by biologists in order to gain credibility. the majority of people who argue with certainty about evolutionary principles seem (to me) to do so out of desperation and apologetics.
but almost all of my biology professors continue to use phrases like, "the cell decides to do this or that..." which is an indication to me that no one has really 100% bought into the Life-as-Machine paradigm. and the reason that they havent bought it is because it is incomplete.
syntax is not semantics. and the evolutionary struggle between genes is not a struggle between sequences. it is a struggle between meanings. this type of emergent property, which can be observed at many different meta-levels of reality (particularly WRT living organisms), can never be fully explained by linear mechanics.
while continuing to avoid vitalism, it must be acknowledged that life in general IS *goal directed*, and does not only appear to be so: it actually is.
information is not built from the "bottom up". it is built from the "top down". and i feel confident that within the coming decade RELATIONAL evolution (the exchange of meanings) will become equally recognized as MECHANICAL evolution (exchange of syntax). this shift in perspective will allow us to solve problems such as protein folding, and understanding the nature of epigenetics, and possibly unlock the secrets of consciousness itself.
reply to post by tgidkp
That sounds a bit metaphysical to me, to be honest. Still, it is clear that you are arguing from personal belief, doubtless informed by what you have learned in your studies. I don’t mind what others believe so long as they don’t insist on my believing it also.
Personally, I am quite comfortable with Dawkins’s characterization of the teleological usages of evolutionary biology as being nothing but shorthand. In my view, such usages arise because of the way humans have evolved to apprehend and interpret the world. I certainly cannot bring myself – for, oh, any number of reasons – to believe life wants to evolve. I think what life really wants, if it could be said to want anything, is more of the same.
I don’t believe in spirits trapped in matter.
That sounds a bit metaphysical to me, to be honest. Still, it is clear that you are arguing from personal belief, doubtless informed by what you have learned in your studies. I don’t mind what others believe so long as they don’t insist on my believing it also.
Personally, I am quite comfortable with Dawkins’s characterization of the teleological usages of evolutionary biology as being nothing but shorthand. In my view, such usages arise because of the way humans have evolved to apprehend and interpret the world. I certainly cannot bring myself – for, oh, any number of reasons – to believe life wants to evolve. I think what life really wants, if it could be said to want anything, is more of the same.
I don’t believe in spirits trapped in matter.
"There was another example: I saw a documentary that said that there's a good chance that whales, or a specific type of whales, evolved from a wolf
like creature because its food at a certain phase and location was only available under the water. So, with time, it changed its skin to better match
the water, lost its legs and basically became a fish."
Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing at this description. All I could think of Satan sitting back, feet up, and devising a way to TEST the peoples acceptance of the lie called evolution. He must be laughing his head off. OP, I know that you said that you kind of believed in creationism... Stick with it. Otherwise, he has convinced you of the absolute absurdity of the above.
Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing at this description. All I could think of Satan sitting back, feet up, and devising a way to TEST the peoples acceptance of the lie called evolution. He must be laughing his head off. OP, I know that you said that you kind of believed in creationism... Stick with it. Otherwise, he has convinced you of the absolute absurdity of the above.
new topics
-
This should be plastered all over the airwaves
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago -
Oh, Good Gosh. “Kremlin Warns Stay Away from Greenland.”
World War Three: 3 hours ago -
Archbisop Vigano Warns of Deep State and Deep Church
New World Order: 3 hours ago -
A Flash of Beauty: Bigfoot Revealed ( documentary )
Cryptozoology: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
This should be plastered all over the airwaves
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago, 8 flags -
A Flash of Beauty: Bigfoot Revealed ( documentary )
Cryptozoology: 9 hours ago, 7 flags -
Oh, Good Gosh. “Kremlin Warns Stay Away from Greenland.”
World War Three: 3 hours ago, 6 flags -
Archbisop Vigano Warns of Deep State and Deep Church
New World Order: 3 hours ago, 5 flags
active topics
-
This should be plastered all over the airwaves
Mainstream News • 10 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 118 • : Lazy88 -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 303 • : xuenchen -
Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial
US Political Madness • 88 • : xuenchen -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 8012 • : underpass61 -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1040 • : bally001 -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 35 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Oh, Good Gosh. “Kremlin Warns Stay Away from Greenland.”
World War Three • 10 • : Imhere -
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies • 26 • : sapien1982 -
The Truth about Migrant Crime in Britain.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 45 • : covent