Natural selection v Intelligent design

[paulm50]

That's as may be, but Intelligent Design attempts to avoid or conceal those problems by adopting the appearance of science. It's 'Cargo Cult' science; not the innocent kind that originated the phrase, but deliberate pseudoscience. It can, and has been, debunked on rational scientific grounds, without the need for arguments about scriptural metaphors, etc.

Agreed.

Not really, no. The vast majority of creatures in the natural world are mutants - for example, humans have been calculated to have an average of around 60 mutations per person; the majority of these are neutral in terms of selective advantage/disadvantage.

Depends on the level of mutation. A tiny improvement, or change for the better, isn't a mutation. In my book.

In my opinion it's not really design at all in the commonly understood meaning (usage) of the word as a purposeful, or deliberate, or intentional, or planned activity. It can be viewed as a design in retrospect in much the same way as, and only to the same extent as, the branching fractal pattern of the channels of a river delta can be viewed as a design, or the symmetrical patterns of snowflakes.

Agreed.

Our conceptualization of design is ambiguous and biased by our agent-centric viewpoint, and the usage of the word reflects this.

The I.D. crowd are locked in a box so have to prove the modern concept of design. Someone sitting down and design something in a set image, rather than nature doing the work by selection.

 

[stevevw]

What aspect of that is supported by the experts?

This is what Dr Carson said.
our brains are – billions of neurons, hundreds of billions of interconnections, the ability to process more than 2 million bits of information in one second. That is an amazingly complex organism."

"And to say that that just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn’t make any sense," said Dr. Carson. "So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

Continuing with his point about the human genome, Dr. Carson said, "You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming,

"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

These are links to other experts that support what he said.

Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975
the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral Dogma.pdf

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows “Overwhelmingly Negative” Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1998, Genetica, Elena et al.pdf

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

What relevance does this have if he fundamentally doesn't understand how evolution works, as his previous comments suggest?

It shows that he does as these experts are supporting what he has said about most mutations being harmful or neutral and that there is little evidence for mutations adding function that will be selected to evolve fitter and more complex creatures which is the main crux of evolution. But some have choosen to focus on one small part of what he said possibly ourt of sarcasm. The fact that he is knowledgable about proteins and mutations

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is what Dr Carson said.
our brains are – billions of neurons, hundreds of billions of interconnections, the ability to process more than 2 million bits of information in one second. That is an amazingly complex organism."

"And to say that that just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn’t make any sense," said Dr. Carson. "So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

Continuing with his point about the human genome, Dr. Carson said, "You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming,

"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

These are links to other experts that support what he said.

Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975
the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral Dogma.pdf

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows “Overwhelmingly Negative” Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1998, Genetica, Elena et al.pdf

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

It shows that he does as these experts are supporting what he has said about most mutations being harmful or neutral and that there is little evidence for mutations adding function that will be selected to evolve fitter and more complex creatures which is the main crux of evolution. But some have choosen to focus on one small part of what he said possibly ourt of sarcasm. The fact that he is knowledgable about proteins and mutations

And? So what? What does this have to do with your claim that he is an expert on the evolution of the human brain?

 

[stevevw]

Here is a new item to consider….I would hope both sides would view this discovery for what it says first as I have done, and then give their interpretations of what this could mean for a second pass though the article…

Dr. Robert Balaban and associates using Electron Microscopsy have made a revolutionary discovery. The energy flow from Mitochondria does not occur by the simple electro-chemical diffusion as agreed upon by the many EBs for over a decade, but rather by directed and specified “conduction” via a network of connective structures present for this specific function. Mitochondria are NOT individual powerhouses that would exist outside of or preceding cellular structure (also speculated by many EBs) but are an inter-connected purposeful and meaningful network akin to the powergrid connecting parts of a sophisticated powerplant or even a city.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2015/nhlbi-30.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14614.html

IMO the implications this holds against a slow, billion year, by chance, evolutionary model is staggering. It is likewise as magnanimous in favor of the notion of design that many scientists are coming to realize play a major role. It is apparent to more and more researchers that information precedes aggregation! For these elements to become functional forms, information had to be present prior to their construction. They were developed to fulfill a PURPOSE that their necessity demonstrates pre-formative INTENT. Laws and principles which would guide the processes must precede the processes. Information is not matter or energy. Matter and energy respond and follow these laws and principles in order to become what we see and know. When one get this, they begin a new journey in critical thought, and no longer just buy into what they are told or taught is factual.

Again IMO the presence of the need for pre-formative information here is so overwhelmingly evident that it will have to be denied to fit the preconceived theory. Thus I await the predictable onslaught of attacks and papers explaining away what some will say this observation obviously demonstrates.

I am sure the first line of attack on forums like this will be some form of he is not a “current Evolutionary Biologist” as if that should make definitive demands against his area of expertise. Or that they or we are "unable to grasp" how this happens from an unguided process.

IMO, no purposeful, intentional, inter-dependable and highly sophisticated network such as this just comes about from an endless number of monkeys with typewriters over billions of years (just being sarcastically figurative) but now I will sit back and watch the theoretical rebuttals and excuses to make the data fit into the accepted preconception of the present pedagoguery.

Very interesting and this is another piece of the jig saw puzzle that is showing that there is design in life.

 

[paulm50]

Very interesting and this is another piece of the jig saw puzzle that is showing that there is design in life.

There has to be some sort of design, otherwise nothing would survive.

The design is done by natural forces.

 

[stevevw]

And? So what? What does this have to do with your claim that he is an expert on the evolution of the human brain?

Wait a minute you keep changing the goal posts. Your question was how do the experts support what he said and I posted support to show this. Now your jumping to a different question and not addressing the last one you asked. You gotta watch you blokes. No wonder its hard to pin you down. This is what I mean. You ask for evidence then you refuse to read it and dismiss it straight away and say its all irrelevant.

I never said he was an expert on the evolution of the human brain. I said he was an expert on the brain. Along with some basic knowledge of evolution which most of us lay people know you can put two and two together. What he said about the brain in his video and other links I have posted showed he knew in detail about the brain. He is one of the worlds best brain surgeons. He studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree in brain surgery so he has a fundamental understanding of evolution. From what He said in the rest of his interview you posted which you and others ignored he went into some detail about the evolution process of mutations and protein sequences which showed he had a fairly good level of understanding. More than you are giving him credit for.

What I want to know is why all this attention on a man who is obviously very smart and has proved this in his achievements. It seems you dont give the same amount of attention to others. It seems if someone challenges evolution you attack the person rather than debate the evidence. I posted several links supporting what Dr Carson has said and you conveniently ignore them and continue to try and undermine the person rather than look at the evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wait a minute you keep changing the goal posts. You question was how do the experts support what he said and I posted support to show this. Now your jumping to different question and not addressing the last one you asked. You gotta watch you blokes. No wonder Its hard to pin you down. This is what I mean. You ask for evidence then you refuse to read it and dismiss it straight away and say its all irrelevant. Then you jump in again on a conversation I am having with someone else and ask the same thing again and then refuse to acknowledge any evidence I post again anyway. Then you dont respond to the ones I answer by ignoring the evidence you asked for and changing to a different question.

Whenever Carson says something that happens to be correct, you want us to take him seriously. Whenever he says something inaccurate, you want us to view it as "sarcasm." You're special pleading.

I never said he was an expert on of the human brain. I said he was an expert on the brain. Along with some basic knowledge of evolution which most of us lay people know you can put two and two together.

As we already established, Carson's understanding of evolution appears dubious.

What he said about the brain in his video and other links I have posted showed he knew in detail about the brain.

So what? You keep repeating this as though it matters to the point at hand. It doesn't.

He is one of the worlds best brain surgeons. He studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree in brain surgery so he has a fundamental understanding of evolution.

We already established that this doesn't appear to be true: based on his comments, his understanding of evolution is shaky.

From what He said in the rest of his interview you posted which you and others ignored he went into some detail about the evolution process of mutations and protein sequences which showed he had a fairly good level of understanding. More than you are giving him credit for.

So what if he talked about protein sequences? We're talking about his understanding of evolution, not protein sequences. You keep confusing the point at issue.

What I want to know is why all this attention on a man who is obviously very smart and has proved this in his achievements. It seems you dont give the same amount of attention to others. It seems if someone challenges evolution you attack the person rather than debate the evidence. I posted several links supporting what Dr Carson has said and you conveniently ignore them and continue to try and undermine the person rather than look at the evidence.

You are becoming increasingly dishonest in this discussion. I didn't "attack" Carson. I critiqued your view that Carson should be regarded as an expert on the evolution of the human brain (i.e., that he knows "what would be required for the brain to evolve"). I critiqued that point by noting that Carson doesn't appear to have any discernible expertise in that area and, moreover, that his understanding of evolution is questionable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never said he was an expert on of the human brain. I said he was an expert on the brain. Along with some basic knowledge of evolution which most of us lay people know you can put two and two together.

That's another problem: you don't appear to have that basic knowledge. I've pointed this out on numerous occasions, hoping that you would do something to remedy that situation. But it appears that you'd rather bloviate here.

 

[stevevw]

There has to be some sort of design, otherwise nothing would survive.

The design is done by natural forces.

I had read about another theory that was around before Darwin's Theory of evolution. It was to do with life having natural laws and forms rather than evolving from natural selection. Living things and the environment lived following these natural laws for life just like the laws that apply to atoms and matter. Along with DNA which is being seen more and more like a complex code for life we are seeing that there is design in many things and it didn't all happen by some random accident. You can explain it away with coincidences and keep say it all appears to mimic design and has some aspect of design and is guided by its not really designed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are its a duck.

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14417556

 

[stevevw]

That's another problem: you don't appear to have that basic knowledge. I've pointed this out on numerous occasions, hoping that you would do something to remedy that situation. But it appears that you'd rather bloviate here.

As I said I have been and dedicate a lot of time to studying. But it seems you dont give any credit for this and just want to degenerate me like DR Carson. If we say anything against evolution its either we are uneducated, dumb, misinformed, deluded, any thing that will discredit us. But never right on anything at all like we are totally off the planet. Yet there are many people including the experts who are saying the same thing as what we are saying and it seems to be increasing all the time. Why dont you look at the evidence first before you dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I said I have been and dedicate a lot of time to studying. But it seems you dont give any credit for this and just want to degenerate me like DR Carson. If we say anything against evolution its either we are uneducated, dumb, misinformed, deluded, any thing that will discredit us. But never right on anything at all like we are totally off the planet. Yet there are many people including the experts who are saying the same thing as what we are saying and it seems to be increasing all the time. Why dont you look at the evidence first before you dismiss it out of hand.

You are being dishonest, yet again. I have looked at the evidence. I've even shown you, at various points, that the evidence you present doesn't support what you say! But you believe that it does. Why is that? It's because your understanding of evolution is poor. I don't believe that you dedicate any time to studying. You dedicate time to reading creationist blogs and parroting what they say. I've tried to encourage you to study. I've even provided links to resources. And yet you're still here, repeating the same old canards.

 

[pshun2404]

At what level of complexity does a relatively simple replicator qualify as a biological system? categories tend to blur the closer you look; the basic requirements for a replicator are very simple.

Well, no; but I don't think anyone is suggesting a functioning prokaryotic cell suddenly appeared in a soup of chemicals, like a tornado in a junk yard assembling a Boeing jet (although there are some simplified summaries that might give that impression, e.g. the Glasgow University project; but if you read the full detail, it's not like that; and there are a large number of other hypotheses, of varying plausibility, about these early pre-biotic stages and how cell templates may have developed).

Which is why I talk about replicators rather than cells; what counts is the preservation of a molecular pattern, typically a sequence of molecules. For example, I can trivially imagine an environment rich in organic groups that have a tendency to polymerize in certain conditions and which can also pair up with complementary groups, much like the purines & pyrimidines of RNA & DNA. If, periodically, conditions are suitable for suitable for pairing to create complementary amino acid chains, and, periodically, the conditions lead to pairing bonds being broken, individual sequences (and their complements) will multiply over time, as they attract pairs to form complementary sequences which are split off and themselves attract new pairs to form new complementary sequences, and so-on.

I'm not saying this is what happened, it's a grossly simplified hypothetical, but it shows it is easy to conceive of simple organic chain replicators, using a process conceptually similar to that used by real life, that - in the right circumstances - could multiply without all the complex support gubbins of a cellular structure, although, as mentioned previously, polar molecules like phospholipids do self-assemble into membranes and vesicles. The energy source driving replication would just be thermal or pH gradients in the environment that would drive the direction of pairing or unpairing of the groups (or the activation/deactivation of other groups that weakened pair bonds, analogous to enzymes). What is more difficult is to work through all the potential variations for simple organic replicator generation in all plausible chemical environments...

You are so honest with the distinction between fact and theory that it is refreshing...at least your mind is open to alternative explanations of the evidence. I suspect you are an actual scientist. In my work as a Clinical Trial Assistant I spoke with many scientists and found MOST are actually CONVINCED of little and open to possibility (some even see the possibility of intelligence behind design but cannot speak it in public if they wish to be published) but alas there are some who hold the theory as so essential they cannot interpret anything outside of its light. For me this is just a different pair of rose colored glasses not unlike many in the YEC fundamentalist camp. They are so adamant about holding on to their view they cannot admit they may be in error and interpret all things through their preconceived conclusions (sadly this is also true for many EBs, but not all).

Many new books are coming out from Biologists and Philosophers and others that are noting the problem this is causing in moving forward. For example examine these quotes...(and I am fully aware that when EBs quote it is called support but when people who see ID quote it is called mining, so please spare me the insult of my intelligence should you take that road)

"It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection ... My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense..I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science. ... In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. ... The problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met." (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, p. (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 6-7, 10.)

"Honest critics of the evolutionary way of thinking who have emphasized problems with biologists' dogma and their undefinable terms are often dismissed as if they were Christian fundamentalist zealots or racial bigots. But the part of this book's thesis that insists such terminology interferes with real science requires an open and thoughtful debate about the reality of the claims made by zoocentric evolutionists." (Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, (Basic Books, 2003)

"It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution. One easily becomes a target of orthodox evolutionary biology and a false friend of proponents of non-scientific concepts." (Günter Theißen, "The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology," Theory in Biosciences, 124: 349-369 (2006)

"Neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic; it goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem. Entire departments, journals and research centers now work on this principle." (Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010)

Paul

 

[paulm50]

I had read about another theory that was around before Darwin's Theory of evolution. It was to do with life having natural laws and forms rather than evolving from natural selection. Living things and the environment lived following these natural laws for life just like the laws that apply to atoms and matter. Along with DNA which is being seen more and more like a complex code for life we are seeing that there is design in many things and it didn't all happen by some random accident. You can explain it away with coincidences and keep say it all appears to mimic design and has some aspect of design and is guided by its not really designed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are its a duck.

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14417556

When species mate and produce offspring, they take on the characteristics of their parents. So yes they follow a pattern.

When only the best suited for their environment are mating, the changes happen slowly. Can we produce a dog the size of a box of tissues, or the size of a small pony, from a few breeds of wolf? Yes it's been done so many times it's accepted.

Can a small mouse, grow to be a big coypu? Yes, can one evolve into a mouse that can climb trees? Yes. And over millions of generations. One evolved to come down from the trees and walk upright. The trail of bones is there for you to examine.

So where did your creator come in?

As for scientists finding new elements, new discoveries. They dream of that. It puts them into the league of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, J. J. Thomson. This is why they can be trusted, they compete with each other to find a new way of how everything works. Whereas, you only look to see how you can disprove to prove an ancient concept of creationism right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense..

An explicit appeal to incredulity... I can only say that common-sense and intuition have repeatedly been found to be poor guides to reality - Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics spring to mind. Recourse to common-sense incredulity in scientific matters is generally a failure of understanding or a failure of imagination. A plausible, well-reasoned argument would be taken seriously, but I've yet to hear one - common-sense doesn't work like that. I strongly recommend Daniel Kahnemann's book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' for a wonderfully informative guide to the biases, heuristics, and failings of the processes that drive common sense and intuition - it's all based on empirical research, and it's full of little mental experiments you can try for yourself.

... In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. ... The problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met."

If the reference is to the Intelligent Design movement, in my experience the scorn is generally justified - ID is a deliberately misleading pseudoscientific enterprise spearheaded by the Discovery Institute and others to intentionally obfuscate a Christian evangelical message. But to the extent that testable claims have been made, chiefly in terms of 'Irreducible Complexity', these have been examined and shown to be mistaken.

There are perfectly valid intelligent design arguments to be made in terms of potentially testable scientific hypotheses; for example, planetary seeding by alien life or their machines. However, they only insert a level of indirection between us and the origin of life, and there is no supporting evidence as yet . As has been mentioned previously, science is looking for naturalistic explanations of the world we observe, and so far, the indications are encouraging that we may be able to eventually find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life - i.e. there are no apparent show-stoppers. If it can be done, we'll probably never know if it's correct (what really happened), but we'll know it's possible. Even extremely unlikely events are statistical near-certainties given enough time and suitable circumstances. A whole planet of likely sites and a billion years or two, would make for good odds. YMMV.

"It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution.

Sadly, there are always a few dissatisfied customers. They rarely seem to be able to clearly articulate the reason(s) why.

"Neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic; it goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem.

Hardly; Neo-Darwinism (aka the New Synthesis) is being refined all the time. People said the same about traditional Darwinism, and the theory before that, and the theory before that, and each was subsumed or replaced by a better theory. Any plausible theory will be considered on its merits - which necessarily must include at least the explanatory and predictive power of the existing theory, being of the same order of complexity or less, and exceeding the existing theory in one or more measures of utility, i.e. it must be better.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A tiny improvement, or change for the better, isn't a mutation. In my book.

With respect, your book doesn't count. Mutation already has a clear and well-understood definition (outside of comic books and movies): a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It shows that he does as these experts are supporting what he has said about most mutations being harmful or neutral and that there is little evidence for mutations adding function that will be selected to evolve fitter and more complex creatures which is the main crux of evolution

Whoever these experts are, they haven't looked very far. There are plenty of everyday examples of beneficial mutation - why do you think HIV, the common cold and flu, MRSA, tuberculosis, and other bugs, keep recurring and are so hard to treat? Because they mutate and evolve tolerance & resistance to the treatments, or so that our immune system no longer recognises them. How did bugs like SARS, and MERS, and West Nile virus, and H1N1, change from harmlessly infecting birds or bats, or monkeys, and jump the species barrier to be dangerous and infectious in man? they mutated. For them, these were beneficial mutations allowing them to spread in new hosts (us).

A relatively recent (and topical) beneficial human mutation - lactose tolerance in adults.

Here's just a few examples of other adaptive mutations: Examples of Beneficial Mutations.

 

[stevevw]

You are being dishonest, yet again. I have looked at the evidence. I've even shown you, at various points, that the evidence you present doesn't support what you say! But you believe that it does. Why is that? It's because your understanding of evolution is poor.

As far as I can see you dont look at the evidence. You have acknowledged this. You said because you think that I didn't understand one of my posts a long time ago which I still disagree with you on you now dismiss all the links and supporting evidence I link now. I can tell by the way you quickly reply to me posts that you dont bother looking at anything. I can tell by the way you dont mention anything in those posts and I can tell by the way you word your replies as they are always dismissive and criticizing the person and not anything of substance about the evidence.

I don't believe that you dedicate any time to studying. You dedicate time to reading creationist blogs and parroting what they say. I've tried to encourage you to study. I've even provided links to resources. And yet you're still here, repeating the same old canards.

Now you claim to know me better and say I am dishonest as well. See this is all part of undermining the person because they are challenging evolution. I happen to research evolution a lot. In fact when I said I spend 20 hours plus on the topic I was wrong. When I thought about it its actually around at least 30 hours plus. I investigate all the aspects of the topic. I like to know what it is all about to be able to see if what those who disagree with evolution are correct. In fact as far as I can see it is some of the good sites that believe in creation and design in nature that have the balance correct and not the totally pro evolution sites. They tend to be one sided and dont present any clear evidence for evolution. What they think is support isn't and it skips a lot of the detail.

The fact that I rarely use creationists sites as support when I post shows that I turn to the mainstream sources for evidence like Nature.com, Plos biology.com and phys.org ect. So I dont appreciate someone now telling me what I do and dont do with my time. But how about rather than you spend all your time putting myself, Dr Carson and anyone else who disagrees with you down that you respond to some of the evidence I have posted.

You keep saying you have but this was one post a fair while ago and you have been using this excuse for some time now that I didn't know what I was posting. I have posted a stack of new stuff and you havnt responded to anything. That just tells me you know that some of it does show up evolution and you dont want to acknowledge this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As far as I can see you dont look at the evidence. You have acknowledged this. You said because you think that I didn't understand one of my posts a long time ago which I still disagree with you on you now dismiss all the links and supporting evidence I link now. I can tell by the way you quickly reply to me posts that you dont bother looking at anything. I can tell by the way you dont mention anything in those posts and I can tell by the way you word your replies as they are always dismissive and criticizing the person and not anything of substance about the evidence.

And you wonder why that is? I've already repeatedly clarified why that is. Here's a clue: you don't listen, so why should I bother?

Now you claim to know me better and say I am dishonest as well. See this is all part of undermining the person because they are challenging evolution. I happen to research evolution a lot.

I don't believe that you do. What you call "research" is reading creationist blogs.

The fact that I rarely use creationists sites as support when I post shows that I turn to the mainstream sources for evidence like Nature.com, Plos biology.com and phys.org ect.

steve, you were caught mashing two sources together - one a creationist blog and another a reputable science journal. You know what I think you do? You read the blog, which includes links to journal articles, and you assume that the blogger's understanding and interpretation of those articles is credible, so you parrot his talking points here and pretend that they are reflected in the articles themselves. At this point, it seems doubtful that you even read the articles you link to. One of the articles you linked to overtly contradicted what you were saying. At least another two provided examples of a phenomenon that you claim does not happen (convergent evolution). We've been over this so many times.

So I dont appropriate someone now telling me what I do and dont do with my time. But how about rather than you spend all your time putting myself, Dr Carson and anyone else who disagrees with you down that you respond to some of the evidence I have posted.

I have responded! You know that I have responded, so why the dishonesty?

You keep saying you have but this was one post a fair while ago and you have been using this excuse for some time now that I didn't know what I was posting. I have posted a stack of new stuff and you havnt responded to anything. That just tells me you know that some of it does show up evolution and you dont want to acknowledge this.

No, it tells you that I'm not wasting my time with someone who does not listen.

 

[stevevw]

Science didn't understand atoms, it had to learn. Then it goes onto the next step, and the next

Yes I agree> I was starting at the point of atoms to show how science has to learn each stage before they can then investigate the next. But you are right science had to start from a point of not knowing about atoms and learn that as well. Its the same for everything. But now we are at a point in time where we have a massive amount of accumulated knowledge. We learn things 10 times faster than ever. Its almost at a point of changing on a daily basis. But the point we are at now is showing that all the cause and effects we came to know with the classic physics is being challenged by the quantum world. Sp therefore scientists are now coming up with ideas that act outside the classic physics such as hologram worlds and other strange actions that seem to defy what we would normally say how things should act and react. IE classic physics states every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the quantum world this is not the case. An action can have many possibilities.

You keep repeating the same line "how does something come into existence from nothing". Maybe an Asteroid hit the Earth with the elements, maybe the elements were already here, maybe there was a "thing" that created the Asteroid or soup of chemicals from which life sprung.

All these ideas are being suggested by some scientists. They are ideas that they are using to address the difficult problem of how life can come from non life. But any of the suggestions you mention take that problem elsewhere and the problem still exists. How did the life on the asteroid get there. How did the thing that created the asteroid or soup get there.

What's for certain is it has nothing to do with a Christian god or any religious god/creator. And proves all those writers telling how it all started, didn't have a clue.

How did life form from nothing?

Yes we're still looking how it started, what you won't find is many claiming a creator that religion has any clue about

Your links are always pointing to gaps in our knowledge. Point me to proof you are right, not that we haven't discovered enough.

I'm not saying that it was God who created anything at this point. I am saying how can life come from non life without some sort of intervention of something that can create that level of something without there being any of the complex things that are needed in the first place. There are certain things that are impossible to just happen out of random chance like chirality for example that can happen by a chance and random naturalistic process. So that begs the question how can this happen without some input from design or something that was organizing and having a controlling input.

There is evidence of design in nature and there is evidence which shows it is impossible for life to evolve by chance. That is a good beginning to start and enough to cause us to wonder what then is behind how life can exist in the first place. That can then cause us to consider a designer or creator. Whether its the God of the bible or some other entity or process will be harder to prove. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss the whole idea and say it cannot happen.

 

[paulm50]

Yes I agree> I was starting at the point of atoms to show how science has to learn each stage before they can then investigate the next. But you are right science had to start from a point of not knowing about atoms and learn that as well. Its the same for everything. But now we are at a point in time where we have a massive amount of accumulated knowledge. We learn things 10 times faster than ever. Its almost at a point of changing on a daily basis. But the point we are at now is showing that all the cause and effects we came to know with the classic physics is being challenged by the quantum world. Sp therefore scientists are now coming up with ideas that act outside the classic physics such as hologram worlds and other strange actions that seem to defy what we would normally say how things should act and react. IE classic physics states every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the quantum world this is not the case. An action can have many possibilities.

All these ideas are being suggested by some scientists. They are ideas that they are using to address the difficult problem of how life can come from non life. But any of the suggestions you mention take that problem elsewhere and the problem still exists. How did the life on the asteroid get there. How did the thing that created the asteroid or soup get there.

Just because we are reaching a point where discovering is getting harder, you can't just throw in a creator as the answer. As for the number of scientists who support the creator theory. That's a clear win for evolution.

I'm not saying that it was God who created anything at this point. I am saying how can life come from non life without some sort of intervention of something that can create that level of something without there being any of the complex things that are needed in the first place. There are certain things that are impossible to just happen out of random chance like chirality for example that can happen by a chance and random naturalistic process. So that begs the question how can this happen without some input from design or something that was organizing and having a controlling input.

So you claim a creator made it happen. How was the creator created?

There is evidence of design in nature and there is evidence which shows it is impossible for life to evolve by chance. That is a good beginning to start and enough to cause us to wonder what then is behind how life can exist in the first place. That can then cause us to consider a designer or creator. Whether its the God of the bible or some other entity or process will be harder to prove. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss the whole idea and say it cannot happen.

A creator created the first cell skin, and from there we know how everything followed. 100% not the god of any bible so no idea why you suggest it. Take all the gaps in how life on Earth kicked off, not evolution, and claim it was a creator. Until scientists prove you wrong, and you'll have painted yourself into an even small corner.