What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Astrid]

I have given this a lot of thought and now view it not as deception but as the a type of denial associated with addictions.

My meaning is, first, self deception- denial, as you put it.

All of the arguments, being various forms of nonsense
presented as truth are by nature deceptive.
That the arguments are second hand, thought up
by others, and however uch the presenter believes
them via get not their nature.

I see the creationists as 99 percent of them innocent naifs
manipulated by others less innocent.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of the arguments, being various forms of nonsense presented as truth are by nature deceptive.

We Christians like to think of these "nonsense" arguments as stemming from basic doctrine.

If you want to think of them as "nonsense," you're more than willing to -- just as we are willing (I hope anyway) to fight and die for those beliefs, like our brothers and sisters in Christ have done in the past.

God considers them ...

Hebrews 11:38a ( Of whom the world was not worthy: )

Academia's go-to definition of their faith was coined by Mark Twain.

To wit: They died for something they "knew wasn't true."

 

[Frank Robert]

Good scientists are always skeptics. I don't degrade but I do critically examine the claims.

I agree you were critical of Darwin but they your critique was not balanced.

Leaving the evidentiary issues aside for now, examine the rationale. Natural selection by random mutations identifies the environment as the ultimate change agent underlying all the diversity and complexity of living beings.

Modern evolutionary science is well beyond mutation and selection. Jerry Coyne, defines modern evolution theory in terms: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms with focus on prediction and retrodiction: “If evolution is true, then we predict that….”

One might say that once a creature evolves it retains the beneficial trait forever. But that would cancel out the random gene assumption.

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is determined by the environment. Example: dark skin is beneficial in in high sunlight environments while light skin is beneficial in low sun light environments.

 

[Frank Robert]

Hardly a quibble. To paraphrase your post: "If your hypothesis were correct then you would observe the outcome."

And that is exactly what is observed.

Do you have that observation yet? If not then we must hold the prediction in abeyance ie., not evidence; for now, just another opinion.

It is support for the hypothesis. If the predictions are in error then the hypothesis is not supported, i.e, the hypothesis is falsified.

Say, I hypothesize that on Oct. 30, 2022, the human race will be extinct.

Is that evidence? Should we proceed to live according to the hypothesis. I'm not.

Being after that date is evidence that your hypothesis is falsified.

 

[Frank Robert]

My meaning is, first, self deception- denial, as you put it.

All of the arguments, being various forms of nonsense
presented as truth are by nature deceptive.
That the arguments are second hand, thought up
by others, and however uch the presenter believes
them via get not their nature.

I see the creationists as 99 percent of them innocent naifs
manipulated by others less innocent.

I don't disagree that many people are being manipulated by a leadership that should know better but there is really no way to know their motivations. We can sometimes discern motivation from needs and I think in many cases that denial is necessary to maintain belief. I have that opinion because I know creationists who are sincere in their beliefs.

 

[Ophiolite]

Leaving the evidentiary issues aside for now, examine the rationale. Natural selection by random mutations identifies the environment as the ultimate change agent underlying all the diversity and complexity of living beings. But the evidence on earth's environment is that it is cyclical, not directional. How can a change agent that is cyclical be the cause of directional changes, eg, diversity and complexity in creatures? One might say that once a creature evolves it retains the beneficial trait forever. But that would cancel out the random gene assumption. I'm not saying it cannot be rationalized, almost anything can.

I won't attempt to rationalise it. I'll just correct your misunderstanding.

There is no ultimate change agent. There are two principal change agents:
Mutations create the diversity. The environment determines which mutation will prosper.
The trajectory of evolution is determined by improvements to an existing design* arising through mutations and by the environment for which these improvements provide a better fit. The next time that environment comes around (as per your cyclical conception) evolution is already working on an improved model.

Moreover, while there are cycles in the environment - Wilson Cycles is an obvious one, diurnal variations are another - there are also changes that are either monotonic, or significant changes to the cycles themselves. For example Wilson Cycles have not been in place since the Earth's crust formed and will eventually run out of steam (literally, in one sense); and days are getting longer. So, I disagree strongly with your assertion that the Earth's envirnoment is cyclical. It is not. Start a thread if you want to debate that, I'll happily provide a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Astrid]

I don't disagree that many people are being manipulated by a leadership that should know better but there is really no way to know their motivations. We can sometimes discern motivation from needs and I think in many cases that denial is necessary to maintain belief. I have that opinion because I know creationists who are sincere in their beliefs.

Oh, I'm sure the 99 percent are totally
sincere.
My still- Maoist uncle is totally
sincere but the things he says
are like quaint parody.
Which is something in common
with yecs.

 

[Astrid]

I agree you were critical of Darwin but they your critique was not balanced.

Modern evolutionary science is well beyond mutation and selection. Jerry Coyne, defines modern evolution theory in terms: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms with focus on prediction and retrodiction: “If evolution is true, then we predict that….”

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is determined by the environment. Example: dark skin is beneficial in in high sunlight environments while light skin is beneficial in low sun light environments.

Favourable mutations kept forever?
No snakes then.
Or flightless birds.

 

[driewerf]

Good scientists are always skeptics. I don't degrade but I do critically examine the claims.

Leaving the evidentiary issues aside for now, examine the rationale. Natural selection by random mutations identifies the environment as the ultimate change agent underlying all the diversity and complexity of living beings. But the evidence on earth's environment is that it is cyclical, not directional. How can a change agent that is cyclical be the cause of directional changes, eg, diversity and complexity in creatures? One might say that once a creature evolves it retains the beneficial trait forever. But that would cancel out the random gene assumption. I'm not saying it cannot be rationalized, almost anything can.

Because, --even if it were cyclical -- it would still be acting upon something different than during the previous cycle. The trilobites wont e around anymore. The dinosaurs wont be around anymore. Neanderthal wont be around anymore. etc etc.

 

[Astrid]

Because, --even if it were cyclical -- it would still be acting upon something different than during the previous cycle. The trilobites wont e around anymore. The dinosaurs wont be around anymore. Neanderthal wont be around anymore. etc etc.

I can't see amphibians turning back into fish
just coz it got wetter.

 

[o_mlly]

I agree you were critical of Darwin but they your critique was not balanced.

It's balanced.

Modern evolutionary science is well beyond mutation and selection. Jerry Coyne, defines modern evolution theory in terms: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms with focus on prediction and retrodiction: “If evolution is true, then we predict that….”

I'm sure you've read the book but the review leaves one wanting for actual predictions that have now been observed. Do you have an observation of a speciation event from a reputable scientist? Repeatable? Can you quote one from the book?

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is determined by the environment. Example: dark skin is beneficial in in high sunlight environments while light skin is beneficial in low sun light environments.

? Yes, I believe that's what I wrote. Are you taking exception or confirming?

 

[o_mlly]

I won't attempt to rationalise it. I'll just correct your misunderstanding.

There is no ultimate change agent. There are two principal change agents:
Mutations create the diversity. The environment determines which mutation will prosper.
The trajectory of evolution is determined by improvements to an existing design* arising through mutations and by the environment for which these improvements provide a better fit. The next time that environment comes around (as per your cyclical conception) evolution is already working on an improved model.

Moreover, while there are cycles in the environment - Wilson Cycles is an obvious one, diurnal variations are another - there are also changes that are either monotonic, or significant changes to the cycles themselves. For example Wilson Cycles have not been in place since the Earth's crust formed and will eventually run out of steam (literally, in one sense); and days are getting longer. So, I disagree strongly with your assertion that the Earth's envirnoment is cyclical. It is not. Start a thread if you want to debate that, I'll happily provide a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary.

Misunderstanding? Read what you just posted. It's just word salad.

Here's just a couple of hints:

• "Mutations create the diversity." Wrong. Mutations are random events and do not create anything. Mutations that just happen to be beneficial in the existing environment persist until the environment changes.
  
• "... evolution is already working on an improved model." No, evolution as proposed is nondirectional, ie., It doesn't work to any end in view.
  
• "Moreover, while there are cycles in the environment ... I disagree strongly ... that the Earth's envirnoment is cyclical." You contradict yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[o_mlly]

Because, --even if it were cyclical -- it would still be acting upon something different than during the previous cycle. The trilobites wont e around anymore. The dinosaurs wont be around anymore. Neanderthal wont be around anymore. etc etc.

Sorry, I missed your post. Keeping to the OP of the thread: Who says the Neanderthals aren't around anymore? I saw one just the other day, I think it was down at Trader Vic's And his hair was perfect.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's balanced.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm sure you've read the book but the review leaves one wanting for actual predictions that have now been observed.

First, I am going to ask what evidence do you have that evolution stops at the micro level?
Second, you likely know the evidence for microevolution so there is no need for me to point you to sources before you answer the above question.

Do you have an observation of a speciation event from a reputable scientist? Repeatable?

Yes, I do. evolution and speciation in algae has been known for a long time. Now it has been witnessed in a lab.
Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism

Can you quote one from the book?

I could be mistaken but I thought Darwin conceded that speciation was a dilemma.

? Yes, I believe that's what I wrote. Are you taking exception of confirming?

I misread that part we are in agreement.

 

[o_mlly]

First, I am going to ask what evidence do you have that evolution stops at the micro level?
Second, you likely know the evidence for microevolution so there is no need for me to point you to sources before you answer the above question.

I asked first. You know it's silly to ask me for evidence that refutes my claim. To quote our pres: "C'mon man!"

Yes, I do. evolution and speciation in algae has been known for a long time. Now it has been witnessed in a lab.

Speciation? Single cell to multi? What is your definition of species?

I could be mistaken but I thought Darwin conceded that speciation was a dilemma.

Wrong book. Please cite the example from the book you cited by Jerry Coyne. Darwin understated the problem. We're still looking for those transitional fossils.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Misunderstanding? Read what you just posted. It's just word salad.

Here's just a couple of hints:

• "Mutations create the diversity." Wrong. Mutations are random events and do not create anything. Mutations that just happen to be beneficial in the existing environment persist until the environment changes.
  
• "... evolution is already working on an improved model." No, evolution as proposed is nondirectional, ie., It doesn't work to any end in view.
  
• "Moreover, while there are cycles in the environment ... I disagree strongly ... that the Earth's envirnoment is cyclical." You contradict yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

Then find another word for something new that didn't exist before in a process.

Evolution of a less successful organism will not occur on average or do you have an example to disprove this idea? It moves in the direction of more successful. This might be in the direction of less complexity, but that is different.
Evolution moves as a ratchet for a simple poor analogy, it has great difficulty moving backwards.

 

[Palmfever]

When you start with a good design, why fix it?
Cats, for instance, are more like you and me than anyone would have guessed, say, 100 years ago. Perhaps that explains why some people display such fine feline-like tendencies such as laying out in the sun on a summer day. In 2007, a study found that felines share around 90% of their overall genetic material with homo sapiens. So the next time someone refers to their friend as a “cat person”, they may be more correct than they realize.
dna shared with ...

 

[Frank Robert]

I asked first. You know it's silly to ask me for evidence that refutes my claim. To quote our pres: "C'mon man!"

I just want to know where you are coming from and not waste my time on word games.

Speciation? Single cell to multi? What is your definition of species?

The definition of species is a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature but some biologists like Professor Dan Cardinale are cautious when using the word species because their are animals like dog and a wolf that are different species but they can interbreed which leads to kickback from creationists.

Macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level which necessitate a lot of new traits.

Wrong book. Please cite the example from the book you cited by Jerry Coyne.

We may have our wires crossed. My reference to Cohen was his explanation of modern evolution theory

Darwin understated the problem. We're still looking for those transitional fossils.

According to standard definition: A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

Partial List of transitional fossils

 

[Frank Robert]

? A scientific hypothesis find its merit in its usefulness to predict future events.

Let me explain, based on observations ... oh, wait. That doesn't apply here. Darwin wrote a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" without a single observation of speciation (whatever that is). Doesn't that fact put his book in the Sci-Fi section?

Such a critique is entirely unbalanced. There has never been any Sci-Fi writer who has captivated the imagination of thousands of scientists and spurred 10s of thousands of scientific hypothesis for nearly two centuries.