Directed Evolution

Bradskii · Dec 1, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
It's also fun to see what kinds of social and political philosophies (or just seemingly everyday decisions) that Darwinism (old or new) inspires people to push ...

I'm sure your BA and MS will come in handy.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 2, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
That is taking forever to load. A personal objection against terminology is a rather futile argument.

Claiming that it's taking "forever to load" is a lame excuse. Got a better one? Granted, since the articles I posted come from the UK, it might very well take 25 to 40 seconds to load. But so what? If it were me, and I knew someone was offering me a short article from the University of Cambridge, I'd hold on for the time it takes to load and read the articles. But that's me.

Be that as it may, I have a better suggestion. Just forget about it and don't bother me further about it.

Subduction Zone · Dec 2, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Claiming that it's taking "forever to load" is a lame excuse. Got a better one? Granted, since the articles I posted come from the UK, it might very well take 25 to 40 seconds to load. But so what? If it were me, and I knew someone was offering me a short article from the University of Cambridge, I'd hold on for the time it takes to load and read the articles. But that's me.

Be that as it may, I have a better suggestion. Just forget about it and don't bother me further about it.

The argument was only what I stated. It was an example of a failure. The onus was on you to properly support your claims by quoting and linking.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
The argument was only what I stated. It was an example of a failure. The onus was on you to properly support your claims by quoting and linking.

And the onus of reading what another person says fully, accurately, and in context so that you respond to him/her appropriately ... is on YOU.

Again, I never made the error: I've never yet said something like, "...uh...well...maybe Lamarck rather than Darwin was right after all." That kind of thing wasn't even the locus of what I was honing in on.

Anyway, at this point it doesn't really matter. I'll just drop it since I'm confident that my understanding of evolution is similar to yours, and in this thread we're just critically picking up threads of "directed evolution" [a much different locus of thought] and discussing that ...

Estrid · Dec 3, 2021

J_B_ said:
The scientific language we use definitely comes from a more progressive, positivist era. At that time it meant exactly what you are saying. But, as I noted in the other thread, over time people have tried to strip out those meanings rather than change to a more appropriate word. It does create a confused language, but there is a case to be made for sticking with traditional terms.

But it's all over science. Terms like "law" or (artificial) "intelligence". Sometimes it even goes meta as with genetic optimizers in computer science.

I hated that taxonomy chose to use Latin when I was in high school biology, but looking back I can see some keen insight in making that choice.

English is sore beset with words of many and ambiguous meanings.

New words could be concocted for, say, "law" , or, "selection"
and all other secondary meanings, connotations etc througout the language.
"Faith" would be a terrif one to start with.

Its not gonna happen though.

If a person knows the subject matter, then thete's no confusion
about what is meant by "law" and "selection".

For those who dont get it, there is a solution, but it takes
effort.

Subduction Zone · Dec 3, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
And the onus of reading what another person says fully, accurately, and in context so that you respond to him/her appropriately ... is on YOU.

Again, I never made the error: I've never yet said something like, "...uh...well...maybe Lamarck rather than Darwin was right after all." That kind of thing wasn't even the locus of what I was honing in on.

Anyway, at this point it doesn't really matter. I'll just drop it since I'm confident that my understanding of evolution is similar to yours, and in this thread we're just critically picking up threads of "directed evolution" [a much different locus of thought] and discussing that ...

No, you expect others to do your homework for you. When you refuse to use your own sources properly, and I see that you did the same on another thread, you as much as admit that you have nothing.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
No, you expect others to do your homework for you. When you refuse to use your own sources properly, and I see that you did the same on another thread, you as much as admit that you have nothing.

Oh, I see. We have different ideas about what constitutes substantive interlocution.

Yes, I most definitely DO expect others to show me "their homework." I don't give a rat's butt about their present seeming opinions or present understanding on some topic. I want to see how they've sourced and constructed their views. You guys on the other hand seem to instead want a song-and-dance demonstration as a test to see if we (Christians typically) can measure up to your acumen before you decide to engage anything we might have to either say, or, on a more minute level, bring to the table of discussion.

The fact is, you and I didn't even engage as yet. You tossed a Wikipedia article(s) at me, and I tossed something back. In my estimation, this kind of thing is but the beginning of birth-pangs in research and analysis; it's hardly the stuff of an intention to express some definitive endpoint.

So, since we didn't even get to discuss any aspects of anything related to what we thought we were focusing on, I think it's safe to say that neither of us can cite the other as being "in error." If anything, we're just talking past each other and it probably comes from us having a different idea about what constitutes substantive constructs of thought.

I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole. You guys, on the other hand, seem to see it as a 'done deal' with nothing really to question.

Am I wrong to think this?

Subduction Zone · Dec 3, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Oh, I see. We have different ideas about what constitutes substantive interlocution.

Yes, I most definitely DO expect others to show me "their homework." I don't give a rat's butt about their present seeming opinions or present understanding on some topic. I want to see how they've sourced and constructed their views. You guys on the other hand seem to instead want a song-and-dance demonstration as a test to see if we (Christians typically) can measure up to your acumen before you decide to engage anything we might have to either say, or, on a more minute level, bring to the table of discussion.

The fact is, you and I didn't even engage as yet. You tossed a Wikipedia article(s) at me, and I tossed something back. In my estimation, this kind of thing is but the beginning of birth-pangs in research and analysis; it's hardly the stuff of an intention to express some definitive endpoint.

So, since we didn't even get to discuss any aspects of anything related to what we thought we were focusing on, I think it's safe to say that neither of us can cite the other as being "in error." If anything, we're just talking past each other and it probably comes from us having a different idea about what constitutes substantive constructs of thought.

I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole. You guys, on the other hand, seem to see it as a 'done deal' with nothing really to question.

Am I wrong to think this?

My aren't you a wordy one?

But yes, evolution is pretty much a "done deal". It has been tested and confirmed continually. Minor tweaks have been done as we learn more and more. That you and I are apes is as clear as the fact that you and I are mammals.

This thread is about directed evolution. A slim straw that some still clutch at. The problem is that no one can seem to find any evidence for it.

The Barbarian · Dec 3, 2021

Bradskii said:
Just replace natural selection with artificial selection.

Yes. Ironically, Darwin realized the mechanism of natural selection by noting evolutionary changes in animals and plants by artificial selection.

And yes, organisms are not motivated to produce more offspring. They are motivated to behaviors that produce more offspring.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
My aren't you a wordy one?

But yes, evolution is pretty much a "done deal". It has been tested and confirmed continually. Minor tweaks have been done as we learn more and more. That you and I are apes is as clear as the fact that you and I are mammals.

This thread is about directed evolution. A slim straw that some still clutch at. The problem is that no one can seem to find any evidence for it.

Wait a minute? Did you read the OPs introductory link and entry for "Directed Evolution"? This thread isn't actually about the difference between Intelligent Design proponents and mainstream Evolutionists.

You do realize this, right?

The Barbarian · Dec 3, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
I will admit, though, that I intentionally meant to briefly detour this thread ... mainly because I don't see the whole panoply of evolutionary concepts (whether theoretical or applied) as anything other than a rabbit's hole.

Perhaps you should look up "antibiotic protocols." Seems like a practical idea to me.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

The Barbarian said:
Perhaps you should look up "antibiotic protocols." Seems like a practical idea to me.

Why would I need to do that?

The Barbarian · Dec 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
This thread is about directed evolution. A slim straw that some still clutch at. The problem is that no one can seem to find any evidence for it.

The Grants, in their work on Daphne Major in the Galapagos, pretty much disposed of that notion. They observed evolutionary changes swinging back and forth, depending on variations in climate from year to year. No plan or direction, just a natural process, responding to changes in environment.

This is not to say that organisms are incapable of modifying the environment; it's not a passive process. The environment pushes and many organisms push back. Forest trees, for example, drop leaves with acids that dissolve nutrients, and carry them lower into the soil, making it harder for small plants to get established to compete with them.

Humans are obviously the most egregious case of this, but we haven't yet gotten the hang of doing so to our long-range benefit.

The Barbarian · Dec 3, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Why would I need to do that?

You don't need to do it. Fortunately, your doctor will know about it.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

delete

tas8831 · Dec 3, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
Evolution is not science.

No sense reading beyond this point. You are an anti-science zealot and lacking in any relevant education or background.
Not worth wasting the effort on.
What do you know that this actual creationist scientist doesn't?

Todd Wood, YEC, PhD, had people like the sorts of creationists we tend to encounter on discussion fora or in the comments sections of evolution-related articles on the internet, in mind when he wrote this, bolding mine:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

tas8831 · Dec 3, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Then, I'll elucidate: I think that any scientist who meddles inordinately with genetics is trying to do something Un-Natural. There is NO selection in nature and to attempt selection is to do so artificially and to be stepping into God's domain. It's one thing to observe the genome of whichever organism; but it's another thing altogether to screw around with it.

Is that clearer?

Question begging and perhaps a strawman.
Philosophy is really something.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 3, 2021

tas8831 said:
Question begging and perhaps a strawman.
Philosophy is really something.

Yes. "Perhaps."

But even if my own rationale is deficient here, what's your take on the chosen topic of the OP?

Estrid · Dec 3, 2021

tas8831 said:
Question begging and perhaps a strawman.
Philosophy is really something.

Making anything that does not occur naturally is
messing with God's domain.
I heard about that

The Barbarian · Dec 3, 2021

Estrid said:
Making anything that does not occur naturally is
messing with God's domain.
I heard about that

Hmmm... houses, computers clothing, shoes, prosthetics, dogs, maize, churches, bread,...

You sure about that?

Directed Evolution

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads