Do you agree with these statements?

[Speedwell]

Yes but I don't dispute evolution just the role and degree NS and random mutations play. I am sure that is a fairly common debate among all who support evolution whether they are religious or not.

Which is not exactly breaking news. What's your point? Are you looking for more "direction" to the evolutionary process which you think bare-bones classical random variation and natural selection can provide? You won't find it and Traditional Christian theology tells us it isn't necessary.

 

[stevevw]

They are an accepted part of the scientific discourse which makes up evolutionary biology. Not all of them are formally a part of the theory, but they by no means represent an "opposition party."

That depends on what emphasis and credence you give them. From what I have read most people who support the traditional concept relegate those forces to a minimum influence and don't class them as causes of evolution. Whereas supporters of the EES say they are actual causes of evolution along with NS and can direct evolution and NS.

 

[Speedwell]

That depends on what emphasis and credence you give them. From what I have read most people who support the traditional concept relegate those forces to a minimum influence and don't class them as causes of evolution. Whereas supporters of the EES say they are actual causes of evolution along with NS and can direct evolution and NS.

Which seems to be an opinion held only by those who don't fully understand evolution or the discourse surrounding it. And you still haven't made clear what your point is.

 

[stevevw]

Which seems to be an opinion held only by those who don't fully understand evolution or the discourse surrounding it. And you still haven't made clear what your point is.

Not really. Have you ever heard of The Altenberg 16.
Suzan Mazur » Suzan Mazur: The Altenberg 16 (Part 1)
The Scientific Revolution in Evolution
The Scientific Revolution in Evolution | Darwin Under Siege

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. Have you ever heard of The Altenberg 16.
Suzan Mazur » Suzan Mazur: The Altenberg 16 (Part 1)

Yes--a transparent attempt by a sensationalist to stir up a fake controversy. The question is, what is your point in bringing it up?

 

[stevevw]

Yes--a transparent attempt by a sensationalist to stir up a fake controversy. The question is, what is your point in bringing it up?

I wouldn't call it sensationalizing things. These are some of the world's most prominent scientists posing these alternatives. Did you even read the article? The Altenberg 16 are the scientists who came up with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which is now well accepted. So I don't class it as sensationalism if its a well-accepted extension and alternative for evolution.

My point is that there is an assumption that adaptive evolution is the only way evolution occurs and that there are other mechanisms that drive evolution and you don't have to be labeled a creationist for suggesting this. But when you do it seems you are labeled a creationist. So that is just another assumption on top of an assumption which sort of shows that it is not really about truth-finding.

 

[Speedwell]

I wouldn't call it sensationalizing things. These are some of the world's most prominent scientists posing these alternatives. Did you even read the article? The Altenberg 16 are the scientists who came up with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which is now well accepted. So I don't class it as sensationalism if its a well-accepted extension and alternative for evolution.

It's an extension, not an alternative. That you are trying to paint it as an alternative makes me wonder what your point is.

My point is that there is an assumption that adaptive evolution is the only way evolution occurs...

I don't know who, if anyone, might be making that assumption but nobody here is, which makes me wonder what your point is.

...and that there are other mechanisms that drive evolution and you don't have to be labeled a creationist for suggesting this. But when you do it seems you are labeled a creationist. So that is just another assumption on top of an assumption which sort of shows that it is not really about truth-finding.

So far it's only been creationists who have put that spin on the Altenberg conference* so if you are not a creationist it makes me wonder what your point is.

*Which the attendees are on record as being disgusted with.

 

[stevevw]

It's an extension, not an alternative. That you are trying to paint it as an alternative makes me wonder what your point is.

I don't know who, if anyone, might be making that assumption but nobody here is, which makes me wonder what your point is. So far it's only been creationists who have put that spin on the Altenberg conference* so if you are not a creationist it makes me wonder what your point is.

*Which the attendees are on record as being disgusted with.

I have created another thread on the EES and wondered if it was OK for me to transfer your post to it so it doesn't sidetrack this one.

 

[Speedwell]

I have created another thread on the EES and wondered if it was OK for me to transfer your post to it so it doesn't sidetrack this one.

OK with me, but I don't see what good it will do you.

 

[Allandavid]

But when you do it seems you are labeled a creationist. So that is just another assumption on top of an assumption which sort of shows that it is not really about truth-finding.

Aren’t you of the belief that every living thing was ‘created’...? How, then, would you not label yourself as a creationist...?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't call it sensationalizing things. These are some of the world's most prominent scientists posing these alternatives. Did you even read the article? The Altenberg 16 are the scientists who came up with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which is now well accepted. So I don't class it as sensationalism if its a well-accepted extension and alternative for evolution.

If you read what the attendees have said about some of the reporting, you'll find that is basically how they refer to it. Pigliucci himself calls it, 'nonsense' and 'ridiculous commentaries', saying "This is how science works, folks, not a sign of “crisis.”".

 

[johneb]

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

I don't know.
But I do wonder about the explosion of life in the Cambrian era.
I also wonder how the first cell came together??? RNA and DNA are required instructions to build a cell but how or why would these instructions exist with out a cell?
I don't think science has provided enough time for chance.
It's time to add a few more trillion years to the age of the universe to make this more unbelievable.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know.

Good start. The best thing is to try to find out, not just assume.

But I do wonder about the explosion of life in the Cambrian era.

It took tens of millions of years. And there is evidence for multicellular life before the Cambrian, just nothing with hard shell or bones to fossilise easily.

I don't know.
I also wonder how the first cell came together??? RNA and DNA are required instructions to build a cell but how or why would these instructions exist with out a cell?

Organic chemicals exist all over the Solar system. The exact process that can turn the building block amino acids into a replicating chemical aren't known, but in a world without life or much oxygen, the fragile DNA or RNA could survive longer without being eaten or broken down.

It's possible that the natural pores in rock or clays would give the structure for replicating chemicals before a simple protein cell was developed.

I don't think science has provided enough time for chance.
It's time to add a few more trillion years to the age of the universe to make this more unbelievable.

Why?

I'm curious about how you get the hard number about the chance of abiogenesis or evolution without even knowing the method.

Do you have a justification, or are these off the cuff guesses?

 

[Kylie]

I don't know.

Glad you can admit that.

But I do wonder about the explosion of life in the Cambrian era.

Why? The Cambrian explosion took place over about 20 million years. It was hardly the overnight burst of life creationists would have you believe.

I also wonder how the first cell came together??? RNA and DNA are required instructions to build a cell but how or why would these instructions exist with out a cell?

Why do you think the first life form was a cell? All evolution needs is something that can replicate itself imperfectly. It's the imperfect copying that allows evolution to happen. It doesn't need to be RNA or DNA or a cell.

I don't think science has provided enough time for chance.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I also wonder how the first cell came together??? RNA and DNA are required instructions to build a cell but how or why would these instructions exist with out a cell?

Why not read up on the various abiogenesis hypotheses and the experimental work around them? The don't all involve starting with cell-like structures, and of those that do, not all start with RNA or DNA.

 

[Gottservant]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?

[...]

Got you on the first question: it depends on the arrangement of the population, and it's leader.

If the population is arranged to confirm existing bias, it won't change.

If the population is without leadership, it won't last.

Everything else is fancy, that an individual is able - beyond guidance - to be what it likes.

 

[Kylie]

Got you on the first question: it depends on the arrangement of the population, and it's leader.

If the population is arranged to confirm existing bias, it won't change.

If the population is without leadership, it won't last.

Everything else is fancy, that an individual is able - beyond guidance - to be what it likes.

Once again: You don't understand how evolution works. What you are saying is meaningless. A population doesn't need a leader in order to evolve.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Got you on the first question: it depends on the arrangement of the population, and it's leader.

If the population is arranged to confirm existing bias, it won't change.

If the population is without leadership, it won't last.

Everything else is fancy, that an individual is able - beyond guidance - to be what it likes.

Are you seriously trying to say that a herd of zebras is not made up of unique individuals? That somehow every zebra is an exact clone of the one next to it?

 

[AV1611VET]

They're still zebras though.

 

[Gottservant]

Are you seriously trying to say that a herd of zebras is not made up of unique individuals? That somehow every zebra is an exact clone of the one next to it?

Every zebra is called a "zebra" by its parents, it does not have to define zebra on its own.