Evolution explained. Sure

[Aussie Pete]

 

[sfs]

If your intention was to illustrate just how painfully stupid most creationist attacks on evolution are -- congratulations, you've succeeded.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If your intention was to illustrate just how painfully stupid most creationist attacks on evolution are -- congratulations, you've succeeded.

How you suppose that evolution works? You answer the question of where the genetic information comes from and how. Evolutionists are having to rethink their idea that it's from mutations. Lamarck has been proven wrong (the concept that was commonplace when I was taught evolution), so genetic mutation seems to be the go-to explanation.

Researchers at first ignorantly labeled much of the genome as junk, simply because they did not know what it is for. Not exactly rigorous science. It is now demonstrable that most mutations are deleterious, not beneficial. Such variations must be present in the sexually mature creature and passed onto its offspring. The body can repair faulty DNA. What does not get repaired does get passed on, and is destructive, not beneficial.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[sfs]

How you suppose that evolution works? You answer the question of where the genetic information comes from and how. Evolutionists are having to rethink their idea that it's from mutations. Lamarck has been proven wrong (the concept that was commonplace when I was taught evolution), so genetic mutation seems to be the go-to explanation.

@Isaiah 41:10 has already pointed you to an explanation of where new genetic information comes from. We routinely see new genetic information being created by mutation and natural selection in the lab and in the wild. It's not remotely a mystery.

Researchers at first ignorantly labeled much of the genome as junk, simply because they did not know what it is for. Not exactly rigorous science. It is now demonstrable that most mutations are deleterious, not beneficial. Such variations must be present in the sexually mature creature and passed onto its offspring. The body can repair faulty DNA. What does not get repaired does get passed on, and is destructive, not beneficial.

Pretty much every statement there is wrong. Evolutionary biologists at first assumed, incorrectly, that the genome was almost entirely functional. It was only when multiple lines of evidence turned up indicating otherwise that they came to accept (sometimes reluctantly) that most of the genome (at least for species like humans) has no effect on an organism's fitness or traits. Current estimates for the fraction of the human genome that is functional are around 10%. As a result, most mutations are actually neutral, not deleterious.

 

[Aussie Pete]

@Isaiah 41:10 has already pointed you to an explanation of where new genetic information comes from. We routinely see new genetic information being created by mutation and natural selection in the lab and in the wild. It's not remotely a mystery.

Pretty much every statement there is wrong. Evolutionary biologists at first assumed, incorrectly, that the genome was almost entirely functional. It was only when multiple lines of evidence turned up indicating otherwise that they came to accept (sometimes reluctantly) that most of the genome (at least for species like humans) has no effect on an organism's fitness or traits. Current estimates for the fraction of the human genome that is functional are around 10%. As a result, most mutations are actually neutral, not deleterious.

It's the faulty genes that get through the defences that are the problem. According to Jerry Bergman, it is the "near" neutral genes that are the problem. Most totally defective genes are eliminated by the body's natural defence. The fact that a natural mechanism exists to repair genes is a good indication that evolution is a fundamentally flawed concept.

Tell me one mutation that has produced genetic information that has produced a new creature? Sure, there are adaptations within a species, but not evolution. Someone tried to tell me that elephants were evolving with small tusks in response to poaching. The obvious reason is that elephants with large tusks were being killed and so removed from the gene pool. Is that what you call evolution?

 

[sfs]

It's the faulty genes that get through the defences that are the problem. According to Jerry Bergman, it is the "near" neutral genes that are the problem.

Perhaps you should stop listening to Jeremy Bergman. Near-neutral deleterious mutations are also eliminated by selection, just more slowly than lethal mutations. Species on the whole are not becoming less fit. The idea that genomes are decaying simply has no connection to reality.

The fact that a natural mechanism exists to repair genes is a good indication that evolution is a fundamentally flawed concept.

Sorry, but I can't follow your logic here. DNA repair mechanisms improve an organism's fitness and are therefore subject to natural selection.

Tell me one mutation that has produced genetic information that has produced a new creature?

Which argument do you want to make? That evolution can't produce new genetic information -- which is what you started out arguing and what I objected to -- or that evolution can't produce new creatures?

Sure, there are adaptations within a species, but not evolution. Someone tried to tell me that elephants were evolving with small tusks in response to poaching. The obvious reason is that elephants with large tusks were being killed and so removed from the gene pool. Is that what you call evolution?

Yes, that's what biologists call evolution: genetics-based changes to populations over time. That's the process of evolution. The result of evolution has been the diversification of life over time.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Lamarckism was essentially disproven in 1930s. He was not 100% wrong though. Modem Synthesis is what replaced a lot of his concepts though. Evolution is pretty well understood. Taxonomy despite it fault, coupled with genetics created a good basic outline. Itching else even comes remotely close to explaining the fossil record and superimposition. We are fine tuning a lot of the info, but nothing beats it and we don’t have to change the whole thing. Just tweaking info as we tend out more.

 

[Buzzard3]

Evolution is pretty well understood.

Really?

Do you understand how an amphibian's double-circulation heart (allegedly) evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish?

Do you understand how eukaryotes (allegedly) evolved from prokaryotes?

 

[Buzzard3]

that's what biologists call evolution: genetics-based changes to populations over time. That's the process of evolution. The result of evolution has been the diversification of life over time.

Are you claiming that evolution ("genetics-based changes to populations over time") produced the history of life on earth, as revealed by the fossil record?
If so, on what basis do you make this claim, since science doesn't prove anything?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Lamarckism was essentially disproven in 1930s. He was not 100% wrong though. Modem Synthesis is what replaced a lot of his concepts though. Evolution is pretty well understood. Taxonomy despite it fault, coupled with genetics created a good basic outline. Itching else even comes remotely close to explaining the fossil record and superimposition. We are fine tuning a lot of the info, but nothing beats it and we don’t have to change the whole thing. Just tweaking info as we tend out more.

How about, "In the beginning, God created.........." Or do you reject God's word?

 

[sfs]

Are you claiming that evolution ("genetics-based changes to populations over time") produced the history of life on earth, as revealed by the fossil record?

Yes, that is by far the most likely explanation.

If so, on what basis do you make this claim, since science doesn't prove anything?

On the basis of a vast array of evidence from comparative genetics, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy. Science doesn't prove anything in the mathematical sense: nothing in science is exempt from being reexamined in the light of new evidence. In the ordinary sense of the word (e.g. as used in a courtroom), which is collecting enough evidence to conclude that something is very likely true, science proves things all the time.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... since science doesn't prove anything?

Evolutionary science explains things, it doesn't prove things.

 

[Buzzard3]

Evolutionary science explains things, it doesn't prove things.

Yes, thank you; I understand that.

A scientist told me on another site recently that science can't prove anything at all ... for example, that I'm taller than an ant. Confusing.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yes, thank you; I understand that.

If science doesn't prove things, but rather explains things, then it's fundamentally irrelevant to point out that science doesn't prove things. Of course it doesn't. It's not supposed to.

Now, if you said, "Science doesn't explain things," that would be a meaningful criticism—and impossible to defend.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yes, that is by far the most likely explanation.

I understand that ToE is the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, as revealed by the fossil record. But I don't understand why you claimed that "genetics-based changes to populations over time" (post 7) produced that history, as if it's a proven fact.

No one can ever know what process (natural or supernatural) was responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

 

[Buzzard3]

If science doesn't prove things, but rather explains things, then it's fundamentally irrelevant to point out that science doesn't prove things. Of course it doesn't. It's not supposed to.

Now, if you said, "Science doesn't explain things," that would be a meaningful criticism—and impossible to defend.

I understand that a scientific theory doesn't prove anything, but I don't inderstand what a scientist told me recently - that science can't prove anything at all.

Science can't prove that the Empire State Building is taller than I am?

 

[Job 33:6]

I understand that ToE is the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, as revealed by the fossil record. But I don't understand why you claimed that "genetics-based changes to populations over time" (post 7) produced that history, as if it's a proven fact.

No one can ever know what process (natural or supernatural) was responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "as revealed by the fossil record"? Why do you think the fossil record provides a good explanation for evolution?

 

[Buzzard3]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "as revealed by the fossil record"?[/ Why do you think the fossil record provides a good explanation for evolution?

What? I think the fossil record "provides a good explanation for evolution"? News to me.

I said the fossil record reveals the history of life on earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

What? I think the fossil record "provides a good explanation for evolution"? News to me.

I said the fossil record reveals the history of life on earth.

So the fossil record doesn't reveal that the theory of evolution is a good scientific explanation? Why put these ideas in the same sentence if you aren't implying this?

Maybe I should ask this, why do you think that the theory of evolution is a good explanation for the history of life? Or are you not saying this either?