- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Really? In another thread I didn't see? Because there was no link in this post that I was quoting:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Natural selection v Intelligent design
- Thread starter paulm50
- Start date
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,993
- 1,741
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm just describing those who believe in evolution. I am not a creationists or have ever known of this word to be attached to the creationists movement. As the dictionary state s an evolutionists is someone who believes in evolution.
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
So you keep claiming. Forgive me for not taking this claim seriously, given your history of misinterpreting the relevant literature.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
As far as I have read many scientists have some doubts about aspects of evolution. Thats why there is so much debate in the fields. You have to clarify what you mean by evolution because this is what confuses people. There are different understandings of what evolution represents. Evolutionists and thats those who believe in the Darwinian theory interpret evolution differently to those who believe in the more modern understanding of neo Darwinian theory. Then there are those who believe in theistic evolution as well.
From what I have been reading there are many varied beliefs about evolution even with those who say there is no God or creation. Each can have some different core beliefs which can bring into question the fundamental beliefs of Darwinian evolution 4without supporting creation or ID. Though some of the things they support are more in line with ID than evolution from mutations and natural selection. In fact more and more scientists are coming out with variations of the evolution theory and are moving closer to beliefs along ID all the time such as creatures having their genetic info from a very early time in history such as front loaded evolution.
Examples of some of the more popular ones are Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Front-loaded Evolution, Somatic Selection, Epigenetic Evolution and Evolution by Symbiogenesis.
However, what is heavily disputed and debated is the amount of evolution that is possible with each theory. One theory may be very well proven for certain kinds of changes, but not proven at all for others. It is good for someone pursuing research to take an idea and see how far it will go. However, it is good for the rest of us to critically examine the results and decide for ourselves how well-founded those ideas are, and to what extent they apply.
https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter
Upvote
0
My apologies Nicholas (and to all) here it is
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html
But when you said "Put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, and give them enough time, and eventually they'll produce Shakespeare" you were joking right? I mean no one actually believes that could happen....!!!!
For example,there are 169,541 characters in Hamlet….now let’s be satisfied with just the letters in sequence…and let’s assume 1000 monkeys in a room with no limitation as to time….
Still the standard typewriter has 47 keys, therefore just to come up with “hamlet” (just one word) the odds for each letter are 1 in 47 so for the correct 6 letter arrangement we calculate 47 x 47 x 47 x 47 x 47 x 47….just for one word….
There is thus a 1 in 10,779,215,329 chance that any monkey could produce just this one word. Now calculating the 1 in 47 for each of the 169,571 characters in the play is 1 in 47 to the 169, 571st power (we are talking a number many times larger than a googolplex which is 1 in 10 with hundred zeros following)
Now know this…Hamlet is miniscule and far less complex in comparison to your DNA…think about it...hmmm?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
No actually, I'm not. That's the whole idea behind probabilities. Give enough chances and eventually the highly improbable will happen. String together enough keystrokes randomly, and eventually you'll see a pattern, such as one of Shakespeare's sonnets.
Notice I didn't say how many monkeys it would take, nor did I say how long it would take. Just that there is a time when that would happen eventually. Highly improbable does not equal impossible. And given more chances increases probability.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,993
- 1,741
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes there are some who say that the theory needs a rethink. There are a lot of new data that is causing some to doubt the traditional methods.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The core of current evolutionary theory was forged in the 1930s and 1940s. It combined natural selection, genetics and other fields into a consensus about how evolution occurs. This ‘modern synthesis’ allowed the evolutionary process to be described mathematically as frequencies of genetic variants in a population change over time — as, for instance, in the spread of genetic resistance to the myxoma virus in rabbits.
In the decades since, evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.
The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’). Some of its experimental findings are proving tricky to assimilate into SET. Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
This is questionable according to some research.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/a_response_to_dr_dawkins_infor004265.html
Not according to these.
Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...he_Origin_of_Metazoa_Thoughts_About_Evolution
The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14417556
So I guess the papers Ive posted by experts dont know what they are talking about only because they happen to question the general consensus.
So the ones that disagree with what you believe are saying silly things and the ones who support you are OK.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
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
Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3249626/posts
Upvote
0
Darwin himself admitted “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“ (Origin of Species, Chpt. 6 Difficulties of the Theory) and since this we have noted many species suddenly appearing in the geo-column fully formed with all their functional subsystems in place with no predecessors from which they could have formed via slow mutations. Therefore his theory has been broken down by reality. Now that’s not to say that some speciation (the production of variety) has not occurred, but just Triops Cancriformos and Nautilus clearly have not changed in billions of years and even Gould and the Punctuated Equilibrium crowd admit the sudden appearances of new forms with no apparent predecessors.
Upvote
0
This is getting silly. On either believes in Genesis, or does not. That includes all the gaps, mistakes and that the second generation were farmers.
They can't even start to pick tiny holes in Evolution because to them it doesn't exist.
As for evolution. Watch wildlife programs to see how we uses to mate. The Alpha male spreads his genes around the females. Less than the fittest babies don't reach adolescence. Either can't fight for the food, or get picked off as food for others. Watch hatchlings pick on the weakest. There is "Selection of the fittest."
Alpha males are the best hunters, fighters and the one who can command the most females. The less than fittest females also don't last long.
Now imagine a selection process of only the best producing infants, who only produce infants, who only the fittest survive, and multiply it by 33,000 times. A life span of 30 years over 100,000 years. The result is evolution in action. Throw in the Earth's habit of going from hot to cold, wet to dry over long periods, plus the occasional Asteroid hitting the Earth. And it get's more complicated, a species that was doing fantastically and growing in size all the time, is suddenly too big to survive, and the little ones take over. Starting the process again.
And it's so easy to illustrate how it can be done, directed, tampered with and rearranged.
There are now FCI recognized 339 breeds of dogs. Find your pooch, give him a rope and watch him shake it vigorously, try to pull it away from him and you have a tug of war. Because his instinct still tells him it's a piece of meat to kill by shaking it, or tear it apart.
And we achieved all this in an en evolutionary blink of an eye.
They can't even start to pick tiny holes in Evolution because to them it doesn't exist.
As for evolution. Watch wildlife programs to see how we uses to mate. The Alpha male spreads his genes around the females. Less than the fittest babies don't reach adolescence. Either can't fight for the food, or get picked off as food for others. Watch hatchlings pick on the weakest. There is "Selection of the fittest."
Alpha males are the best hunters, fighters and the one who can command the most females. The less than fittest females also don't last long.
Now imagine a selection process of only the best producing infants, who only produce infants, who only the fittest survive, and multiply it by 33,000 times. A life span of 30 years over 100,000 years. The result is evolution in action. Throw in the Earth's habit of going from hot to cold, wet to dry over long periods, plus the occasional Asteroid hitting the Earth. And it get's more complicated, a species that was doing fantastically and growing in size all the time, is suddenly too big to survive, and the little ones take over. Starting the process again.
And it's so easy to illustrate how it can be done, directed, tampered with and rearranged.
There are now FCI recognized 339 breeds of dogs. Find your pooch, give him a rope and watch him shake it vigorously, try to pull it away from him and you have a tug of war. Because his instinct still tells him it's a piece of meat to kill by shaking it, or tear it apart.
And we achieved all this in an en evolutionary blink of an eye.
Upvote
0
Pictures are always good tools for propaganda imprinting but we have long understood how new variety is produced (Jacob even knew about doing this) long before Darwin came along. But interestingly new science (see the work of Robert Wayne for example) is showing that the grey wolf is NOT the ancient ancestor after all...but even creationists would agree that all the variety originated from the earliest dog couples (which would have contained all the genetic potentiality)....same with varieties of humans...(there are no "races" just variety)
Upvote
0
You missed the obvious.
We're finding new species, as developments of previous ones all the time. A missing link, is just missing. You're suggesting it doesn't exist. The only place none of them exist is, Genesis.
Yes some creatures haven't changed, there was no need to. Sharks, crocodiles are perfect examples, their changes are minimal.
The DNA between us and Apes is very close, between us and Chimps even closer.
Upvote
0
- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
You see this:
Which is answered by this:
But you assume this:
Upvote
0
Yes Jacob was a farmer and he would of understood how crossing the best produced a better strain.
Go back and read the research. http://lifesciences.ucla.edu/docs/Unique Evolution.pdf
Did you know about the Dire Wolf, larger than the Grey Wolf and went extinct with the other Mega Fauna large animals. Like the Giant Sloth, Glyptodon, Argentavis, Paraceratherium, Megalodon, Daeodon, Giant beaver. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/7-extinct-megafauna-that-are-out-of-this-world
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He's arguing about something he shouldn't even agree exists.
As a retired person I can watch all the documentaries on Archaeology, Paleontology, Evolution and Wildlife. I can see Homo Sapiens are by no means unique in the Hominid family, that we met and mated with Neanderthals, Homo Erectus left Africa before Homo Sapiens. The different creatures we shared the Earth with that went extinct, the ones who came before us, and the 100,000s of years we hunted and gathered wild fruits. Before we settled down to farm. Where the bible kicks off.
The most important is that the "many species suddenly appearing" bear so many similarities to other species and to us. There has to be a chain of evolution. Look at the hands of the many species suddenly appearing, and see where they're similar to ours. Even animals that came long before us and were long gone before we arrived. A god doesn't need those similarities, evolution has to have them.
Upvote
0
Indeed we agree on this....and don't forget to include all the DNA/Cell symbiosis of all cells in all living things ever (since we were talking of only one miniscule accomplishment)...so don't forget that not only would this have had to have happened not only these many millions of times but that Hamlet would also have had to do so in symbiosis with a functional subsystem of transcription/translation so once it permanently ceased from doing this (which it had to do millions of years ago) they would replicate and multiply into the billions times billions of these systems we see now
Upvote
0
Neanderthals were just a variety of human (albeit an unsuccessful variety)...as were many labelled Erectus (others are Apes and franhkenstein hodge podges of mixed remains like when Dubois took the ape skull cap and pieced it together with a human femur hiding the two human skulls he had found at the same site and called his hodge podge an Ape-man)....
Yes a God would have used the same more successful designs, don't be ridiculous, RANDOMICITY would have produced the most variance
Upvote
0
No they were varieties of the Hominid family, as are humans.
As the bible has no mention of them, and they came long before Humans did, Genesis is wrong. You can't argue Genesis is right and agree these members of the Hominid family exist.
As part of the even larger Ape Family, we see how evolution works.
Upvote
0
Yes there is reams of evidence of the slow mutations. Real bones showing slight variations they can date. Like some dinosaurs evolving into birds. We never had a clue this happened. Then as more dinosaur bones were found, the similarities with birds were seen, now we see fossils with feathers, dinosaur bones evolving to become more like the bone structure of birds. And the theory is turned into fact.
Upvote
0
- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
You see? You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The monkeys are an answer to how abiogenesis happens. Countless molecules crashing together throughout the universe eventually smashed together something that, given a bit of juice, became "alive". That's when evolution takes over. They are not the same thing, and I think that you are intentionally misleading the argument by trying to say that they are. Albeit we have a lot less information about abiogenesis than evolution, and it may seem like knocking it down would say something about evolution, but it doesn't.
So don't go trying to mix in evolution to my metaphor.
Upvote
0
To Paulm50
The DNA between us and Apes is very close, between us and Chimps even closer.
And of course it would be. Physically we are all primate...We share about 50% in common with the banana that does not mean they are our long lost cousins!
No they (neanderthals) were varieties of the Hominid family, as are humans.
I along with many will have to disagree..not anatomically the same as what we call modern Sapiens but close only larger
As part of the even larger Ape Family, we see how evolution works.
Yes we see how Evolutionists invent systems of classification convenient to the theory. Ape and Human are both primates but humans are not apes and apes are not human. Ape-kind did not become man-kind (even Darwin did not believe that).
Like some dinosaurs evolving into birds.
Never happened...homology is a man-made system of classification and is not "science" (though many scienTISTS put their faith in it)... in recent decades we have found avian fossils predating the alleged Archaeopteryx by millions of years
The DNA between us and Apes is very close, between us and Chimps even closer.
And of course it would be. Physically we are all primate...We share about 50% in common with the banana that does not mean they are our long lost cousins!
No they (neanderthals) were varieties of the Hominid family, as are humans.
I along with many will have to disagree..not anatomically the same as what we call modern Sapiens but close only larger
As part of the even larger Ape Family, we see how evolution works.
Yes we see how Evolutionists invent systems of classification convenient to the theory. Ape and Human are both primates but humans are not apes and apes are not human. Ape-kind did not become man-kind (even Darwin did not believe that).
Like some dinosaurs evolving into birds.
Never happened...homology is a man-made system of classification and is not "science" (though many scienTISTS put their faith in it)... in recent decades we have found avian fossils predating the alleged Archaeopteryx by millions of years
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
