Natural selection v Intelligent design

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Tests show that in fact mutations do the opposite of what is claimed by evolution and will have a harmful effect on a creature by taking away genetic info rather than adding info or increasing fitness and complexity.

When I studied genetics at uni, these claims were considered entirely false. I'm not aware of any fundamental change to genetics since then. Please provide links or references to these tests you're talking about.

It seems fairly obvious, to take trivial examples, that gene duplication mutations must add information, and that antibiotic resistance mutations increase the fitness of infectious bacteria in the presence of antibiotics by definition.

 

[Ruby Sparks]

Besides its not as simple as just citing one change.

Why isn't it? If scales can change to feathers, one is tempted to ask what brakes can be put on change? Individual examples serve to illustrate. You know you had vestigial gills as a foetus, right?

To me, it makes no sense to accept evolution in the micro-form and not more extensively. It's like saying that your car can go, but only at 1 mile per hour, so it isn't possible for it to go around the world.

I think you also need to read up on speciation. And hybridisation (plants included). And the fossil record. And intermediate species. In fact, there's quite a lot I think you should look up.

And as I said, maybe at some point you'll go through in detail what the alternative is. Creation by a deity. The evidences and processes involved in that would surely increase the odds, no matter how long they seem to some in relation to evolution.

As for abiogenesis, the argument, 'We do not yet fully understand something, therefore creator god' is not that impressive. We've been turning over stones for a long time now, and god hasn't appeared under any of them. I am not sure why some seem to think he'll turn up eventually under the ones which remain. Even if he does, he's not going to be anything remotely like the personal god of, say, Christianity, so I sometimes wonder, what's the point?

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure your points are valid. But if you can support them with evidence I would be very interested to see my it.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic—once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.html
A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes
Genome sequencing studies indicate that all humans carry many genetic variants predicted to cause loss of function (LoF) of protein-coding genes, suggesting unexpected redundancy in the human genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299548/
The cost of gene expression underlies a fitness trade-off in yeast
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5755.full
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract

 

[asherahSamaria]

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic—once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.html
A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes
Genome sequencing studies indicate that all humans carry many genetic variants predicted to cause loss of function (LoF) of protein-coding genes, suggesting unexpected redundancy in the human genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299548/
The cost of gene expression underlies a fitness trade-off in yeast
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5755.full
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract

Just checked out one link -the WITpress one - perhaps not so reliable after all


http://bogus-conferences.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/fake-conferences-brebbia-bogus.html

https://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/videa-paper.html


From Wikipedia --
Doubts have been raised as to whether proper peer review has been followed for these conferences, this issue was, in particular, tested for the VIDEA conference in 1995, where several nonsensical abstracts were provisionally accepted for publication.[49] [50]

 

[Jobar]

The limiting factors are to do with a number of things. Fitness as most mutations have a cost to fitness, even so called beneficial mutations can have a small cost factor involved. Tests show that in fact mutations do the opposite of what is claimed by evolution and will have a harmful effect on a creature by taking away genetic info rather than adding info or increasing fitness and complexity. The capacity to evolve multi mutations that are needed even for small changes in the proteins to add new functions through a chance and random process.

Evolving from a Dino to a bird doesn't just involve changing scales into feathers. What about the dinos that dont have scales. Besides its not as simple as just citing one change. Feathers in themselves are a complex piece of body plan and involve many features that would need to be evolved through random mutations. Then you have the 100s of other functions, systems and other connections such as bone structure, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, respiratory system changes, blood vessel changes and all the connections to the brain to tell everything to work properly. This is only a small example of what is needed to change one creature from another.

As others have noted, most mutations are neutral.

Still, granted that there are far more harmful or neutral mutations than there are beneficial ones, so it's fair to say that most mutations are not beneficial, by a tremendous margin. So, unless an individual organism wins that lottery, mutations are probably not good news.

Even the winners of that lottery will probably benefit only a tiny bit; instead of wide scales, for example, they might have slimmer and more flexible scales which may provide slightly better insulation against cold. Thus their descendants are more likely to survive if the area they live in gets cooler. A very small survival advantage gets conserved, and the number of individuals having it gets amplified over time- and given enough time, time in the millions and billions of years, the sum of those tiny beneficial changes can result in feathers that were once scales; in birds whose distant ancestors were once dinosaurs.

 

[masterp48hd]

Yes and also the Galapagos Islands where the finches Darwin observed to help make his theory change the sizes of their beaks to be able to crack the shells of seeds so they could continue to eat. The finches with bigger and stronger beaks survived and that feature became more dominate within the group of finches. But later it was observed that when thing returned back to the way they were the finches beaks also returned to how they were.

Still this is just a small change which would be available to happen from the existing genetics the finches already had. The evolution for change is limited and change make heaps of variations to birds. But it doesn't mean that those birds were once dinos and they morphed from reptile type creatures to birds. Evolution takes what is true to a limited ability and then extends that to give it more creative ability than is available. They do this because they link up similarities between certain creatures and speculate that this is because one came from the other. But genetic evidence shows us that this is not the case. The connection that they make through the Darwinian tree of life are often contradicted by the genetic evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/cha...ientists-debunk-darwin-s-tree-of-life-diagram

Then how do you explain vestigial organs and structures? Like the little front legs in dolphins (there are bigger in extinct cetaceans, which leads to believe they once were land animals )

 

[stevevw]

Did I ever deny that some scientists also happen to be theists? I don't recall ever saying anything of that nature. Could you quote me on it?

I am not saying you dont deny that. I am saying that when I originally posted the quote from Einstein I said that some scientists like Einstein believe that there is more to science and that there is design in nature and that a God or spirit that is behind this which goes beyond the science. But you turned that into just a belief in God and used Einstein as your example of not believing in God. I never said that in the first place. You were clearly denying that scientists like Einstein do believe in something beyond the science whether it be God or a god or a spiritual entity of some sort.

That is clearly untrue. Many scientists are atheists.

Well this is a quote from Einstein who you also used to show he doesn't believe in God. So here he is saying something different to what you claim he believes. AS a scientists he is expressing his personal views and being honest about it. I dont think there was as much stigma and pressure back then for scientists to express a belief in theism or some sort. Nowadays its more taboo and frowned upon. Scientists who say anything along those lines are ridiculed or even may risk their careers. I believe that there are more scientists who have personal views about theism. They would personally believe that there is something behind life and the universe when they see its great complexity. But they have to keep to the consensus and tow the party line.

You're not listening, again. Back to your usual ways. Einstein's concept of god differed significantly from your own. Einstein's religion, to the extent that he had one, differed significantly from your own.

Yes but you were not paying attention to the reason why I first used Einstein as an example of how a scientists can have a belief even though they think along scientific lines. You came into a conversation I was having with someone else in which you took it to another place by making it personal about my beliefs. I wasn't concerned about that but a general view about how some scientists can have a belief at the same time as being a scientists.

So what?

So what?

As I said you weren't concerned with the original point I was making so hence you are dismissing everything now. It doesn't matter it has been side tracked anyway. It wasn't just about Einstein but about any scientists who happens to believe in God or the spirituality of life. Because they know about falsifying the evidence yet some still believe. They realize that there is more to things that what they see and what can be tested and verified.

 

[pshun2404]

When I studied genetics at uni, these claims were considered entirely false. I'm not aware of any fundamental change to genetics since then. Please provide links or references to these tests you're talking about.

It seems fairly obvious, to take trivial examples, that gene duplication mutations must add information, and that antibiotic resistance mutations increase the fitness of infectious bacteria in the presence of antibiotics by definition.

My daughter Sally is totally cillan resistant and it only caused her harm...and oh yeah, she is not a new species of Sapien.

 

[pshun2404]

Then how do you explain vestigial organs and structures? Like the little front legs in dolphins (there are bigger in extinct cetaceans, which leads to believe they once were land animals )

Vestigial organs is a entire myth and there is no proof dolphins were ever anything but a different variety of cetacean. All such taxanomical classifications demonstrate variety but that does not demonstrate the leap of blind faith that one turned into the other over millions of years just that one variety was more successful than another.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My daughter Sally is totally cillan resistant and it only caused her harm...and oh yeah, she is not a new species of Sapien.

That's a shame, but is nothing to do with my point.

Having said that, I assume you mean she's allergic to penicillin, which implies she's not resistant to it... otherwise, it's not clear what you do mean, if anything.

Incidentally, 'Sapiens' is the species name. A new species of human would be a new Hominin, perhaps 'Homo Sapeintior' (Man the Wiser). As has been said already, individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.

 

[Ruby Sparks]

Vestigial organs is a entire myth and there is no proof dolphins were ever anything but a different variety of cetacean. All such taxanomical classifications demonstrate variety but that does not demonstrate the leap of blind faith that one turned into the other over millions of years just that one variety was more successful than another.

Seriously, have you never looked into this matter?

 

[stevevw]

Why isn't it? If scales can change to feathers, one is tempted to ask what brakes can be put on change? Individual examples serve to illustrate. You know you had vestigial gills as a foetus, right?

Its not just about turning scales into feathers though and I am not sure it could happen just like that. I am not a biologist to know whether scales are very close to feathers in all their protein sequences to make the jump easily. I would say there are many changes that need to happen so therefore many mutations are needed. Its not just a case of one simple mutation and then hey presto feathers. Plus as I said before even if feathers are eventually produced that doesn't mean anything. Feathers are only useful for wings when a whole lot of other changes also happen. Feathers on their own may be a set back as much as an advantage. They maybe be deformed feathers or partly formed feathers. Theres a whole range of possibilities.

As for us having gills as a fetus this is not the case and is a thing evolution uses to try and say that this is a left over feature from our evolutionary past. The same as so called tails at our coxis or that our appendix are a useless bit left over from the past. They have found that all these things have a use and play a part and are very important. The so called gill slits are not slits at all but folds that dont penetrate the surface. As the fetus develops the spine and brain grow faster than the rest and therefore are longer that the rest of the body. This forces the embryo to curl up and cause the folds. Those folds have nothing to do with breathing or the lung area. They go on to form the neck, ear and jaw area.

To me, it makes no sense to accept evolution in the micro-form and not more extensively. It's like saying that your car can go, but only at 1 mile per hour, so it isn't possible for it to go around the world.

Micro evolution has been observed and proven. Macro evolution where one creature can eventually turn into another has not been observed even in tests with fast evolving bacteria. So its speculated based on micro evolution, drawing similarities between creatures from the fossil records. But tests have also found that there are limits to evolution and that all changes are the results of changes or even a loss of info in existing genetics.

I think you also need to read up on speciation. And hybridisation (plants included). And the fossil record. And intermediate species. In fact, there's quite a lot I think you should look up.

Maybe so and I do a lot of researching. If you notice I post support for what I say. I am not saying I know it all and I dont completely understand the finer details especially in genetics. I have read that plants have a great ability for HGT. So they can gain new genetic info from their surrounding environments. Species is a bit ambiguous as there doesn't seem to be a clear definition.

I know they say that if a creature cannot mate and have fertile off springs. But when you look at say the many different bird species they are still all birds in shape so you could say that this is just the great variation within the bird type animals. But once again just because birds will speciate doesn't mean that they will change shape and become a completely different animal. In fact there is evidence that birds have been the same even when the dinos were around. There is evidence that many animals have not changed at all or very little for millions and millions of years. The only difference for many is their size. They are more or less the same but bigger in the past. All of the main body plans for modern day creatures popped into existence from nowhere during the Cambrian period.

And as I said, maybe at some point you'll go through in detail what the alternative is. Creation by a deity. The evidences and processes involved in that would surely increase the odds, no matter how long they seem to some in relation to evolution.

I am not automatically saying that it is God. But I think you have to first establish that 1) the evidence for evolution isn't as great as some say and there is actually evidence showing it is unlikely. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one way and much is speculated. But genetic evidence seems to contradict it. 2) look for alternative explanations and this is not just from religious/ creationists sources. There is evidence from other areas that may be responsible as the driving forces for change. IE HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology ect.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
Networks: expanding evolutionary thinking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23764187
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

3) There is some evidence for design in nature. Tests and research are showing the vast complexity of life through genetics. It seems that life is coded by a complex language that needs to be precise. There are layers of complex codes and 3 dimensional components of genetic information which seems to be beyond a random naturalistic process. There is some evidence that our genetic info for life to make even complex organisms has been around from the beginning. That we have underestimated the capacity of our existing genomes to create the variety of life. So more investigation needs to be made. This doesn't automatically say that there is a God but it points to something behind life that has intelligence.

But the other thing to consider is that rather than evolution making things better ie more complex and better equipped to survive such as healthier there is evidence that genetic entropy is at work and things deteriorate. This is the opposite of evolution.
Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf.
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full.pdf+html

As for abiogenesis, the argument, 'We do not yet fully understand something, therefore creator god' is not that impressive. We've been turning over stones for a long time now, and god hasn't appeared under any of them. I am not sure why some seem to think he'll turn up eventually under the ones which remain. Even if he does, he's not going to be anything remotely like the personal god of, say, Christianity, so I sometimes wonder, what's the point?

We have also been looking for the naturalistic explanation and have never even come close to explaining this let alone proving it. Now some scientists want to say that life came from somewhere else in the universe such as on some meteorite that crashed into the earth. But this just takes the problem somewhere else. Personally I believe you have to consider that there is something greater involved because we are talking about life coming from non life. So if its not a creative God then it has to be something greater than the miracle of life which has to be something pretty great.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Micro evolution has been observed and proven. Macro evolution where one creature can eventually turn into another has not been observed even in tests with fast evolving bacteria. So its speculated based on micro evolution, drawing similarities between creatures from the fossil records. But tests have also found that there are limits to evolution and that all changes are the results of changes or even a loss of info in existing genetics.

I already addressed this! You're repeating the same talking points.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not saying you dont deny that. I am saying that when I originally posted the quote from Einstein I said that some scientists like Einstein believe that there is more to science and that there is design in nature and that a God or spirit that is behind this which goes beyond the science. But you turned that into just a belief in God and used Einstein as your example of not believing in God. I never said that in the first place. You were clearly denying that scientists like Einstein do believe in something beyond the science whether it be God or a god or a spiritual entity of some sort.

Well this is a quote from Einstein who you also used to show he doesn't believe in God.

Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me? You are the worst person to discuss anything with because you constantly misconstrue what the other person says.

As I said you weren't concerned with the original point I was making so hence you are dismissing everything now. It doesn't matter it has been side tracked anyway. It wasn't just about Einstein but about any scientists who happens to believe in God or the spirituality of life. Because they know about falsifying the evidence yet some still believe. They realize that there is more to things that what they see and what can be tested and verified.

And? So what? Many scientists are also atheists. What non-trivial point are you trying to make?

 

[stevevw]

I already addressed this! You're repeating the same talking points.

No you havnt address this. Tests done on bacteria show that any so called beneficial mutations were actually a change in existing genetics or more so a loss of genetic info which is the opposite of evolution. Other tests show that for a simple change in proteins to add a new function which requires 2 or more mutations is unlikely to happen in the time that the earth has been in existence. So it hasn't been observed and is only speculated..

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No you havnt address this.

Yes, I have. Please stop misrepresenting the conversation.

 

[stevevw]

Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me? You are the worst person to discuss anything with because you constantly misconstrue what the other person says.

How I was talking to KCfromNC about how some scientists can have faith as well as a scientific mind. I used Einstein and Tesla as examples. I didn't say it was about my belief in God or even a belief in God. Just a belief in something beyond the scientific view to something spiritual as well. Einstein called this a spirituality of some sort that was responsible for the great design in nature he said. Then you come in and misrepresented what I was talking about by personalizing it to my personal belief in God. If anyone is misrepresenting things it is you by coming into someone elses conversation and injecting something into that wasn't there in the first place.

But on top of this you took one quote from Einstein and used this to make that irrelevant point which was untrue anyway. Like I noted Einstein also said the opposite about God. He said an intelligent person would believe in God and he said that he believed in God. So that would mean he is calling himself childish. So you have injected something else into what Einstein represented or meant. When I proposed this to you you just ignored all the other quotes he said and kept insisting that this was the only relevant one he quoted which is untrue. But it seems we are continually disagreeing about what a persons status is for the sake of proving a point.

And? So what? Many scientists are also atheists. What non-trivial point are you trying to make?

I originally stated that some of the best experts in science have connections to religion. Not that they believed in my God or anything particular but that they also believed in something beyond the science that was responsible for life and existence. KCfromNC asked me if I was willing to convert to Einsteins view of God in which I said I think I already believe his view. So I think you were way off the pace as far as what point was being made. You were making some other point that was irrelevant to what I was talking about and taking the conversation down some other path about my belief and making things personal.

As far as scientists beliefs in God or the supernatural or spiritual we have discussed this before. But because I mentioned a few scientists who had a belief in God doesn't mean I am making a debate out of how many are on each side. The fact that some do believe is all the point I was making. You are taking it to another level once again and questioning the persons integrity. So are you saying because there maybe more scientists who are atheists than those who are not then that proves there's no God or spirituality. If so are you saying the many great scientists who believe are deluded.

Besides like I said what a scientists admits in public and what they think privately is another matter. It is said that there are scientists who acknowledge in private that they believe there is something beyond the science that needs to be considered. But to admit this would go against them with their peers and their careers. As I have said before many scientists talk about far fetched ideas to explain what they cant explain by the conventional methods of cause and effect. They use all the language of belief but they dont admit its a belief and say its a theory they have. But it still has all the hallmarks of science fiction. Maybe this is their way of acknowledging that there is something beyond the falsifiable science that is at play in life and existence. Theres more than one way to view belief in something beyond what we see and thats all I was saying about Einstein and the other scientists and not making it personalized with my belief as you have done.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I have. Please stop misrepresenting the conversation.

double post

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How I was talking to KCfromNC about how some scientists can have faith as well as a scientific mind. I used Einstein and Tesla as examples. I didn't say it was about my belief in God or even a belief in God. Just a belief in something beyond the scientific view to something spiritual as well. Einstein called this a spirituality of some sort that was responsible for the great design in nature he said. Then you come in and misrepresented what I was talking about by personalizing it to my personal belief in God. If anyone is misrepresenting things it is you by coming into someone elses conversation and injecting something into that wasn't there in the first place.

But on top of this you took one quote from Einstein and used this to make that irrelevant point which was untrue anyway. Like I noted Einstein also said the opposite about God. He said an intelligent person would believe in God and he said that he believed in God. So that would mean he is calling himself childish.

No, steve, just no. Go back, re-read. Einstein was not calling his beliefs childish, but yours. You believe in a personal god. He didn't.

I originally stated that some of the best experts in science have connections to religion. Not that they believed in my God or anything particular but that they also believed in something beyond the science that was responsible for life and existence. KCfromNC asked me if I was willing to convert to Einsteins view of God in which I said I think I already believe his view.

You reject the concept of a personal god?

As far as scientists beliefs in God or the supernatural or spiritual we have discussed this before. But because I mentioned a few scientists who had a belief in God doesn't mean I am making a debate out of how many are on each side. The fact that some do believe is all the point I was making. You are taking it to another level once again and questioning the persons integrity. So are you saying because there maybe more scientists who are atheists than those who are not then that proves there's no God or spirituality.

No. Try reading what you are responding to next time.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I have. Please stop misrepresenting the conversation.

This doesn't address the post and evidence I linked recently about mutations being able to evolve new functions. There is absolutely no genetic evidence included in these posts. Just talk about the theory which is just talk. There needs to be solid evidence addressing these issues.
Archaeopteryx said:
Actually, he did. He spent years collecting the evidence. In any case, it has been over 150 years since Darwin published his seminal work. Since then, multiple parallel lines of evidence have provided further support to evolution. The theory is so well established that it is considered foundational to contemporary biology.
"This goes nowhere near addressing what I have posted. This is just talk with no backup and is nothing to do with the peer reviewed genetic based papers that were posted." We often hear some say evolution is fact but when we go into the details about how the process actually works it is a different story.
Archaeopteryx said:
Those cases that you call "variations within a kind" are exemplary of evolution. The theory does not predict a crocoduck, which is what creationists seem to expect of evolution.
"This doesn't address what I have posted. No one is saying anything about crocoducks. We are talking about the genetic ability and processes as defined by the tests I posted. This is a detailed test done on the ability for proteins to evolve new functions through random multi mutations".
Archaeopteryx said:
I recommend watching Aron Ra's brilliant Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Specifically, the 11th episode in the series, which focuses on macroevolution.
This also doesn't not address what I have posted. You seem to think that this one off post is the answer to everything. For starters what I posted has nothing to do with creationism. It is genetic testing and there are peer reviewed papers to support this. The episode on video doesn't go into any peer reviewed testable evidence. It just continues the story that because there is micro evolution there must be macro evolution. But all of the examples used only show the great variations of the same type of animals.

Dogs are dogs no matter if big or small or good looking or ugly or wolves or poodles. They have been dog types for millions and millions of years. The same for all the other creatures. Its just the great variations within those types for which evolution says can also make one creature into another. But apart from all that talk the actual tests show it cannot happen. Changes are with recombining or loss of existing genes. The tests show limits and they also show the opposite of evolution where there is a loss of info and a creature becomes less fit and not more able to survive. So you havnt addressed the post and have have given some irrelevant answer.