Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Crowns&Laurels]

If one goes the Intelligent Design route, micro-evolution is better stated as simply an internal maintenance system God installed into organisms.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe so, but it's a point I thought worth making anyway.

Thank you and there is the beauty of debating. Two people participating and debating their views with each sharing evidence and info by explaining why they have that particular view with some support to back it up. Not just assuming and dismissing.

 

[stevevw]

I explained why you were wrong on numerous occasions. You dismissed it without explanation and just rambled on. Later, you pretended that I had never explained to you why you were wrong! So no, you don't listen. This thread is replete with examples of you not listening and the confusion that results from that.

No as far as this thread you only posted some video of a bloke going on about creationists. There was no peer reviewed support and it was all about his opinion. The rest has been your say so without any support to back it up.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No as far as this thread you only posted some video of a bloke going on about creationists. There was no peer reviewed support and it was all about his opinion. The rest has been your say so without any support to back it up.

It's ironic that in the post above you talked about "sharing evidence and info" and not just being dismissive. Yet here you are, being dismissive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you and there is the beauty of debating. Two people participating and debating their views with each sharing evidence and info by explaining why they have that particular view with some support to back it up. Not just assuming and dismissing.

This is entirely hypocritical of you, steve. On numerous occasions I have explained to you why you are wrong only to have you dismiss or ignore what I said, ramble on about something only tangentially related, and then later feign offence when your posts were treated with the respect they deserve.

 

[stevevw]

You don't even know how wrong you are. The "molecular evidence" you allude to supports evolution.

Have you got any evidence to back that up with. This is a good example of what you perceive as posting evidence. You think posting evidence is only making an opinionated statement without any verification.

If I dont know what I am talking about then neither do all these non religious and non creationists experts in evolution.
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
Last year, Dagan and colleagues examined more than half a million genes from 181 prokaryotes and found that 80 per cent of them showed signs of horizontal transfer. Surprisingly, HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes. For a start, it is increasingly accepted that the eukaryotes originated by the fusion of two prokaryotes, one bacterial and the other archaeal, forming this part of the tree into a ring rather than a branch (Nature). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/nature02848.html

The neat picture of a branching tree is further blurred by a process called endosymbiosis. Early on in their evolution, eukaryotes are thought to have engulfed two free-living prokaryotes. These "endosymbionts" later transferred large chunks of their genomes into those of their eukaryote hosts, creating hybrid genomes. As if that weren't complicated enough, some early eukaryotic lineages apparently swallowed one another and amalgamated their genomes, creating yet another layer of horizontal transfer (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol, 23, p 268).

Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way. "If there is a tree of life, it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life," says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.

Some researchers are also convinced that hybridization has been a major driving force in animal evolution (see "Natural born chimeras", and "Two into one")

HGT plays an unexpectedly big role in animals too. As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer.(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023).
http://www.sott.net/article/173647-Why-Darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life

When you think of this in the light of some scientists calling for a rethink on evolution you begin to see a pattern forming. What was once called side issues of evolution that could be explained away as small anomalies such as HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology, genomics, endosymbiosis, are now being called the actual driving forces of changes in living things. But still some want to hold onto the outdated belief that random mutations and natural selection can create all the amazing variety of life. If anything its now the minor player if a player at all.

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

Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full
[/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

/snip

How does any of what you just posted cast doubt on evolution? We've been through this before. Remember, I showed you that your sources disagreed with the claims you were making. So before proceeding, tell us how any of this puts evolution into doubt.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here's the problem steve: you present a gish gallop of information that supposedly supports your claims. On closer inspection, that is rarely the case. Some of the sources you present even disagree with your claims explicitly; others aren't even relevant. You expect us to go through each of your sources to show you that you are wrong. Yet when we do that you just pile on more "evidence" that you think supports your position, reiterating the demand that we go through it all again to show that you are wrong. How about, for a change, you show us that you are right. How about you argue how a particular finding or body of findings supports the claims you are making? Not just links, steve. Make an argument that draws on the evidence.

 

[stevevw]

This is entirely hypocritical of you, steve. On numerous occasions I have explained to you why you are wrong only to have you dismiss or ignore what I said, ramble on about something only tangentially related, and then later feign offense when your posts were treated with the respect they deserve.

I would except that but all I can find is your opinion which is mostly dismissing me. The last post saying that I dont understand what I am talking about without any clarification of what you mean is a good example of the way you treat my posts. I could go back and find the majority of posts saying something like this. Those that dont probably 90% will be your opinion without any support from an independent source. So am I suppose to except what you say is correct without any verification. Especially when you have been so dismissive of me. It seems that you are already deciding that I am wrong and that you are right. Like I said if someone can back up what they say with independent evidence and not just their say so then I will except that. I dont mind being wrong but please explain how and why I am.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

Take this link for example, which leads to an article by Eugene V. Koonin in Nucleic Acids Research (2009;37(4):1011-1034). What aspect of this article supports what you are claiming about evolution?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would except that but all I can find is your opinion which is mostly dismissing me. The last post saying that I dont understand what I am talking about without any clarification of what you mean is a good example of the way you treat my posts. I could go back and find the majority of posts saying something like this. Those that dont probably 90% will be your opinion without any support from an independent source. So am I suppose to except what you say is correct without any verification. Especially when you have been so dismissive of me. It seems that you are already deciding that I am wrong and that you are right. Like I said if someone can back up what they say with independent evidence and not just their say so then I will except that. I dont mind being wrong but please explain how and why I am.

I already have!!!! For goodness sake, steve! Stop pretending that you want people to explain how and why you are wrong. I have already done that on numerous occasions. You don't listen. You just ramble on and then pretend that it never happened. You've been called out on this so many times.

 

[stevevw]

How does any of what you just posted cast doubt on evolution? We've been through this before. Remember, I showed you that your sources disagreed with the claims you were making. So before proceeding, tell us how any of this puts evolution into doubt.

Evolution relies on the passing down of genetic info through mutations that will make a change in a copy of the genes. If a mutation is beneficial it will be kept on through natural selection. This has to happen many times to be able to gradually morph a change in an animals shape of functions. The main tenet of this process is that new genetic info is created by random mutations and natural selection passed vertically from parent to sibling. So that process of evolution has to be dominate enough to be the main driving force to do this above all else.

If all the other forces at play are as predominate or even more prominent then this will undermine evolution because evolution cannot be confidently attributed to all these changes. It means that we cant tell where that new genetic info came from because it could have come from genetic info from other living things horizontally. If all life in the beginning was micro and is said to have a great amount of HGT then life was already sharing genetic info before more complex animals came along. It means that more complex animals may well have already have a vast amount of genetic info within their genomes to tap into to make changes into many forms.

This will explain the sudden appearance of complex forms such as the Cambrian period because its easier to understand that a creature could change because they already had the info there to use. It wasn't a case of a very slow random process. If all these other driving forces dont completely undermine evolution then at the very least they cast a lot of doubt as to Darwinian evolution being the only force. Thats means that some if not many of the assertions made with all their links of transitions through the tree of life are not confirmed by mutations and natural selection only. That will cast doubt on a large chunk of the theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolution relies on the passing down of genetic info through mutations that will make a change in a copy of the genes. If a mutation is beneficial it will be kept on through natural selection. This has to happen many times to be able to gradually morph a change in an animals shape of functions. The main tenet of this process is that new genetic info is created by random mutations and natural selection. So that process of evolution has to be dominate enough to be the main driving force to do this above all else.

If all the other forces at play are as predominate or even more prominent then this will undermine evolution because evolution cannot be confidently attributed to all these changes.

You clearly didn't read the article by Koonin, even though you posted it as a source. These changes are not separate to evolution.

This will explain the sudden appearance of complex forms such as the Cambrian period because its easier to understand that a creature could change because they already had the info there to use. It wasn't a case of a very slow random process. If all these other driving forces dont completely undermine evolution then at the very least they cast a lot of doubt as to Darwinian evolution being the only force.

Read the article by Koonin!

Thats means that some if not many of the assertions made with all their links of transitions through the tree of life are not confirmed by mutations and natural selection only. That will cast doubt on a large chunk of the theory.

Your own source doesn't seem to think so:

Table 1 outlines the status of the central tenets of classical evolutionary biology in the age of evolutionary genomics and systems biology. All the classical concepts have undergone transformation, turning into much more complex, pluralistic characterizations of the evolutionary process (15). Depicting the change in the widest strokes possible, Darwin's paramount insight on the interplay between chance and order (introduced by natural selection) survived, even if in a new, much more complex and nuanced form, with specific contributions of different types of random processes and distinct types of selection revealed.

In other words, our understanding of evolutionary biology has become more sophisticated since Darwin. This doesn't imply that the theory is on the verge of being cast aside.

 

[stevevw]

I already have!!!! For goodness sake, steve! Stop pretending that you want people to explain how and why you are wrong. I have already done that on numerous occasions. You don't listen. You just ramble on and then pretend that it never happened. You've been called out on this so many times.

Look I am not going to keep on going on about this. Lets just leave it at that and move on. We will just have to see if you can back up what you say from now on and not keep dismissing what I have said. IT is good that you ask me to explain my position or give me the chance to as that is all I am asking and what we all should be able to do even if we are wrong and even if we dont know what we are talking about. But we should also expect an explanation as to why we are wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Look I am not going to keep on going on about this. Lets just leave it at that and move on. We will just have to see if you can back up what you say from now on and not keep dismissing what I have said. IT is good that you ask me to explain my position or give me the chance to as that is all I am asking and what we all should be able to do even if we are wrong and even if we dont know what we are talking about. But we should also expect an explanation as to why we are wrong.

This is the last time I will say it, so listen carefully: you have already received an explanation as to why you are wrong, on numerous occasions in fact. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that no such explanation has been offered. In future, whenever you complain about this, I will link to this post to remind you that you have no grounds to complain.

 

[stevevw]

It's ironic that in the post above you talked about "sharing evidence and info" and not just being dismissive. Yet here you are, being dismissive.

I am sharing the evidence. If anything I am sharing more support for my views and probably going overboard in my explanations. So I cannot be accused of not explaining my position or dismissing anything. Whenever someone has a counter claim I will take it on board and then reply with my views and supported evidence.

 

[stevevw]

This is the last time I will say it, so listen carefully: you have already received an explanation as to why you are wrong, on numerous occasions in fact. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that no such explanation has been offered. In future, whenever you complain about this, I will link to this post to remind you that you have no grounds to complain.

That is exactly what your suppose to do anyway. Thats what all the fuss is about. You keep saying it but never post a link to support it. Then when you do post that link, I can say Oh OK I must have missed that one or no I have already addressed that or No that is not what you said ect.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am sharing the evidence. If anything I am sharing more support for my views and probably going overboard in my explanations. So I cannot be accused of not explaining my position or dismissing anything. Whenever someone has a counter claim I will take it on board and then reply with my views and supported evidence.

I'm talking about a video I posted and which you dismissed.

 

[Jobar]

It depends what you mean by evolution. Most people including religious people, creationists and ID supporters agree that there is evolution at the micro level ie within a species. But some say that evolution can have more creative power than it has by taking this and saying it can keep going to changes above species level where one type of animal turns into another ie Dino to bird. No one would deny micro evolution as we see this all around in dog breeds for example.

But when we look into macro evolution and the finer details of how it can happen we find there is little evidence. Evolution within a species works because they need that variation to adapt to changing environments. It has limits and relies on existing genetics. But the further you move away from that existing genetics the more it is a cost to fitness which is the opposite of evolution. A mutation which is nearly always a cost to the animal is not something that improves things. I have already posted ample support for this if you go back and check.

I understand all that; I've been around this block more than a few times, and for a while I was a moderator on the Evolution/Creationism forum at the old Internet Infidels board, some ten years ago. And many years earlier than that, I taught high school biology.

The trouble with 'macro' evolution, the changing of one species (more exactingly, the distant descendants of one species) into something that looks and acts entirely differently, is that it takes so very long to happen. We individual humans can't observe it simply because we don't live long enough. It's like continental drift in that respect.

But to deny that just such huge changes can happen means you have to deny so much else! The fossil record, and genetics, just for starters.

 

[pshun2404]

But to deny that just such huge changes can happen means you have to deny so much else! The fossil record, and genetics, just for starters.[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. It means you simply see a different interpretation of the same evidence.