Some random discussion on evolution...

[Guy Threepwood]

If that's all that was happening you would probably be right. I think the point is that you really don't know quite enough yet to be looking for "gotchas." I'm not saying there aren't any, but that your search for them has been superficial.

As I think I said to Pita- we can sometimes come across as being a little more emphatic than we mean to be.

But if we can agree that there are no 'gotchas' either way- no slam dunk 'undeniable' proof, that this entire question is a lot more interesting and inconclusive than the average high school biology class, museum exhibit, or PBS special might suggest.. then we may have a tiny piece of common ground to stand on!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.

it is a good example of supported adaptation I'd say- which relies on a very specific and limited range of options being searched, and a platform specifically designed in advance to do so- the bounds cannot be broken and that's why the random input works-

so it highlights the clear distinction between adaptation as a limited design feature and adaptation as a comprehensive design mechanism

 

[sesquiterpene]

where they have any impact at all- they are overwhelmingly more likely to be deleterious than beneficial- that's hardly controversial
.

Is it really so hard to admit you were wrong? ..because you are still wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is it really so hard to admit you were wrong? ..because you are still wrong.

He is here to preach, not debate.

 

[Speedwell]

As I think I said to Pita- we can sometimes come across as being a little more emphatic than we mean to be.

But if we can agree that there are no 'gotchas' either way- no slam dunk 'undeniable' proof, that this entire question is a lot more interesting and inconclusive than the average high school biology class, museum exhibit, or PBS special might suggest.. then we may have a tiny piece of common ground to stand on!

I have something of a different perspective on this. I'm not wedded to the theory of evolution. If you can falsify it, go right ahead. The history of science is littered with falsified theories. Of course, you haven't got anything to replace it with, don't even think you need anything for some reason. But that's OK, someone else will come up with something. What I object to is the implication that science rejects ID because they don't want to admit the possibility of an "intelligent designer" who might turn out to be God. The insinuation that the theory of evolution rules out an "intelligent designer" (or God, if you like) is nothing but a bald-faced lie. Consequently, I am distrustful of anyone who sets an "intelligent designer" as an alternative to evolution. I just don't see an honest motive for it.

 

[SLP]

actually you dont know. someone can made a watch by a different way than any other man. and yet you will conclude design. right?

And this someone would be another human.
So yes, we know humans make watches.

Your argument is absurd.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have something of a different perspective on this. I'm not wedded to the theory of evolution. If you can falsify it, go right ahead. The history of science is littered with falsified theories. Of course, you haven't got anything to replace it with, don't even think you need anything for some reason. But that's OK, someone else will come up with something. What I object to is the implication that science rejects ID because they don't want to admit the possibility of an "intelligent designer" who might turn out to be God. The insinuation that the theory of evolution rules out an "intelligent designer" (or God, if you like) is nothing but a bald-faced lie. Consequently, I am distrustful of anyone who sets an "intelligent designer" as an alternative to evolution. I just don't see an honest motive for it.

I don't distrust anyone who sets evolution as an alternative to God, I just don't agree with them.

As you conceded yourself, you can't debate openly and honestly if you are convinced the other person is operating under some ulterior motive.

But as I've said, you don't need God to replace Darwinism, you don't even need an intelligent designer- put it all down to the multiverse if you prefer that explanation, but we do need a source of information- something more than random mutations which have inadequate creative power- they are always going to be vastly more likely to be deleterious than beneficial if truly random- they can only be used to provide a limited range of variation where that is specifically supported in advance

Obviously bias works both ways- the majority of atheist academics roundly dismissed the primeval atom explicitly for the theistic implications they saw in it. Mocking it as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'Big Bang' as Hoyle coined it, because it didn't appear to rule out the need for a creator as did steady state/ static models- their argument, not mine.

I say why not put the implications aside on both sides, and just follow the evidence where it seems to lead? I'm happy with either implication if that's the truth, are you?

 

[JackRT]

The history of science is littered with falsified theories.

It certainly is! Almost no one has ever heard of Darwin's other theory.

 

[pitabread]

As I've said, you don't need God to replace Darwinism, you don't even need an intelligent designer- put it all down to the multiverse if you prefer that explanation, but we do need a source of information- something more than random mutations which have inadequate creative power- they are always going to be vastly more likely to be deleterious than beneficial if truly random- they can only be used to provide a limited range of variation where that is specifically supported in advance

There's more to evolution that just random mutations though. There are other mechanisms at work (natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, HGT, epigenetics, etc). You have to look at the evolution of organisms more holistically rather than fixating on one specific step or component of the process.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's more to evolution that just random mutations though. There are other mechanisms at work (natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, HGT, epigenetics, etc). You have to look at the evolution of organisms more holistically rather than fixating on one specific step or component of the process.

- well yes, I personally think there is a lot more going on- and so do many scientists, but the modern synthesis of the Darwinian theory of evolution still leaves the creative heavy lifting to random errors.

That's why the focus is there, nobody has a problem with natural selection- The arrival of the fittest has always been the issue- not merely the survival. The latter explains why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Pintos, it does not explain their creation.

Natural selection, drift, recombination etc can only select from or redistribute what has already been created somehow- epigenetics I agree is interesting- and may be key in helping us progress beyond Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

Natural selection, drift, recombination etc can only select from or redistribute what has already been created somehow- epigenetics I agree is interesting- and may be key in helping us progress beyond Darwinism.

And genetic mutations, recombination, HGT, etc, provide the raw material for which mechanisms like selection and drift work on. That's why I said you have to view it as a holistic process, not just in isolated components.

As for "Darwinism", biology has already progressed beyond that during the 20th century. I don't know why you keep fixating on it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And genetic mutations, recombination, HGT, etc, provide the raw material for which mechanisms like selection and drift work on. That's why I said you have to view it as a holistic process, not just in isolated components.

"The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutation."
American Phytopathological Society

"Mutations are random"

"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Berkeley edu.

That's it

aka pure blind chance, pot luck, fluke, whatever term you prefer- that's all there is to provide all the raw materials- according to the modern synthesis of Darwinism

As for "Darwinism", biology has already progressed beyond that during the 20th century. I don't know why you keep fixating on it.

that's why I specify the 'modern synthesis' which is exactly what is being described above. there were no Genetics in Darwins' day, but the 19th C principle of natural selection acting on random variation remains, and as the most popular theory academically, while growing ever more problematic under the scrutiny of 21st C science

(like classical physics & steady state, it never did catch on as much among most people)

If we are going to talk about epigenetics introducing new genes/characteristics as a result of environmental pressures and passing them on- that is Lamarckism- something Darwin was explicitly arguing against- but may turn out to be closer to the mark

 

[pitabread]

aka pure blind chance, pot luck, fluke, whatever term you prefer- that's all there is to provide all the raw materials- according to the modern synthesis of Darwinism

I think some context is needed here. In terms of creating novel genetic sequences by themselves, yes mutations are what does that. But that doesn't mean the process of evolution ends with mutations.

that's why I specify the 'modern synthesis' which is exactly what is being described above.

No, you said "Darwinism".

If you want to be truly accurate then the description to use is the Theory of Evolution.

there were no Genetics in Darwins' day, but the 19th C principle of natural selection acting on random variation remains, and as the most popular theory academically, while growing ever more problematic under the scrutiny of 21st C science

Yes, there is more to evolution than selection acting on variation, and that's been an ongoing debate among biologists for ages now. I don't think it's nearly as "problematic" as you think though.

Honestly when I read stuff like the above, it sounds like a discussion that would be more pertinent in the 1960's or 1970's than in the 2019's.

(This is also why I asked earlier what your source of knowledge in all of this was?)

If we are going to talk about epigenetics introducing new genes/characteristics as a result of environmental pressures and passing them on- that is Lamarckism- something Darwin was explicitly arguing against- but may turn out to be closer to the mark

It's not an either/or. Natural selection is still a component of biological evolution (an observable and measurable one at that).

It's just not the only aspect and that has been known for a long time now.

 

[JackRT]

If you want to be truly accurate then the description to use is the Theory of Evolution.

There has been an immense amount of "value added" since Darwin first proposed his theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think some context is needed here. In terms of creating novel genetic sequences by themselves, yes mutations are what does that. But that doesn't mean the process of evolution ends with mutations.

No, but Darwinism as a theory does in effect

because the utter reliance on pure blind fluke is the defining characteristic of that particular theory.

Lamarckism, ID, creationism, do not rely on this

Natural selection is not in any kind of dispute, because it offers nothing to answer the key questions. it goes entirely without saying

whether creationists or agnostics, farmers have recognized for centuries that characteristics are passed on, that we can select them, and so can environmental conditions. - that's not in question or an answer

No, you said "Darwinism".

If you want to be truly accurate then the description to use is the Theory of Evolution.

I've used just 'Darwinism' yes, in the context where there is no difference between the initial Victorian era theory and the modern synthesis of it, both still rely on pure blind fluke as we have established

'theory of evolution' does not distinguish which theory is being referred to.

Similarly many thought 'Newtonian' was redundant, since his laws were so 'immutable' there was no other option.
As one poster here said- take away the [modern synthesis of Darwinism] and there is no other theory-

That position is exactly what Planck was talking about when he said science 'progresses one funeral at a time' (No ill wished on anyone!) but some people categorically refuse to consider any competing theory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

here is one from wiki:

say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?

That's not a real UFO, it is a well-known fake. So for the sake of argument, let's admit that we know what it is. Now, how do you tell that it's designed?

 

[46AND2]

No, but Darwinism as a theory does in effect

because the utter reliance on pure blind fluke is the defining characteristic of that particular theory.

Lamarckism, ID, creationism, do not rely on this

Natural selection is not in any kind of dispute, because it offers nothing to answer the key questions. it goes entirely without saying

whether creationists or agnostics, farmers have recognized for centuries that characteristics are passed on, that we can select them, and so can environmental conditions. - that's not in question or an answer



I've used just 'Darwinism' yes, in the context where there is no difference between the initial Victorian era theory and the modern synthesis of it, both still rely on pure blind fluke as we have established

'theory of evolution' does not distinguish which theory is being referred to.

Similarly many thought 'Newtonian' was redundant, since his laws were so 'immutable' there was no other option.
As one poster here said- take away the [modern synthesis of Darwinism] and there is no other theory-

That position is exactly what Planck was talking about when he said science 'progresses one funeral at a time' (No ill wished on anyone!) but some people categorically refuse to consider any competing theory.

There is no competing theory to consider. If there was, we'd be happy to consider it. No, ID is not a competing theory...it isn't even a theory. Construct it as one, and it will be considered. Unfortunately nobody has been able to do so. It remains an unfalsifiable conjecture, as it was from day one.

 

[pitabread]

No, but Darwinism as a theory does in effect

because the utter reliance on pure blind fluke is the defining characteristic of that particular theory.

Natural selection is not "pure blind fluke". Again, you're making the same fundamental error over and over; you're fixating on one particular aspect and dismissing it while ignoring the whole.

Lamarckism, ID, creationism, do not rely on this

ID and creationism are not science.

Lamarckism as specifically proposed by Lamarck is essentially a falsified evolutionary hypothesis. And while arguably some aspects of it might be relevant (e.g. epigenetic inheritance), what Lamarck proposed is not about to wholly replace modern evolutionary theory any more than Darwin's original theory of evolution would.

I'm not really sure what your point is.

Natural selection is not in any kind of dispute, because it offers nothing to answer the key questions. it goes entirely without saying

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. What "key questions" are you referring to?

I've used just 'Darwinism' yes, in the context where there is no difference between the initial Victorian era theory and the modern synthesis of it, both still rely on pure blind fluke as we have established

'theory of evolution' does not distinguish which theory is being referred to.

Maybe, but as I said, the way you are posting sounds like you're trying to make an argument that might have been relevant about 50 or so years ago.

That position is exactly what Planck was talking about when he said science 'progresses one funeral at a time' (No ill wished on anyone!) but some people categorically refuse to consider any competing theory.

What competing theory is that?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutation."
American Phytopathological Society

"Mutations are random"

"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Berkeley edu.

That's it

aka pure blind chance, pot luck, fluke, whatever term you prefer- that's all there is to provide all the raw materials- according to the modern synthesis of Darwinism



that's why I specify the 'modern synthesis' which is exactly what is being described above. there were no Genetics in Darwins' day, but the 19th C principle of natural selection acting on random variation remains, and as the most popular theory academically, while growing ever more problematic under the scrutiny of 21st C science

(like classical physics & steady state, it never did catch on as much among most people)

If we are going to talk about epigenetics introducing new genes/characteristics as a result of environmental pressures and passing them on- that is Lamarckism- something Darwin was explicitly arguing against- but may turn out to be closer to the mark

I don't think you understand what is meant by "random" in the article. There's even a link to what it means, but you present a completely different meaning.

 

[Speedwell]

"Pure blind fluke" really does not describe the role that random mutations play in producing variation. It's a loaded term, chosen for that reason.