The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[VirOptimus]

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that there are mechanisms for how life changes besides Neo-Darwinism that can be shown through science. They do not operate with some non-detectable process or require supernatural forces. They point to life having the ability to change/vary through internal and external processes that have been designed to help life adapt from the beginning rather than a blind and random process that takes just as much if not more faith than what some say about supernatural creation. All life shares a similar development programs that have been around from the beginning and all variation has stemmed off that.

Designed? By who/what?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that there are mechanisms for how life changes besides Neo-Darwinism that can be shown through science (1). They do not operate with some non-detectable process or require supernatural forces. They point to life having the ability to change/vary through internal and external processes that have been designed(2) to help life adapt from the beginning rather than a blind and random process that takes just as much if not more faith than what some say about supernatural creation. All life shares a similar development programs that have been around from the beginning and all variation has stemmed off that.

1: which mechanisms are you talking about then?

2: what do you mean by "designed"?

 

[stevevw]

There is nothing in evolutionary biology (or natural sciences in general) that requires "faith".
YOU are the one who insists on including some undetectable, unsupportable, unobservable, untestable entity that "works in mysterious ways" and somehow manipulates living things in completely undetectable fashion, without any measurable manifestation whatsoever.

So please…

The same variety in life that you claim a blind (Natural selection) and random process (random mutations) has created everything we see is what I see as Gods handy work through processes that can be detectable, supported and observed and does not work in mysterious ways.

Mainstream biology is evidence based.

Your undetectable, unsupportable, unobservable, untestable entity that works in mysterious ways with no detectable manifestation, is not. That entity, as well as everything you claim it does / is responsible for, is faith-based

Yes and its the same science that I have posted that supports that there are other processes other than Neo-Darwinism for how life changes. They have been programed into all life to be able to adapt. I find it makes much more sense and is much more believable to say that life has the ability programed in them form the beginning to pull out the exact right stuff needed to change and adapt rather than go looking for it in some hit and miss process that mostly misses and ends up undermining the finely tuned networks that make life.

 

[VirOptimus]

The same variety in life that you claim a blind (Natural selection) and random process (random mutations) has created everything we see is what I see as Gods handy work through processes that can be detectable, supported and observed and does not work in mysterious ways.

Yes and its the same science that I have posted that supports that there are other processes other than Neo-Darwinism for how life changes. They have been programed into all life to be able to adapt. I find it makes much more sense and is much more believable to say that life has the ability programed in them form the beginning to pull out the exact right stuff needed to change and adapt rather than go looking for it in some hit and miss process that mostly misses and ends up undermining the finely tuned networks that make life.

So, religion as I said all along. Why not be upfront about it?

 

[stevevw]

1: which mechanisms are you talking about then?

If you had read what I had posted instead of just dismissing things you would have known. Mechanism like (developmental bias) which is how physical development influences the generation of variation, (Plasticity), how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits, (extra genetic inheritance) which is how organisms transmit more than genes across generations bias genes, (niche construction), how organisms modify environments. Then there are other mechanisms that play their role as well like , genetic drift, symbiosis, epigentics and HGT. Between these processes in which some directly affect the way creatures turn out regardless of selection and some processes are designed to produce certain changes that are meant to be and are the best possible outcome despite influences from selection. Other processes are continual and do not give selection the chance to work as there is a constant battle between external forces shaping and influencing life and then repeating again and again.

2: what do you mean by "designed"?

the developmental programs have been there from the beginning and are meant to be part of how life can change when needed. Its a bit like the computer program example where a software program has been designed to have certain processes that make it work best and needed to be there from the time the program came into operation. Like all life has the same basic code that produces the features we see and this has to have been around from the beginning. Whether you look at the limb of a complex or simple creature or whether it is a fin or leg or arm it is produced from the same basic program with just adjustments of switching on or off certain genes to produce each different variation. That is why we can see the sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil records and how the same basic building blocks have been there from a very early time.

 

[stevevw]

So, religion as I said all along. Why not be upfront about it?

This is different becuase you claim I am a creationist and they believe that all life was created supernaturally. whereas I include evolution and the other mechanisms I have posted to explain how things came about or changed. If there is any position that I would be asociated with I would say it is more a mixture of theistic evolution and ID but I disagree with aspects of both. It is more your assertion I reject that just becuase someone is religious that everything they say is only motivated by their belief. If that was true then we would have to discount some of the greatest scientific discoveries by religious people. Believe it or not people can be both religious and hold scientific views as well without either being affected.

 

[bhsmte]

This is different becuase you claim I am a creationist and they believe that all life was created supernaturally. whereas I include evolution and the other mechanisms I have posted to explain how things came about or changed. If there is any position that I would be asociated with I would say it is more a mixture of theistic evolution and ID but I disagree with aspects of both. It is more your assertion I reject that just becuase someone is religious that everything they say is only motivated by their belief. If that was true then we would have to discount some of the greatest scientific discoveries by religious people. Believe it or not people can be both religious and hold scientific views as well without either being affected.

All opinion, without any independent evidence to support.

Do you have a scientific definition of ID and or, a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

 

[VirOptimus]

This is different becuase you claim I am a creationist and they believe that all life was created supernaturally. whereas I include evolution and the other mechanisms I have posted to explain how things came about or changed. If there is any position that I would be asociated with I would say it is more a mixture of theistic evolution and ID but I disagree with aspects of both. It is more your assertion I reject that just becuase someone is religious that everything they say is only motivated by their belief. If that was true then we would have to discount some of the greatest scientific discoveries by religious people. Believe it or not people can be both religious and hold scientific views as well without either being affected.

Nope, real scientists keep science and religion separete. As you dont you are not discussing science, you are preaching religious ideas.

Also, you are a creationist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you had read what I had posted instead of just dismissing things you would have known. Mechanism like (developmental bias) which is how physical development influences the generation of variation, (Plasticity), how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits, (extra genetic inheritance) which is how organisms transmit more than genes across generations bias genes, (niche construction), how organisms modify environments. Then there are other mechanisms that play their role as well like , genetic drift, symbiosis, epigentics and HGT. Between these processes in which some directly affect the way creatures turn out regardless of selection and some processes are designed to produce certain changes that are meant to be and are the best possible outcome despite influences from selection. Other processes are continual and do not give selection the chance to work as there is a constant battle between external forces shaping and influencing life and then repeating again and again.

the developmental programs have been there from the beginning and are meant to be part of how life can change when needed. Its a bit like the computer program example where a software program has been designed to have certain processes that make it work best and needed to be there from the time the program came into operation. Like all life has the same basic code that produces the features we see and this has to have been around from the beginning. Whether you look at the limb of a complex or simple creature or whether it is a fin or leg or arm it is produced from the same basic program with just adjustments of switching on or off certain genes to produce each different variation. That is why we can see the sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil records and how the same basic building blocks have been there from a very early time.

Consistently calling a blind process a "program" and labeling it as "designed" and imposing teleological stuff on it, is not going to change the fact that it concerns a blind process.

So please provide evidence of these claims...
Or admit that it's just you adding your preconceived beliefs to mainstream biology.

 

[stevevw]

Consistently calling a blind process a "program" and labeling it as "designed" and imposing teleological stuff on it, is not going to change the fact that it concerns a blind process.

So please provide evidence of these claims...
Or admit that it's just you adding your preconceived beliefs to mainstream biology.

or perhaps you are creating a logical fallacy/ Insisting on turning any word I say that hints at a religious connotation are a fallacy. Just because I use a word that may or may not have religious connotations does not mean my entire argument is invalid. Even non-religious people happen to use these words and banning someone from using them because you think it makes everything said religiously motivated is a fallacy. Does that mean whenever I speak about human development, biology, evolution, health, psychology or any of the social science in a debate that I cant use these words because my argument becomes baseless? All logical fallacies. It is better to address the content for which I notice you do not than try to discredit the person or source.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the support I post is what it is. It is papers explaining non-adaptive and other processes such as the ones I have mentioned. Some of those processes happen to point to more guided and programmed mechanisms that must have been around from the beginning because the same development programs are used by early life as today's life. All I am pointing out is that these things point to design. Even if evolution produced this from an early stage the development programs are a good mechanism that works to help living things produce optimal body plans and are used by all life. The same basic program is just varied to produce different features.

At the end of the day I use the same evidence/observations that produce these programmed or guided processes than other people and it is non-religious scientists that label this as such. Neither I or you or any scientist can verify how those processes got there and can only infer. An evolutionary scientist who supports Darwinism will say natural selection was responsible but they cannot produce dirct evidence, other scientists who support a new evolutionary synthesis will say other processes were involved and even discount natural selection.

Some after understanding how development and living things can change will say it is impossible for selection to have produced the genetic networks central for building complex life becuase the way natural selection works undermines that complexity. I happen to support their views but add the inference that there must be a designer involved as well. But I do not blindly believe that everything we see was just supernaturally created. It may have in some way shape or form but there are biological processes, development programs, and other influences that I have mentioned that drive change.

 

[stevevw]

Nope, real scientists keep science and religion separete. As you dont you are not discussing science, you are preaching religious ideas.

Also, you are a creationist.

Once again a logical fallacy. I also keep religion and science seperate. I have given you direct examples for you to explain and still you avoid this. You keep saying no it means something else but never explain what that something else is. Here I will try again. what do the following statements mean.


What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Is this saying natural selection is insufficient or even necessary for the genomic and cellular features central to building complex organism. Central for building what complex organism?

The scientists that wrote this paper Michael Lynch is not religious and is one of the best in this area of Population Genetics and Genomics.

or

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. 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.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Like I say it is what it is.

 

[stevevw]

wrong post

 

[stevevw]

Nope, real scientists keep science and religion separete. As you dont you are not discussing science, you are preaching religious ideas.

Also, you are a creationist.

Once again a logical fallacy. I also keep religion and science separate. I have given you direct examples for you to explain and still you avoid this. You keep saying no it means something else but never explain what that something else is. Here I will try again. what do the following statements mean.

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Is this saying natural selection is insufficient or even necessary for the genomic and cellular features central to building a complex organism? Central for building what complex organism?

The scientists that wrote this paper Michael Lynch is not religious and is one of the best in this area of Population Genetics and Genomics.

or

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. 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.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

What does it mean that when complexity increases it is the result of non-adaptive evolution under weak purifying selection. Would not that mean natural selection plays a minor if not weak role in the process of evolving genomic complexity? That's two different non-religious scientists who are both prominent in their fields.
Like I say it is what it is.

 

[stevevw]

All opinion, without any independent evidence to support.

Do you have a scientific definition of ID and or, a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

As I said I am not necessarily an ID supporter. I just look for design period, it does not have to be traced back to ID. It is difficult enough making a case for any design let alone ID. I happen to think that some of the processes I have already posted have hallmarks of design.

 

[Brightmoon]

So how does this show evidence for a designer? Evolution is a bunch of natural processes that laymen tend to think is just mutations .

 

[VirOptimus]

Once again a logical fallacy. I also keep religion and science seperate. I have given you direct examples for you to explain and still you avoid this. You keep saying no it means something else but never explain what that something else is. Here I will try again. what do the following statements mean.


What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Is this saying natural selection is insufficient or even necessary for the genomic and cellular features central to building complex organism. Central for building what complex organism?

The scientists that wrote this paper Michael Lynch is not religious and is one of the best in this area of Population Genetics and Genomics.

or

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. 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.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Like I say it is what it is.

I have already adressed this. Please write to the authors.

Also, read some recent articles. Not just old ones that you mistakenly think jives with your religion.

 

[stevevw]

I have already adressed this. Please write to the authors.

Also, read some recent articles. Not just old ones that you mistakenly think jives with your religion.

Is it because they are old or because you say they jive with my religion that you object. Old papers as in only 10 years ago are acceptable at Uni so I cannot see the problem. It seems you are bringing up road blocks every way you can. I do not see you asking anyone who makes a claim about evolution asking them to jump through so many loops. I do not need to write to the author as I understand what the paper is saying and have explained this. You happen to disagee and need to explain why, that is what debating is all about.

You havent addressed the paper. all you said was I do not understand what the paper is saying. You havent explained why. Maybe you just think I am wrong about the paper because of your assumption that the paper cannot be really questioning a core tenet of evolution in Natural selection so I must be wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is it because they are old or because you say they jive with my religion that you object. Old papers as in only 10 years ago are acceptable at Uni so I cannot see the problem. It seems you are bringing up road blocks every way you can. I do not see you asking anyone who makes a claim about evolution asking them to jump through so many loops. I do not need to write to the author as I understand what the paper is saying and have explained this. You happen to disagee and need to explain why, that is what debating is all about.

You havent addressed the paper. all you said was I do not understand what the paper is saying. You havent explained why. Maybe you just think I am wrong about the paper because of your assumption that the paper cannot be really questioning a core tenet of evolution in Natural selection so I must be wrong.

No, I have written why you are wrong. I (and others) have also said how you misrepresent the authors.

Its you who challange the consensual science who need to back up your wild claims, not I.

Try again.

 

[stevevw]

No, I have written why you are wrong. I (and others) have also said how you misrepresent the authors.

Its you who challange the consensual science who need to back up your wild claims, not I.

Try again.

Can you remind me of how I misrepresented the authors.

And just a couple of questions then.
Do you agree that the papers are questioning natural selection ability at all. If so

Do you agree in what Lynch is saying that Natural selection has been overused as a force when there are other forces that are more responsible for the evolution of genomic and cellular networks central for building complex organisms.

 

[VirOptimus]

Can you remind me of how I misrepresented the authors.

And just a couple of questions then.
Do you agree that the papers are questioning natural selection ability at all. If so

Do you agree in what Lynch is saying that Natural selection has been overused as a force when there are other forces that are more responsible for the evolution of genomic and cellular networks central for building complex organisms.

No I dont agree with your conclusions as they are wrong. The papers say that natural selection is the overwhelming strongest force in the ToE but that there are other, minor forces, that may complement natural selection in some cases. This is marginal but nonetheless important of course, but not in the way you seem to think.

Again, write the authors if you dont believe me.