Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"A person who has received baptism or follows Christianity"Show me the definition of Christian that allows him to start a war of extermination with other Christians?
No need for me to alter that definition in any way. But you certainly need to, ergo No True Scotsman.Remember, it is by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Such as claiming no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge. The definition of Scotsman has been changed in an ad hoc way.
You are incorrect as usual.
I don't know for sure. That is the problem with evolution by natural selection. It was assumed in the past and still today that it was responsible for all life and behaviour we see. But as we have discovered more we are seeing that there are other ways life can change and develop. I think it plays a role but it is more a refiner of other processes that can vary in their ability to produce well suited and integrated change/adaptations. I do not deny natural selection happens just its role in how life can change and adapt to their enviroments.According to you, what, if any, role do natural selection play?
Maybe, but I still see many explanations for just about everything as being the result of natural selection ie survival of the fittest. I agree that more people are considering other influences nowadays especially with the rise of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, ecology and genomics.I don't, especially these days.
It makes a big difference to what is the driving force for change and adaptations. What may be assumed as being caused by random mutations and natural selection which is basically Neo-Darwinism may be caused by other processes. This can have implications for what role evolution plays in life changes as far as a blind and random naturalistic process being responsible for life or inbuilt, directed and self-organising processes driving change that may have been there from the beginning or at least from a very early stage in the history of life on earth.In the end - what difference does it make?
It does in the sense that it takes away from evolution being the cause of what we see in the fossil records and opens things up to other possible causes. The EES processes, for example, have better explanations for what we see such as the sudden appearance of well-defined organisms and complex creatures and the gaps in the fossil records. Because a process like plasticity can add variation through development that may not have anything to do with adaptations and survival what can be assumed as a transitional may just be variations of the ability of a creatures phenotypic plasticity within the same species.Does that somehow vindicate the claim in the OP?
Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.I don't know for sure. That is the problem with evolution by natural selection. It was assumed in the past and still today that it was responsible for all life and behaviour we see.
Yes the mechanism is a reality but how much are you assuming is a given. It is an assumption to say that all variation we see is the result of natural selection. For one selection does not produce variation itself. Even if natural selection was the only dominant force according to evolution most variation has not been sifted and therefore the benefit or harm has not been established. By the time it is circumstances may have changed.Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.
All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.Yes the mechanism is a reality but how much are you assuming is a given. It is an assumption to say that all variation we see is the result of natural selection. For one selection does not produce variation itself. Even if natural selection was the only dominant force according to evolution most variation has not been sifted and therefore the benefit or harm has not been established. By the time it is circumstances may have changed.
I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not. If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.As it is claimed that most complex life has gone extinct is natural selection only weeding out the bad. If so then it has no ability to account for how life comes about ie it is good at survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.
Plus there are other mechanisms like drift which has a say in what variations end up or not in populations and in fact can work against the evolution of increased complexity which needs to be specific as well as maintain already finely tuned genetic networks. These influences minimize natural selections ability and role.
Add to this as mentioned because some variations are well suited and integrated so there is not much need for natural selection. Also living things have an ability to change their environments to suit the exact circumstances or changes needed and this can also bypass the need for natural selection.
In other words a creatures has inbuilt mechanisms to produce the exact changes it needs to adapt bypass the force of natural selection which can be assumed to be caused by natural selection. Natural selection will only work when there are beneficial and non-beneficial variations to sift. This makes much more sense in that there are already mechanism that produce well suited and integrated change rather than a hit and miss process through blind selection acting on random mutations which are often harmful and neutral.
Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity."A person who has received baptism or follows Christianity"
Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......No need for me to alter that definition in any way. But you certainly need to, ergo No True Scotsman.
Game, set and match. Just walk away quietly.
What natural selection? One either lives or dies. It is not selected for by nature. Nor did nature select conditions for it to meet.All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.
I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not. If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.
I'm not sure that you understand random variation, either. Do you know what a bell curve is?
The sources are common interbreeding and once in a blue moon mutation.Not without variation. That's what we're arguing about--the sources and nature of variation. Natural selection of variation is a given.
Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity.
Lots of people have put on an outwardly show. Yet by their fruits will you know them. Last I checked the fruits of war against ones brothers was not part of Christianity.....
Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......
Yes, people inflate their own worth in their own eyes, it's only too bad you haven't yet shown how I have changed the definition of Christian.
So speak up, how was it changed? If you can't show any such then just admit it. it's ok.
Enough now. You've been shown to be wrong multiple times and you're just being tiresome now. Let's stop derailing this thread any more. If you would like me to demolish your arguments further then start a new thread in an appropriate sub forum.Just because you receive baptism, doesn't mean you follow Christianity.
Lots of people have put on an outwardly show. Yet by their fruits will you know them. Last I checked the fruits of war against ones brothers was not part of Christianity.....
Doubtful, since you need me to define Christianity for you, you don't seem to be aware of how the definition was changed, since it never was.......
Yes, people inflate their own worth in their own eyes, it's only too bad you haven't yet shown how I have changed the definition of Christian.
So speak up, how was it changed? If you can't show any such then just admit it. it's ok.
First some variation is not the result of gene change and natural selection is irrelevant because the variation has little or nothing to do with adaptation or survival. It is merely a result of development plasticity where for example a plant placed in a new environment it can change shape because of the composition of the soil. It will survive just find with the shape changes. Second how can natural selection sift something that is already best for the creature to adapt. It is like giving someone to sort out the black marbles from the white ones yet all the marbles are white. They will have nothing to do.All variation is "sifted" in the generation in which it occurs.
A creature just dying is not what natural selection is about. It works on populations and fixing traits. In this sense individual change can happen and it can have little affect.I'm not sure if you understand what natural selection is. All creatures are tested by natural selection. A creature is born into its immediate environment and either dies or survives to reproduce. No two creatures of a species are quite alike. Some are successful and some are not.
They are mostly. Creatures we see mostly survive as a whole. There are no magical means. These processes are part of how living things can change through development or self organisation. We are just getting to understand this becuase it has been assumed that it was all because of evolution.If variations are planned out ahead of time to be successful by some magical means, why aren't they all successful? And even if they were, how do you tell? That they survive natural selection, that's how.
I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.I'm not sure that you understand random variation, either. Do you know what a bell curve is?
First some variation is not the result of gene change and natural selection is irrelevant because the variation has little or nothing to do with adaptation or survival. It is merely a result of development plasticity where for example a plant placed in a new environment it can change shape because of the composition of the soil. It will survive just find with the shape changes. Second how can natural selection sift something that is already best for the creature to adapt. It is like giving someone to sort out the black marbles from the white ones yet all the marbles are white. They will have nothing to do.
Living things can work with their enviromnments and other living things and have an inbuilt and self organising ability to adapt and change with new conditions. It is going to be difficult for Natural selection to control this as what happens to one living thing affects another and the changes are bigger than any individual. It is not a case that natural selection is controlling the direction of evolution but that these other processes are controlling what natural selection can and cannot do.
A creature just dying is not what natural selection is about. It works on populations and fixing traits. In this sense individual change can happen and it can have little affect.
I think you are placing too much importance on the different variations being something that determines survival or not. This is the point I am saying that for some everything is seen in adaptive and survival terms when there are changes that just happen as a result of development processes. Some do not influence survivability and therefore have no need to be selected in or out and some are well suited because the development processes responds to enviromental conditions and select themselves.
Other change are brought about through the efforts of the creatures themselves. They know what is best and needed. Take for example humans. If a person builds a hut in a cold climate they have determined their own survival. Natural selection has not determined this but the choices and actions of creatures to control their own evolutionary trajectory. The same for all living things from ants who will build nests and create their own ecosystem to beavers who will build dams where they build their homes and are protected.
Living things have a inbuilt knowledge and ability to control their enviroments. Their actions affect other creatures and organisms which in turn affects and changes the entire ecosystem. But all living things can work together and accommodate these changes. It is not all about predator and prey and survival or else. It is more like self organised selection rather than natural selection. These processes control the direction of evolution and what natural selection can and cannot do.
They are mostly. Creatures we see mostly survive as a whole. There are no magical means. These processes are part of how living things can change through development or self organisation. We are just getting to understand this becuase it has been assumed that it was all because of evolution.
But saying that the only way to tell what causes these variations is because if they survive and therefore it must be natural selection is circular reasoning and the very assumptive view that supporters of the EES is trying to point out. As some have pointed out the focus on adaptive evolution and a genecentric view comes at the expense of other processes that may be the cause.
I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.
Considering the problem of mutating and fixing new specific functional changes in a population and the time problem and if anything this would skew any results away from mutations producing new functional features. Thats why it makes more sense that there is pre-existing genetic info and living things have an ability to produce the right typem of changes when needed. That is how they are built and programmed.
It doesn't apply to "random mutations" it applies to random variation; it is random variation. on which natural selection works, not random mutations. Mutation affects the the genome, not the phenotype directly. and it is the phenotype, not the genome, which natural selection acts on.I understand the principles of the Bell Curve but I am not sure how it applies to random mutations. As far as I understand a mutation can be either deleterous, neutral or beneficial. But they are mostly harmful or neutral. The randomness problem comes when multiple mutations are needed.
It still does not address my point that Behe's findings are supported by other papers from other mainstream journals like GENETICS, Protein Science and Molecular Biology and Evolution Journals.
-_- name the critics that agree with this, with unbiased sources confirming it.Even Behe's critics agreed with the finding that to get a specific new function that required sequence strings of 5 or more from multi mutations would take 100 million years in human populations.
No, I was pointing out that he published in a journal dedicated to papers that present concepts yet to be tested. Behe hasn't performed his experiment, really, his paper is purely hypothetical at best. It isn't a matter of "his results need to be confirmed independently", it is a matter of the fact that the guy has no experiment to speak of.The papers still need to be checked for scientific validity as far as their testing and analysis goes through the peer review process. The finding may disagree with other findings but so long as the methods and procedures for those findings meet proper scientific processes then that is fine. To say that becuase a finding disagree with what mainstream evolutionists believe is wrong by opinion is based on a bias against the person rather than the science.
-_- yup, it sure states that it is rigorous. Do you think an unreliable journal would admit to its own unreliability? Plus, again, a journal for concepts, not things which have actually been tested. I don't know why you feel the need to defend this journal so hard. Are your religious beliefs so fragile that you need Behe to publish in reliable journals to retain your faith?Your argument is based on a logical fallacy of association. According to your logic all the papers and scientists (including mainstream scientists) who have published in the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal work is suspect and that the scientists and process to check validity is suspect. That's despite the journal stating it adheres to rigorous procedures.
Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound
https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/about
If you recognize it for what it is, it isn't terrible, it just isn't a source for stuff that has actually been tested. However, how many people do you think are going to bother reviewing this scientific journal that don't have some sort of relationship with it (as a person that works for it or has published in it)? In all honesty, I can't even find that many reviews for it. For example, do you think just 2 reviews would make this "excellent" rating on this site relevant? https://scirev.org/reviews/theoretical-biology-and-medical-modelling/Despite doing a search for comments on this journal I have not found any negative ones.
So positive that you decided to post NONE of them. Did you think I wouldn't try looking up reviews for myself? The internet is apparently a barren wasteland for being able to find reviews of it in the first place. Most of these "reviews" just repeat what the journal's main website says about it. -_- and you have to be kidding me if you think that anything on Springer about it is going to be unbiased, or any other portion of the same organization.In fact, it is all positive and the journal is seen as part of the new emerging frontier of work in theoretical and mathematical biology.
They don't fit with Nature not because their topics don't fit, but because they are hypothetical. It isn't a journal that specializes in stuff that is actually tested.That is perhaps why these papers are not submitted in other journals like Nature as they do not have a category for this sector of publishing. What does stand out to me though is the length you want to go to undermine these findings by discrediting the scientists, papers and journals associated with them.
Within a short space of time, we have founded a state-of-the-art electronic journal freely accessible to all in a much sort-after interdisciplinary field that will be of benefit to the thinking life scientist, which must include medically qualified doctors as well as scientists who prefer to build their new hypotheses on basic principles and sound concepts underpinning biology. At the same time, these principles are not sacrosanct and require critical analysis. The journal http://www.tbiomed.com promises to deliver many exciting ideas in the future.
XD did you not notice that this was originally published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling? Hahahahahahahaha. So is the one I posted earlier from NCBI, as it were. NCBI is a database of papers published elsewhere, I don't think it actually reviews anything on it. Good luck finding any depth about this journal that doesn't come from it, because I sure didn't find much to go on.
I use the word inbuilt to describe an internal system in this case a development program that can produce phenotypic variations. This is backed by the science. I have posted a lot of information that is directly citing scientific articles and papers and you pick out one word because you personally relate it to religious rhetoric. I suppose your going to say program, also has religious connotations, yet it is a word mainstream scientists use all the time.Inbuilt info? Thus is just religion, no science present.
It still does not change the fact that Neo-Darwinism uses mutations to produce random variations as the main source for all the life we see including its complexity which stems from the molecular to the physical traits that are displayed. That variation also includes a lot of dysfunctional outcomes. Along with natural selection which is blind to know which of those variations or slight alterations in sequences are the best to build those variations it is hard to believe that this could be the source of everything we see regardless of selections said ability to filter things out. It still requires faith and assumption.It doesn't apply to "random mutations" it applies to random variation; it is random variation. on which natural selection works, not random mutations. Mutation affects the the genome, not the phenotype directly. and it is the phenotype, not the genome, which natural selection acts on.
Let me give you an example: Go out and find 100 adults and measure their height; plot the results and you will find that they form a bell curve; what is know as a random distribution. That's the "random" in "evolution by random variation and natural selection." It is from that random distribution of variants that natural selection selects. And that's how you know variation is random, because if it was non-random it wouldn't plot to a bell curve.
I use the word inbuilt to describe an internal system in this case a development program that can produce phenotypic variations. This is backed by the science. I have posted a lot of information that is directly citing scientific articles and papers and you pick out one word because you personally relate it to religious rhetoric. I suppose your going to say program, also has religious connotations, yet it is a word mainstream scientists use all the time.
I didn't take your position that all of Behe's work is invalid because of his associations in the first place and therefore did not feel the need to find others with the same conclusions. That is a logical fallacy. Also if you noticed Behe was quoted by another paper and scientists which you tried to discredit as well. In turn, that paper also cites other papers that support Behe if you were willing to follow that up.If you have papers that support his paper's conclusion that isn't from fellow creationists, then I don't know why you wouldn't use them over Behe, since he is well known for his bias. He specifically is, there are a few creationist scientists that are honest, but he isn't one of them.
-_- name the critics that agree with this, with unbiased sources confirming it.
Yes more than one mutation that is needed to evolve a new specific function. In this case five specific nucleotide changes on the same short stretch of that specific DNA molecule. According to the tests, a string of 5 nucleotide changes is something special and very hard to achieve. In fact so hard that just adding one more nucleotide it would take longer than the earth has been in existence. For strings of 8 nucleotides, it would take longer than the universe has been in existence. Considering apes to humans only takes 6 million years this is a massive time problem.Furthermore, what is a "multi mutation"? Are you just talking about multiple different mutations? Because quite frankly, a 5 nucleotide insertion is nothing special, so it could take just 1 generation. Remember, it doesn't matter how big the deck is, a 5 card hand is getting dealt. No matter how many cards you add, no hand will become impossible. You especially can't limit the number of potential winning hands when we have no idea about how many combinations can result in function.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?