The light of evolution: What would be lost

[whois]

"Darwinism" is not a term generally used to describe any part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. You are completely misrepresenting their position and lying when you make claims like this.

ah yes, my bad.
i forgot to put the word "neo" in front of darwinism, so sue me.

the point of the matter is that "adaptionism" in the darwinian sense is outmoded and incorrect.
the notion that DNA is some sort of "gene library" is also incorrect.
the gene can no longer be seen as the only method of "change".
the lifelong immunity to certain diseases is proof of that

 

[sfs]

the point of the matter is that "adaptionism" in the darwinian sense is outmoded and incorrect.

"Adaptionism " has been outmoded since the 1960s. Its passing did absolutely nothing to undermine common descent or the importance of natural selection to adaptive evolution.

the notion that DNA is some sort of "gene library" is also incorrect.

I don't even know what this means. Lots has been learned about DNA, about how genes work and about how noncoding DNA regulates genes. All of it has done absolutely nothing to undermine common descent or the importance of natural selection to adaptive evolution.

the gene can no longer be seen as the only method of "change".

It's not clear that anyone ever thought of genes as the only method of "change". If you mean DNA, it's still not clear that anything other than DNA (or RNA, in the case of some viruses) matters to evolution.

the lifelong immunity to certain diseases is proof of that

<blink>
Huh? Lifelong immunity is usually the result of changes to DNA (created by random mutations filtered by selection, in fact).

Are you aware that all of the people whom you are quoting think your own views are completely detached from reality?

 

[The Cadet]

Darwinian evolutionism commonly uses the bait and switch method of promotion of their Godless creationism worldview. "Common ancestry" is the term used to 'prove' that humanity is just another of many life forms, one no better than the other (humans are of no more worth than chimps) and that the creative force for the creation of all life, including humanity (and chimps), is by only random/chance/mindless/meaningless/purposeless/goalless naturalistic mechanisms. At this point, the 'common ancestry' switcheroo takes place and it's further claimed that humanity had it's source in some unknown single life form of long long ago.

Bottom line, it's simply promotion of the philosophical worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism, a faith based belief system promoted as science.

Did you watch the videos in the first post? The evolutionary model has been used to make countless predictions and advances in our lives. Common ancestry was a crucial part in many of these discoveries.

ah yes, my bad.
i forgot to put the word "neo" in front of darwinism, so sue me.

the point of the matter is that "adaptionism" in the darwinian sense is outmoded and incorrect.
the notion that DNA is some sort of "gene library" is also incorrect.
the gene can no longer be seen as the only method of "change".
the lifelong immunity to certain diseases is proof of that

So what does this have to do with anything in this thread?

 

[juvenissun]

Um... Did you watch the videos in the OP? Common ancestry is one of the things used as a method to discover things like oncogenes, which led to both a nobel prize in biology and an entirely new kind of chemotherapy medicine!

They can do the same discovery by using simple logic. They only attributed the credit to the common ancestry idea because they believed the evolution is true. Logic is their main tool, not the idea of common ancestry. The idea of common ancestry is a combination of logic AND imagination.

 

[whois]

Are you aware that all of the people whom you are quoting think your own views are completely detached from reality?

are you aware that i haven't quoted anybody?
i presented links to what THEY said.

edit:
did you notice what was said about ayala in the noble link?

 

[The Cadet]

They can do the same discovery by using simple logic.

Who cares what you want to call it? If common descent is false, the logic does not work. If common descent is false, you cannot get from point A to point B. The fact that they did get from point A to point B is strong evidence that common descent is, in fact, true.

 

[juvenissun]

There are millions of places in the genome where humans differ genetically from one another. These are the result of mutations that have happened at some point in the past and that have been passed down to offspring. For example, on chromosome 2, at position 136,608,896, some humans have a cytosine and others have a thymine. I want to know which was the original base and which is the base it mutated into. Which is which?

I am ignorant on the information. And I do not use the idea of common ancestry at all. But logically, I would suggest:

Trace two two variations backward:
1. Find chromosome 2 in dead people of different time. (I guess this is pretty hard)
2. Correlate the occurrences with geography (or races) and find the source area. The one has wider distribution would be more original.
3. Take samples of chromosome 2 and let it mutate in the lab and observe the results.

Statistics would be a major tool to make the evaluation. Once you are out of samples, that would be the end of your study. The idea of common ancestry is not helpful at all.

I like you to tell me the methods used in your profession.

 

[sfs]

are you aware that i haven't quoted anybody?
i presented links to what THEY said.

And they all say that common descent is true. So why are you linking to them?

 

[juvenissun]

Who cares what you want to call it? If common descent is false, the logic does not work. If common descent is false, you cannot get from point A to point B. The fact that they did get from point A to point B is strong evidence that common descent is, in fact, true.

If we observed A--B--C--D etc. (it is not a correct expression, hope you can understand) happened in the lab, we DO NOT call that the observed relationships follow the "principle" of common ancestry. They are simply lab observations of sequential events.

The idea of common ancestry means that we found X, and we say A is where X came from because they are all alphabets. We do not actually see all the alphabets in the middle. We may predict we can find M, which "should be" somewhere in the middle. If we found M, we say the common ancestry idea does a successful prediction. If we can not fine N, or R, nobody will say anything. Oh, may be they will say: all the missing alphabets will eventually be found in the future.

That is what the idea of common ancestry is. Wake up. Buddy.

 

[whois]

And they all say that common descent is true. So why are you linking to them?

they also say that "gradualism" isn't, i believe koonin calls it "pan-adaptionism".
ayala also didn't buy it, and he said as much in an issue of science, but hey, he "retracted" right?
what a laugh.

 

[justlookinla]

Did you watch the videos in the first post?

No. I expect you to support your claims yourself.

The evolutionary model has been used to make countless predictions and advances in our lives. Common ancestry was a crucial part in many of these discoveries.

Were these discoveries made using the 'evolutionary model' of random/chance naturalistic methods or was there input from intelligent sources?

 

[sfs]

I am ignorant on the information. And I do not use the idea of common ancestry at all. But logically, I would suggest:

Trace two two variations backward:
1. Find chromosome 2 in dead people of different time. (I guess this is pretty hard)
2. Correlate the occurrences with geography (or races) and find the source area. The one has wider distribution would be more original.
3. Take samples of chromosome 2 and let it mutate in the lab and observe the results.

Statistics would be a major tool to make the evaluation. Once you are out of samples, that would be the end of your study. The idea of common ancestry is not helpful at all.

I like you to tell me the methods used in your profession.

Sometimes the one with the wider distribution is the newer variant; for a variant at 50% frequency, it's a tossup. Common variants are all too old for ancient DNA to be useful. In the lab, either could mutate into the other. So none of these approaches really helps.

I still want to know how to tell whether it was a T or a C originally. You wrote, "If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic." You understand the question now -- so tell me the answer based on simple logic.

 

[juvenissun]

Sometimes the one with the wider distribution is the newer variant; for a variant at 50% frequency, it's a tossup. Common variants are all too old for ancient DNA to be useful. In the lab, either could mutate into the other. So none of these approaches really helps.

I still want to know how to tell whether it was a T or a C originally. You wrote, "If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic." You understand the question now -- so tell me the answer based on simple logic.

I used common logic thinking to give you a few suggestions. They may too rough to be useful (I am not quite sure yet), but they are what I can think of in 5 minutes due to the limitation of knowledge. My suggestions do not emphasize on right or wrong (work or not work), but on the design of study. You can see that it comes from nothing but common logic thinking.

So, you must be able to use the idea of common descendant to solve this problem. How would that work?

 

[The Cadet]

No. I expect you to support your claims yourself.

The entire point of the thread is the information contained within those videos. If you want to take part in this thread, I expect you to watch them.

Were these discoveries made using the 'evolutionary model' of random/chance naturalistic methods or was there input from intelligent sources?

This question is downright incoherent. I have no idea what you're asking.

 

[whois]

here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

and:
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.

 

[The Cadet]

here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

and:
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.

In case there is any confusion as to how accurate Whois's claims are:

 

[sfs]

I used common logic thinking to give you a few suggestions. They may too rough to be useful (I am not quite sure yet), but they are what I can think of in 5 minutes due to the limitation of knowledge. My suggestions do not emphasize on right or wrong (work or not work), but on the design of study. You can see that it comes from nothing but common logic thinking.

You gave me a guarantee that you'd be able to solve the problem using just logic, not that you'd offer some suggestions that wouldn't work based on logic.

So, you must be able to use the idea of common descendant to solve this problem. How would that work?

No, no -- you go first.

While you're working on that one, you can also start on the second one. Mutation rates vary at different places in the genome. I want to know the physical distance along a chromosome over which mutation rates tend to be similar; more precisely, the distance over which they are correlated. (I actually wanted to know this more than ten years ago, for this paper.) How can I find out?

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup due to flaming/goading so if your post is gone that is the reason. If you disagree with someone please address their post not them personally.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[sfs]

here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in
emerging universals of evolution.

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.

That's entirely accurate. The part of HGT doesn't apply to organisms like vertebrates, but aside from that, it's true. It's also pretty much the consensus view of evolutionary biologists. So what point are you trying to make? And what do these statements have to do with the points made by Cadet in the OP? Nothing said by Koonin here, or anywhere else, does anything to suggest that common descent isn't true, that natural selection plays a key role in adaptive evolution, and that the usefulness of evolution pointed out in the OP is very real.

 

[whois]

In case there is any confusion as to how accurate Whois's claims are:

my post was koonins own words, sourced from "the origin at 150" and "genomic research".