• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Smoking Guns of Evo Devo

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
show me a link that tells me how neodarwinism can survive without natural selection. I double DARE you.

i entered this fray to correct the error of:
hey beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection
that job is done to my satisfaction.

now you offer a different challenge.
however,

i haven't the foggest idea of how a theory survives or doesn't survive, i'm not even sure that the metaphor of a living creature applies very well to ideas or scientific theories. especially something as big and complex as the TofE.

Nor do i have a good idea of what it means for a theory to require a particular principle(that it currently has) like the TofE appears to "require" selection. Logically require? entail? there doesn't seem to be an essentialness to the idea of NS to the TofE. NS is more a description of what is seen and as such will take on different forms and explanatory depth as time goes on. maybe in the future NS will be subsumed into another more complex, more extensive better term, i don't know.

so i really don't know how to go about starting to answer this idea. i'll have to leave it for someone who can see the necessary philosophic connections better than i can at this moment, but thank you for the offer.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
show me a link that tells me how neodarwinism can survive without natural selection. I double DARE you.
You might have a point there.
They have no evidence for natural selection, they just assume that it exists.
Actually, the evidence shows that the species are doing good not to go extinct.

neodarwinism could survive in a very mild form with just genetic drift.
 
Upvote 0

Biologist

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2006
516
39
✟4,206.00
Faith
Pantheist
You might have a point there.
They have no evidence for natural selection, they just assume that it exists.
Actually, the evidence shows that the species are doing good not to go extinct.
You assume it doesn't exist even though there is a mountain of evidence for it. Even when we present you evidence you ignore it.
 
Upvote 0

AngryWomble

Regular Member
Aug 13, 2006
384
27
✟23,202.00
Faith
Agnostic
I'm waiting for someone to tell me how a monkey can change into a man without selection......

Please specify which species your on about. That way the length of time between now and when we shared a common ancester could be worked out.

Oh and Johnny boy....do i not get a mention?
 
Upvote 0

supersport

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2006
706
11
Texas
✟1,111.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You might have a point there.
They have no evidence for natural selection, they just assume that it exists.
Actually, the evidence shows that the species are doing good not to go extinct.

neodarwinism could survive in a very mild form with just genetic drift.
well...species would indeed change over time with drift, but drift could never change one species into another.

This is the problem I see evo devo having.....they're going to run up against a wall explaining how and why monkey genes are expressed differently than human genes. Since there is no selection they will have to come up with a way for a monkey to change into a man nonrandomly....ie...via some sort of internal or external cue.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
well...species would indeed change over time with drift, but drift could never change one species into another.

Yet again Creationists abuse scientific words.

Speciation has been observed, supersport. If you dont like scientific words, dont use them. Just becaue YOU dont have a scientific definition of a kind doesnt mean you can co-opt other words that already have definitions.

they will have to come up with a way for a monkey to change into a man nonrandomly....ie...via some sort of internal or external cue.

A modern monkey?
 
Upvote 0

supersport

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2006
706
11
Texas
✟1,111.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yet again Creationists abuse scientific words.

Speciation has been observed, supersport. If you dont like scientific words, dont use them. Just becaue YOU dont have a scientific definition of a kind doesnt mean you can co-opt other words that already have definitions.



A modern monkey?
who said speciation hasn't occured? I didn't. Where did that come from? Read my statement again .... I said a monkey could not transform into a man without selection....drift by itself won't cut it.

This theory has had it.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You assume it doesn't exist even though there is a mountain of evidence for it. Even when we present you evidence you ignore it.
If there is a "mountain of evidence", the evidence is for variation not change. Without change you do not have evolution. The work on Hox genes is now showing that there is no change, just different variations on a common theme. There is a basic groundplan and a limited number of elements that can vary within that plan.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
well...species would indeed change over time with drift, but drift could never change one species into another.
It is what they use to call a catch 22. You have to have isolation to produce a different species. But inbreeding becomes a problem with isolation. The conditions they need to promote evolution actually leads to extinction.
 
Upvote 0

Biologist

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2006
516
39
✟4,206.00
Faith
Pantheist
If there is a "mountain of evidence", the evidence is for variation not change. Without change you do not have evolution. The work on Hox genes is now showing that there is no change, just different variations on a common theme. There is a basic groundplan and a limited number of elements that can vary within that plan.
Are you choosing to ignore the other thread where we proved to you using your own definitions that things can add information, and change existing information through mutation?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Are you choosing to ignore the other thread where we proved to you using your own definitions that things can add information, and change existing information through mutation?

I just went though the whole process of showing how evos so called evidence is bogus. Yet you insist on clinging to your bogus evidence. Then go ahead and believe what you want if your not ready to admit that there is no evidence for neodarwinism.

Darwinism was falsified and now we have neodarwinism and it is being falsified also. So what are we going to have next? NeoNeoDarwinism? Then were do we go from there when that is falsified?

Or will you just come up with a new theory and use the old name for your new theory? Good thing no one has taken out any copy protection on this stuff :)

I suppose that if when the old theorys are falsified, you call the new theorys evolution. You could go on just about forever like that.
I am sure they can think up new theorys as fast as the old ones are falsified.
 
Upvote 0

BVZ

Regular Member
Jan 11, 2006
417
32
44
✟23,232.00
Faith
Christian
I am having trouble understanding this argument.

I think it goes something like this:

1) Natural Selection does not exist.
2) Evolution needs natural selection.
3) Since natural selection does not exist, evolution cannot exist.

This argument has a great hole in it. Allow me to point it out:

The claim that natural selection does not exist, is false. It does exist. Do you even know what it is?

Heres a simple explanation for you:

Natural selection is when certain creatures have a smaller chance to breed for any reason linked to their genes.

Do you agree to the following:
1) If you put a penguin in the desert it will die.
2) If you put a camel in the arctic it will die.

If you agree to this, you agree that natural selection exists. Because that is what it IS.

Another argument I find rather amusing is the following:
"Prove that evolution does not need natural selection! You can't! HA! We win!"

This is moronic.

It like me saying:
"Prove to me that Noah DIDN'T build the ark! You cant! HA! We win!"
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
who said speciation hasn't occured? I didn't. ?

You said no species change into another species, but that IS speciation. So you cant agree with speciation and at the same time say that another species cannot change into another.

Read my statement again ....I said a monkey could not transform into a man without selection....drift by itself won't cut it..

Yes, I did read that part. And once again I ask you, are you talking about a modern monkey?
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is what they call a strawman arguement. You create your own arguement, then you falsify your own theory.

Are you serious? He's telling you you what his possition is and you are saying that's a straw man? What exactly is he trying to knock down? You can't assign people a position to defend like that. You are working under a different definition of "natural selection" than him (and me) Disproving what you want to think of natural selection as is all well and good until you want to make a jump to the mainstream understanding of it.

Here:
Main Entry: natural selection
Function: noun
: a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment

Before we start even debating whether it's right or wrong, lets agree on what it is. Is everyone cool with this definition?
 
Upvote 0

c'mon sense

Active Member
Mar 18, 2005
316
16
42
✟23,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Evolutionary Development Biology (Evo-Devo) is the concept that changes in the pathways that govern development can be a source for evolutionary changes.

Exactly! It's about the rewiring of a genetic algorhythm. It shows that far less change than originally thought accounts for the broad diversity we encounter. Development is a lot like a train starting on its tracks and taking the course dictated by the switches it encounters along the way, which sets it for a destination or another. Many destinations share the same route before they branch off. Thus development offers a glimpse in the evolutionary change of an original "journey" plan.

If anything, evo-devo shows evolution as the tinkerer at work!
 
Upvote 0