Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Kenny'sID]

There is no debate here though. That's what you've never really understood.

And I repeat:

Of course I understand that. Why do you think I' tried to get one going, and at the same time remove your usual excuse for disagreement during that debate? Why bother now when we'll just get the same ol' same ol' to any replies "you don't understand science" or whatever?

 

[pitabread]

And I repeat:

Of course I understand that. Why do you think I' tried to get one going, and at the same time remove your usual excuse for disagreement during that debate? Why bother now when we'll just get the same ol' same ol' to any replies "you don't understand science" or whatever?

There is no point even trying to debate a topic when only side acknowledges and understands the topic in question.

It's like trying to have a debate a battle in WW2 with one side claiming that WW2 never happened.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is no point even trying to debate a topic when only side acknowledges and understands the topic in question.

It's like trying to have a debate about a battle in WW2 with one side claiming that WW2 never happened.

LOL, again, what part if explain it to us do you not understand??

And since you aren't going to do that, what are we even doing now? Do you just need the last word? What?

 

[pitabread]

LOL, again, what part if explain it to us do you not understand??

And since you aren't going to do that, what are we even doing now? Do you just need the last word? What?

I've told you before, I'm not here to force feed you information. If you'll notice in my prior post (the part you didn't bother quoting or responding to), I've created a long-standing thread on this forum with loads of free educational resources on the subject. The onus is on you to take advantage of them.

But it's always the same result: you refuse to learn. I can't help you with that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correct.

Not correct. That is not what the theory of evolution says. Each new generation of a species is produced with variation. No individual offspring is quite like its parent(s). The effect is to present a range of variants to the environment for selection. If you plot these differences they form a random distribution (think: bell curve). That's why the theory is called the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection, not unpredictable genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutations contribute to the production of random variation, but they are not the sole cause of it. So, no flukes. Just the orderly production of randomly distributed variation, generation by generation.

well we agree on half so far- so that's not bad going!

and we agree on natural variation- that's a perfect logical- really essential design feature
allowing for adaptation within a dynamic and varied environment- any sensible designer would provide variation- as we do in most products, e.g. cars for the same reason.

extrapolating a design feature into a design mechanism though.. is an entirely different animal so to speak. we certainly observe the former, the latter remains speculative

a radio is adaptable to different frequencies in the environment-falling similarly within a range- a bell curve of usable wavelengths- yet this capacity for adaptation cannot be extrapolated into a mechanism for designing anything else, far less itself- no matter how long you experiment with the dials- turning them too far only breaks the design- as we see in the extreme selection of variable traits in dog breeding.

 

[pitabread]

a radio is adaptable to different frequencies in the environment-falling similarly within a range- a bell curve of usable wavelengths- yet this capacity for adaptation cannot be extrapolated into a mechanism for designing anything else, far less itself- no matter how long you experiment with the dials- turning them too far only breaks the design-

The funny thing about using the radio as an example, is that such evolution actually happened in an electronics evolution experiment. Researchers trying to evolve an oscillator (e.g. something that was not a radio) ended up evolving a radio receiver completely by accident: Radio emerges from the electronic soup

It speaks to how evolution, as a recursive process for searching design solutions, can sometimes achieve unexpected outputs by exploring unintended solutions.

From an engineering perspective, evolution is arguably more powerful in that respect than deliberate design methods.

as we see in the extreme selection of variable traits in dog breeding.

Dog breeding is not really a good example of natural selection, since dog breeds are often highly inbred and not bred for survivable characteristics.

 

[Speedwell]

well we agree on half so far- so that's not bad going!

and we agree on natural variation- that's a perfect logical- really essential design feature
allowing for adaptation within a dynamic and varied environment- any sensible designer would provide variation- as we do in most products, e.g. cars for the same reason.

extrapolating a design feature into a design mechanism though.. is an entirely different animal so to speak. we certainly observe the former, the latter remains speculative

a radio is adaptable to different frequencies in the environment-falling similarly within a range- a bell curve of usable wavelengths- yet this capacity for adaptation cannot be extrapolated into a mechanism for designing anything else, far less itself- no matter how long you experiment with the dials- turning them too far only breaks the design- as we see in the extreme selection of variable traits in dog breeding.

That is not what is observed. If you take a population exhibiting randomly distributed variation of a trait and natural selection only allows individuals from one side of the distribution to reproduce, then subsequent generations will also exhibit randomly distributed variation, but the central tendency (the "peak" of the curve) will have also shifted in that direction. Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of the shift which can occur over many generations. But the breadth of the curve, the standard deviation, depends on the information content of the gene pool. Forced selective breeding depletes the gene pool faster than it can be replenished by natural means and the breadth of the curve diminishes to the point where there is so little variation from the central tendency that further change is not possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is not what is observed. If you take a population exhibiting randomly distributed variation of a trait and natural selection only allows individuals from one side of the distribution to reproduce, then the next generation will also exhibit randomly distributed variation, but the central tendency (the "peak" of the curve) will have also shifted in that direction. Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of the shift which can occur over many generations. But the breadth of the curve, the standard deviation, depends on the information content of the gene pool. Forced selective breeding depletes the gene pool faster than it can be replenished by natural means and the breadth of the curve diminishes to the point where there is so little variation from the central tendency that further change is not possible.

"Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of the shift which can occur over many generations"

theoretically yes, that was Darwin's theory, but farmers had already conducted centuries of practical scientific experiments on this theory even by his day, and observed that you don't need a billion years to discover the limits of a dogs variability.

Furthermore, once the selection pressure is removed, you do not begin from a 'new normal', but observe a recoil back to variation centered around a 'base model' setting.

this is why horseshoe crabs have not changed in 100's of millions of years, it has long been observed that something is constraining biological forms, resisting evolution somehow.

Now we are starting to understand the mechanisms of that observed stasis better - through things like punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics, gene regulatory networks

You may still argue a naturalistic cause for these systems of course- but it can no longer be said that macro evolution is simply an extrapolation of commonly observed genetic variation by the same mechanism over time. It aint

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already as much as said...of course you aren't.

Quoting out of context again. That is usually done as a method of lying.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The funny thing about using the radio as an example, is that such evolution actually happened in an electronics evolution experiment. Researchers trying to evolve an oscillator (e.g. something that was not a radio) ended up evolving a radio receiver completely by accident: Radio emerges from the electronic soup

It speaks to how evolution, as a recursive process for searching design solutions, can sometimes achieve unexpected outputs by exploring unintended solutions.

I'd say it speaks to my point, the researches did not built a radio by experimenting with the oscillator's settings- and could not have in a billion years, no matter how 'lucky'

They had to go beyond/under the design's own capacity for adaptation, and rewire that capacity- something more akin to altering gene regulatory networks perhaps..? but not simply extrapolating the already existing capacity for variation - because that was inherently constrained to viable options for the designed purpose.

hope you had a nice walk!

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of the shift which can occur over many generations"

theoretically yes, that was Darwin's theory, but farmers had already conducted centuries of practical scientific experiments on this theory even by his day, and observed that you don't need a billion years to discover the limits of a dogs variability.

Furthermore, once the selection pressure is removed, you do not begin from a 'new normal', but observe a recoil back to variation centered around a 'base model' setting.

this is why horseshoe crabs have not changed in 100's of millions of years, it has long been observed that something is constraining biological forms, resisting evolution somehow.

Now we are starting to understand the mechanisms of that observed stasis better - through things like punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics, gene regulatory networks

You may still argue a naturalistic cause for these systems of course- but it can no longer be said that macro evolution is simply an extrapolation of commonly observed genetic variation by the same mechanism over time. It aint

In a limited time of course there is limited variability. Mutations accumulate over time. Dogs went through quite a selection process. Yet there are new mutations. All that you repeatedly demonstrate is a lack of understanding.

Why not start with the basics? Right now you are not debating, you are only demonstrating a lack of education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I repeat:

Of course I understand that. Why do you think I' tried to get one going, and at the same time remove your usual excuse for disagreement during that debate? Why bother now when we'll just get the same ol' same ol' to any replies "you don't understand science" or whatever?

No, you didn't. You were given a more than reasonable goal to meet and you ran away.

A person that does not even understand multiplication is in no position to demand that calculus be explained to him.

 

[Speedwell]

"Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of the shift which can occur over many generations"

theoretically yes, that was Darwin's theory, but farmers had already conducted centuries of practical scientific experiments on this theory even by his day, and observed that you don't need a billion years to discover the limits of a dogs variability.

Furthermore, once the selection pressure is removed, you do not begin from a 'new normal', but observe a recoil back to variation centered around a 'base model' setting.

Yes, that is true of forced selective breeding as I said.

this is why horseshoe crabs have not changed in 100's of millions of years, it has long been observed that something is constraining biological forms, resisting evolution somehow.

Now we are starting to understand the mechanisms of that observed stasis better - through things like punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics, gene regulatory networks

You may still argue a naturalistic cause for these systems of course- but it can no longer be said that macro evolution is simply an extrapolation of commonly observed genetic variation by the same mechanism over time. It aint

I assume you have a creationist source for that misinformation; it would be interesting to know what it was. But I am not necessarily arguing for a naturalistic cause. I am only pointing out what has been observed.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd say it speaks to my point, the researches did not built a radio by experimenting with the oscillator's settings- and could not have in a billion years, no matter how 'lucky'

They had to go beyond/under the design's own capacity for adaptation, and rewire that capacity- something more akin to altering gene regulatory networks perhaps..? but not simply extrapolating the already existing capacity for variation - because that was inherently constrained to viable options for the designed purpose.

hope you had a nice walk!

Nowadays novel electronic circuits are designed by computers using random variation and selection algorithms.

 

[MIDutch]

Utter and complete rubbish. It is not evolution. When the pepper moth becomes an ant, that is evolution.

Cool. So there's still a chance I'll "evolve" into a super hero if I get bit by a radioactive spider. Awesome.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All that you repeatedly demonstrate is a lack of understanding.

Why not start with the basics? Right now you are not debating, you are only demonstrating a lack of education.

Then let me tell you what I think of you!

I think you are a perfectly intelligent, well educated, rational person who is capable of debating thoughtfully without ad hom.

I like to think I was when I held your beliefs also- but that was before much new scientific knowledge came to light in the last couple of decades, we know now that random gene sequence mutation simply isn't enough- epigenetics was still considered 'psuedoscience' not so long ago

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then let me tell you what I think of you!

I think you are a perfectly intelligent, well educated, rational person who is capable of debating thoughtfully without ad hom.

I like to think I was when I held your beliefs also- but that was before much new scientific knowledge came to light in the last couple of decades, we know now that random gene sequence mutation simply isn't enough- epigenetics was still considered 'psuedoscience' not so long ago

I did not use ad hom. Please, we are talking about things that should have been learned in high school. There is no debate right now. There is only correction. There is a reason that I offer to go over the basics of science with others. If you are right you will be better able to support your claims if you understand the basics of science and evidence. If you are wrong you will be able to understand why you are wrong if you understand the basics of science.

All creationists that debate evolution appear to know that they are wrong. Why else refuse to learn the basics? If one understands the basics it takes very little time to demonstrate that fact, yet all I get is running away.


Do you want to learn or are you merely looking for excuses to believe the long ago refuted stories of Genesis? I am sure that you can learn if you try. I never insulted anyone by claiming that they lacked the intelligence to learn. But your posts tell us that these basics are presently not in your tool box. Why not take some time to add them?

And when you make claims you need to be able to support them with valid sources (creationist sources are not valid ones and I can explain why). Please support your claim that epigenetics were ever considered to be pseudo-science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nowadays novel electronic circuits are designed by computers using random variation and selection algorithms.

And I use the same technique in software development.

So we've established that creative intelligence can design systems which take advantage of random variation within pre-determined specified ranges- with a predetermined goal.

Not saying 'natural cause' achieving the same is impossible, it's feasibility is just not as well established, and looking mathematically problematic I would submit to you

As Bill gates noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I use the same technique in software development.

So we've established that creative intelligence can design systems which take advantage of random variation within pre-determined specified ranges- with a predetermined goal.

Not saying 'natural cause' achieving the same is impossible, it's feasibility is just not as well established, and looking mathematically problematic I would submit to you

As Bill gates noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Actually we have determined that no intelligence is necessary. Once again you forgot about the effects of natural selection.


You have admitted to the existence of natural selection.

You have admitted to the existence of variation.

Now you simply need to repeat to yourself "natural selection and variation" every time that you try to raise an objection using one or the other.

Lastly if you understood the nature of evidence you would understand that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. You can at least partly blame creation "scientists" for that.

 

[Shemjaza]

And I use the same technique in software development.

So we've established that creative intelligence can design systems which take advantage of random variation within pre-determined specified ranges- with a predetermined goal.

Not saying 'natural cause' achieving the same is impossible, it's feasibility is just not as well established, and looking mathematically problematic I would submit to you

As Bill gates noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

How is increased reproductive success not viable as a specific goal?