Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Dizredux]

As others agree mutation are not all the random but often a cell (bacteria) allowing mutations occur at hot spots in order to find a solution. (using trial and error just like an engineer would) While ToE has no goal while living cells do. Evolution is out of touch with life.

First, in science, random mutation is in respect to need. In other words the mutation is in no way controlled by the need of the organism. What they get is what they get.

Second "While ToE has no goal while living cells do." What on earth is the goal of a living cell?

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

I totally agree, I am a case in point. However, Creationists are just believers that believe God created the universe. So that is why I asked.

Depends, fundamentalist creationists have issues with evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Depends, fundamentalist creationists have issues with evolution.

Some do but I was talking to Notedstrangeperson who I think if I am not wrong is a Christian and someone that believes in evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

First, in science, random mutation is in respect to need. In other words the mutation is in no way controlled by the need of the organism. What they get is what they get.

Second "While ToE has no goal while living cells do." What on earth is the goal of a living cell?

Dizredux

1) find an energy source
2) convert that energy into work
3) build it parts
4) assemble those parts
5) pass this knowledge to the next generation.

Shapiro (doesn't support ID) has published a few papers about how living cells can "engineer" genetic changes according to the environment. The idea of mutation being totally random isn't holding up in the last few years.

Here's is a video you may find interesting. www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

 

[Dusty Bin]

1) find an energy source
2) convert that energy into work
3) build it parts
4) assemble those parts
5) pass this knowledge to the next generation.

Shapiro (doesn't support ID) has published a few papers about how living cells can "engineer" genetic changes according to the environment. The idea of mutation being totally random isn't holding up in the last few years.

Here's is a video you may find interesting. Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology | Voices From Oxford

Even if evolution was wrong what would make you think that creationism or ID would ever be taken seriously by the brains who run this world?

 

[Smidlee]

Even if evolution was wrong what would make you think that creationism or ID would ever be taken seriously by the brains who run this world?

As long as "some guys" believe their brain isn't intelligent designed they will never be able take any creationism or ID seriously.

 

[Dusty Bin]

As long as "some guys" believe their brain isn't intelligent designed they will never be able take any creationism or ID seriously.

That's OK then.

 

[Dizredux]

Response to Smidlee

Dizredux

First, in science, random mutation is in respect to need. In other words the mutation is in no way controlled by the need of the organism. What they get is what they get.

Second "While ToE has no goal while living cells do." What on earth is the goal of a living cell?

Smidlee

1) find an energy source 2) convert that energy into work 3) build it parts 4) assemble those parts 5) pass this knowledge to the next generation.

To find an energy source (food) I can see, organisms will make efforts to do this. The rest is just what happens and I doubt that it is the goal of the organism.

Second, these are only involved with simple, usually single celled organisms. They do not really apply to the rest of the cells in multicelled organisms. Show me how they apply to a human skin cell as an example.

Shapiro (doesn't support ID) has published a few papers about how living cells can "engineer" genetic changes according to the environment.

I haven't read the papers but I have seen reference to this in simple cellular organisms.

The idea of mutation being totally random isn't holding up in the last few years.

This has been know for quite a while. Some locations in the genome are more susceptible to mutation than others. Don't have cites on this but I have seen it discussed often by biologist and geneticists.

Random mutation in reference to evolution currently is seen as random in respect to need. In other words except for possibly in some simpler organisms, mutations do not occur because they are needed. They just happen and the population has to deal with what it gets.

Here's is a video you may find interesting. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/vide...ry-biology/184

Thanks, I usually don't watch long videos as I prefer to read the material. I will try to watch it though.

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

We observe that the stars in the center of our galaxy orbit extremely quickly around a single point. Using those orbits, we can calculate the amount of mass at that central point. It happens to be around 4 million solar masses, or 4 million times more massive that our own Sun. That point isn't producing any light. It's black.

Seems to me that all of the evidence is consistent with a black hole.

UCLA GCG data for stars around the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Milky Way

Your argument presupposes that gravity is the only force operating in the galaxy. Your argument also presumes that confirmations make your theory stronger. In reality, confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question.

 

[Zosimus]

Your evasiveness is transparent. I don't think you should go to the hospital with every headache for the same reason you don't; aneurysm are rare. Now please provide a direct answer rather than trying to weasel around the point. Why do you assume that you headache is just a headache and not an impending aneurysm? Why, if you happen to be in your house, do you assume that the footsteps you hear are your wife's and not an intruder's? Why do you assume that there is no invisible truck coming at you? For several posts you have transparently avoided giving direct answers to the straightforward questions I have posed. Your unwillingness to directly answer these questions indicates that you know I'm right: you are instinctively using parsimony all the time.

Your supposed point relies on too many assumptions to be valid. First of all, you assume that I hear footsteps in my house. I never do. Second, you assume that I don't go to the hospital every time I have a headache because I parsimoniously assume that aneurysms are rare. If I really thought I was having an aneurysm, I would take additional vitamin C not go to the hospital. The same hospital system that I have access to is the one that accidentally amputated both guys legs rather than just the one when he was diabetic. No thanks -- the risk is great and the alleged benefit is minimal.

The only part of your argument that even partially makes sense is the claim that an invisible truck might be hurtling through the intersection by running the red light while I am venturing forward with a green light. If we assume, however, that the invisible truck might exist and is willing to violate laws at will, then it will be impossible for me to determine where it might be and what it might be doing. As such, both staying still and moving are probably equally dangerous whereas moving takes me towards my ultimate destination and thus has more going for it than does the alternative.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is an invisible truck that habitually comes round my house and routinely violates all the law of the road since a police officer will never detect these violations. There are two possibilities: either the truck is trying to hit me or the truck is trying not to hit me.

If the truck is trying to hit me, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for me to avoid it because it's invisible and undetectable. Accordingly there is little I can do except wear my seat belt, something I already do as the claimed benefits are great and the cost is small.

If, however, the truck is trying to avoid me, then the best thing I can do is to drive in a normal, predictable manner including appropriate signals for both lane changes and turns, trusting that the invisible truck driver will take this into account to the best of his or her ability and thus avoid me as much as possible.

What does any of this have to do with parsimony?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your argument presupposes that gravity is the only force operating in the galaxy. Your argument also presumes that confirmations make your theory stronger. In reality, confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question.

Zosimus: I reject the scientific method.

The rest of us: Good luck with that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Shapiro (doesn't support ID) has published a few papers about how living cells can "engineer" genetic changes according to the environment. The idea of mutation being totally random isn't holding up in the last few years.

No one has ever claimed that mutations are random with respect to time, location, or base sequence. What scientists have always said is that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

The examples that Shapiro has found which violate random with respect to fitness are extremely limited examples, such as the CRISPR system in some bacteria which confers phage resistance. This system is highly tuned to bacteriophage, and it does not drive the evolution of other features in bacteria, or in life in general.

Other examples that Shapiro calls "non-random" are in fact random with respect to fitness. I have actually looked at a lot of Shapiro's work. He is a good salesman, but he the science just isn't there to back up the sales pitch.

If you would like to discuss a specific article I would be more than happy to. Such a discussion would get into some real science which is a rarity around here.