|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
forexhr writes:
Every ice cube doesn't have an iceberg below it.
The argument that I am talking about is just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
You misunderstand how evolution works. Organisms do not evolve during their lifetime. Heritable changes happen when offspring are produced. If the changes are roughly benign or positive then the offspring survive, and if they are detrimental then they do not. Surviving offspring produce more offspring in the next generation.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
which means that in order to be able to evolve, an organism needs... BZZT! Wrong again. Organisms don't evolve, populations do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When one refers to "organisms"evolving one usually has a whole population of same in mind, making these objections on the basis of individual organisms just straw man arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
When one refers to "organisms"evolving one usually has a whole population of same in mind, making these objections on the basis of individual organisms just straw man arguments. Au contraire, the author was talking about chemical processes within individual organisms so they could not be talking about populations. Too, they didn't refer to "organisms", the referred to "an organism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2087 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
Regardless of what you have been taught, 'evolving' has nothing to do with populations, but with individual organisms. Individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. Populations persist by virtue of the survival and reproduction of individual organisms. If you try to explain the evolution of a particular metabolic pathway that consists of 3 enzymes(A, B, C), the fact that the genetic material of one organism contains the instructions needed to build enzyme A, while the genetic materials of the other two organisms, instructions needed to build enzymes B and C, that does not mean that you have functional metabolic pathway. The fact that the gene pool of that 'population' contains all three alleles needed to build metabolic pathway, have nothing to do with evolution of this metabolic pathway. BZZT! Wrong again. Organisms don't evolve, populations do. I know that evolutionists often change definitions and play semantic games, but biological reality won't change because of that. Population genetics deals with populations, while evolution does not. Evolution deals with an individual organism. Also, population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of alleles, but it is concerned only with their frequency in the gene pool of the population once they originated from mutations. But nevertheless this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument states that evolution if physically impossible due to the fundamental contradiction between 'maintenance and reproduction cycle' and 'evolution cycle'. In order to 'evolve'(to complete evolution cycles) an organism needs the ability to maintain its structure and pass its genes to the next generation. Now, if we say that bio-structures that are needed for maintenance and reproduction cycle - evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past these bio-structures didn't exist. In other words if organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance and then we say that for e.g. heart evolved then we are actually saying that in the past this type of organism didin't have heart. But we know from the direct observation that this type of organism cannot complete its maintenance and reproduction cycle without a heart. Hence, it cannot evolve to produce the heart. This is true for all other organs - stomach, brain, penis... - without them, maintenance and reproduction are impossible. This is also true for all other organisms(other types of maintenance and reproduction), like bacterium. Most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed. Now, if we say that some bio-structure that is needed for binary fission -evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past this bio-structure didn't exist which means that in the past bacteria was unable to pass its genes to the next generation. And without the ability of bacteria to pass genes to the next generationthat evolution of bacteria is impossible. This is the direct, empirical science, and according to it, evolution is physically impossible - maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam simply cannot exist in a simpler mode to become more complex in the future. Let's not go to the level of storytelling and fiction. So, how do evolutionists respond to this kind of argument? Well since evolution is by definition true, then the only possible answer is this: the fact that a human cannot live without a heart is irrelevant, because there are organisms that are alive but don't have a heart. Hence, evolutionist will just pull some mental construct out of his mind and pretend that the problem is solved. But where is the fault in his reasoning? Well, it has a hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature automatically means that the path from one mode to another exist. This is like saying, because differnet modes of energy conversion exist, for example, simple lawn mower engine and complex Ferrari engine, there is a step by step path from lawn mower engine to Ferrari engine. It that were true, then the removal of Ferrari engine components would result in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction and ultimately, in lawn mower engine. But we know this is not true. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality, step by step path from one mode of energy conversion to another does not exist. If the Ferrari engine were the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step, then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction. Exactly the same is true for organisms. If bio-structures needed for maintenance and reproduction were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then their removal would not result in death or infertility but in some simpler mode of maintenance and reproduction . But since direct, empirical science shows this is not the case, the hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature, means that the path from one mode to another exist is false. That is why evolution is just a mental fantasy which contradicts reality on every instance of observation. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
forexhr writes: Nope. The opposite. In evolutionary theory populations evolve. Not individuals. Maybe you should start studying the basics of evolutionary theory before commenting and writing word salads? Regardless of what you have been taught, 'evolving' has nothing to do with populations, but with individual organisms. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2087 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I know that in evolutionary theory populations can evolve, because ToE is a mental concept, and at the level of concepts everything is possible. The theory of evolution started with the concept of divergence. When this concept was falsified the concept of convergence was produced. The theory of evolution also started with the concept of nice branching pattern. When this concept was falsified the concept of incomplete lineage sorting was produced. The theory of evolution started with the concept of descent with modification and now is at the concept of populations with modification. So who gives a crap of what the evolutionary theory is? This is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies, just so stories and anecdotes that is totally unrelated to biological reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Another word salad from forexhr.
In evolutionary theory, populations evolve. Not individuals. It really is not hard to understand. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
This is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies, just so stories and anecdotes that is totally unrelated to biological reality. A good description of every one of the religious creation myths. Except for the "unfalsifiable" bit.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2087 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
You can repeat your mantra all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. And in order to have evolution you need reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
forexr writes: Again, populations evolve. Not individuals. It really is not hard to understand.
You can repeat your mantra all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. And in order to have evolution you need reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 877 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
You mention 3 evolutionary concepts that were "falsified" (none of which have actually been "falsified") but then go on to say:
This is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies If several key evolutionary concepts have indeed been "falsified," then they are not "unfalsifiable" are they? It would be nice if creationists and IDists would look in a mirror when they start talking about the "unfalsifiable stories" of evolution. Learning new things and modifying a theory is not the same as that theory being falsified. Descent with modification applies to populations, not individuals. Each generation is modified from the previous generation. That is not about individuals.
I know that in evolutionary theory populations can evolve The point is that individuals themselves do not evolve. You are right in that individuals are the units being selected. But they will pass on more or less offspring to the next generation, but just that "more or less" indicates a population because "more or less" according to what? It is this passing on of more or less offspring that will change the composition of a population and will eventually lead to a new phenotype displacing a previous phenotype. Individuals themselves do not evolve. Yes, the individual must bear the burden or benefit of a specific mutation and that mutation will determine if the organism lives or dies before it can pass on its genes to the next generation. If that is what you mean by evolution, that an individual is affected by the combination of mutations it inherits and the environment it lives in, then no, that is not "evolution" that is "fitness." HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 877 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Well, I guess forexhr was talking about individuals evolving, so the straw man comes to life and becomes a real boy.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
forexhr writes: The theory of evolution started with the concept of descent with modification and now is at the concept of populations with modification. Focusing on sexual species, descent with modification occurs with every reproductive act where the genes from male and female are intermixed, and included in the mix is some number of errors. The gene intermixing and the errors is what is meant by descent with modification. Offspring are different from their parents not only in the mix of genes, but also in the precise sequences of some DNA where errors have occurred. Changes originate in individuals, but they spread through a species population, and species is the lowest grouping of biological classification. A species is a population of individuals capable of interbreeding. Evolution is about change in species. Change in individuals of a population is just variation. Individuals do not evolve during their lifetimes. If you want to disprove evolution then you need to know how it works first.
The theory of evolution started with the concept of divergence. When this concept was falsified... If by divergence you mean speciation, the concept is the foundation of evolution and has not been falsified.
...the concept of convergence was produced. Convergence happens when different species are confronted by the same survival challenges. Flight and sight have both evolved uniquely several times in completely unrelated lineages. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024