|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: But you guys don't seem to have set the ground rules on "mutation". Because you are both referring to different aspects of mutation as it pertains to the subject. This is an interesting discussion, but set ground rules on "mutation". Agree on set parameters of mutation as it pertains directly to the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
thanx,
oh and I didn't mention this but, mutations are contributing factors to evolution though, not a primary mechanism. However, the only concrete link between the actual fossils found and number of factors determined to influence NS, ie: the biochemical processes, environemental factors, isolation factors, etc, seem to be of a quasi philosophical nature. It seems like a collage of things that would make sense. This is what I think provides fuel for creationists. On the other hand, creationists are so motivated by proving the Bible that any of their worthwhile observations become contaminated by their agenda and motives for pointing them out. Unfortunately, it forfeits any significant contributions some of it's scientists could make. Because it is ok to question evolution, and sometimes when you do, your treated like religous people treat heretics and non-believers, who view Darwin in the way some christians view Jesus, where no one can question anything..Meanwhile, many serious questions about Evolution need considerable revision. From the method to the conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
Of course, I didn't mean that litterally. I just meant to say that sometimes, people make you feel uneasy when you question Evolution and Darwinism on a basic level. Yet, say 20 years from now, it is possible that our paradigm may have to change completely in light of a new discovery. It doesn't mean NS won't stand that shift. But all am saying is, the current Evolution grid, in and of it self, seems overly speculative. Although, I reiterate, I'm not one to adhere to the biblical notions of a 6000 year earth. Nor to biblical creationism other then for it's allegorical value. All I'm saying is, the current Evolution model, well, from what I gather, has vast empty spaces between some of it's theorems and axioms. Especially with the hominid evolution question. This doesn't mean I reject NS, I just have a hard time with the paleontological and archeological collage gathered around NS to establish our present view of evolution. Too much speculations. Whereas other areas of science wouldn't allow a theory to be sealed if it had similar flaws. I'm personally more versed in Astrophysics and subatomic physics (with Egyptology and Ancient History as another passion of mine), so then again, maybe my position will change. Maybe it'll just get more firmly rooted also? But that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I'm very open to change. I try not to hold any biases on the subject. Just honest objections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Well, mutation is a necessary condition for evolution, so as a contributing factor, yeah, it is a primary mechanism of evolution on second thought. Without it there can be no evolution whatsoever. True
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Well, actually, it would seem you are rewording my objections in your last sentence. I specifically referred to a "paradigm" problem. You said "model". Patato, Potato.
quote: Alright, if it doesn't constitute "space", perhaps you could explain to me what does? Because from my humble vantage point, it seems the Evolution model is telling you what the 10 000 piece puzzle looks like with about a 10th of the pieces assembled and available. I'm not referring to NS, I'm referring to the paleo-collage that serves as our current model. Which in turn, is using prinpicles such as NS, mutation, speciation, etc, in order to show how it all make sense. I suggest, that one of the reasons the creationists (though I'm not a biblical creationist) have some, I repeat, some good points, demonstrates the vulnerability of the model. To say they have absolutely no valid points or any worthwhile observations whatsoever would be narrow at best. This in turn suggest that a new model could have been built based on the same knowledge of principles like NS, mutations, et al. Because if we found say, an H.Sapien 300 million years ago, we would still have to use those same principles to revise the current model. So I'm not attacking the principles, just questioning the model built around the principles. (see my last post in Behold The Hominid thread). The transition would look like the one between the Newtonian mechanistic outlook on physics toward quantuum physics in light of new subatomic observations. The same principles generally apply, but the model had to change in light of additional data. In the evolution model, specifically, the genus Homo model, we don't have that data yet, but we can still see the flaws. Yet, we insist on the model, generally. Don't question the model, the model makes sense. Ok, well, pardon me but there isn't enough to say it does. It's very vulnarable in some aspect. But sometimes, when you say this, or found certain creationists objections to be valid, it's at the risk of heretic scorns it would seem. In this EvC debate, for the most part, it's all either this or either that. Us or them, choose. At least in Astrophysics, we're not trying to tell you what Dark Energy is for example, there just isn't enough to do so. Although it makes up 73% of the available energy of the cosmos. I would understand the temptation to provide a more detailed explanation, but Astrophysicists have accepted the fact that the pieces aren't there to make a safe guess on what the puzzle should look like. Therefore they don't. It's a broad comparison I admit, but I hope it convays somewhat my essential point. Also my use of the term "axioms" was simply condusive, at least I felt, to get my point across, in reference to the "paradigm" problem with Evolution. Because by "axioms" we mean propositions selected as the foundations of a field, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: right, and this produces a model by which we explain evolution as it pertains to hominid in particular. However, that model is flawed, I find, in light of a number of observations. But I guess my preceding post will perhaps clarify what I mean by that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: No, not at all. The number of fossiles isn't the problem here. Nor is Evolution. NS selection is verifiable of course, but the paleo-collage is insatisfactory. Number of fossils don't dertermines the quality of the observations neither. So flaws have been pointed out by certain creationsts in reference to the model. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they thinnk the earth was created 6000 years ago. It has to do with whether the observations have significance. Some of them do. It's not an all this, all that scenario. But regardless for prior motives, I find some of these observations undermine the model significantly enough to be taken seriously. Also, nor to say I was strickly talking about Natural History accurate. I would have specified. more later..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
creationist observations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
Let me approach this differently.
Since you obviously have a strong foundation on the subject, I would ask you, personally, has there been any observation whatsover, contraction or other problems pointed out from creationists that have, according to your knowledge, any worthwhile scientific value. If not, then case closed. But if so, which ones, and how do you cope with them? That way we're on a common base and this can be mutually beneficial. thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
I would have pointed out Intelligent Design arguements but I have not read a single book from them. I just bought Darwin's Black Box though. If anyone wishes to share their personal review before I start reading, please do so. It is most welcomed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: I do, I did and it does, but I think perhaps you don't quite understand what I'm trying to establish. I will have to find a way to clarify it for you. a little later though...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024