Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
116 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 115 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,139 Year: 4,785/14,102 Month: 383/707 Week: 114/197 Day: 3/55 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A question for Evolutionists
robertleva
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 35
From: Seminole
Joined: 04-23-2021


Message 1 of 8 (886044)
04-25-2021 7:54 AM


I created an account here with the sole purpose of seeing how evolutionists can resolve the following problem with their theory:

My issue: ​Selection (either natural selection or human breeding programs) produces a life form that is more adapted or specialized, but is genetically less complex than the original.

-Example: You can take a population of wolves and through breeding recreate all the dog breeds we see today. You can never take dogs and breed them back into wolves. The genetic data has been lost in favor of specializations.
​Dogs are Genetically less complex than wolves in that they only have the data for their particular breed and do not contain the data for all dog breeds the way the wolf does.

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

Can evolutionists provide ANY examples of natural selection creating a genetically more complex life form than the original? If not, how can you say that selection leads to evolution and not devolution?


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2021 1:21 PM robertleva has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Barry Deaborough, posted 08-01-2021 8:34 AM robertleva has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12722
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 8 (886046)
05-03-2021 12:40 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A question for Evolutionists thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12722
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 8 (886047)
05-03-2021 12:42 PM


Apologies for Later Promotion
Somehow this thread proposal from RobertLeva got lost in the shuffle. I don't think Robert is still around, but I'm belatedly promoting this anyway.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 4 of 8 (886049)
05-03-2021 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robertleva
04-25-2021 7:54 AM


robert writes:

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

Thought game: take a population of 100 organisms, doesn't matter what they are. There's an earthquake, 50 of each find themselves on opposite sides of an impassible fissure. The terrains on each side are different.

You could say that each population has lost genetic diversity, though the total genetic diversity has not changed.

Both groups then spend the next million years going their separate ways.

The ToE predicts (and this is observed irl) that the two populations will evolve and diverge over time through different evolutionary pressures and mechanisms such that eventually there will be two totally different species which can no longer interbreed.

If you then examine their genomes you'll find more genetic diversity than in the original group of 100. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

Can evolutionists provide ANY examples of natural selection creating a genetically more complex life form than the original? If not, how can you say that selection leads to evolution and not devolution?

I suggest you look at the case study of the peppered moth. It's a fascinating study in its own right but you'll see there that a genetic mutation changed the colour of the moth which helped it survive the change in its environment. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

If not, I think you'll have to tell us what you think genetic complexity is.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19177


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robertleva, posted 04-25-2021 7:54 AM robertleva has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2021 5:26 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 8 (886055)
05-03-2021 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
05-03-2021 1:21 PM


I suggest you look at the case study of the peppered moth. It's a fascinating study in its own right but you'll see there that a genetic mutation changed the colour of the moth which helped it survive the change in its environment. Is that an increase in genetic complexity?

First, robertleva will just shout out as he had been taught to: "That is not evolution because THEY ARE STILL MOTHS!"

Second and more importantly, robertleva excluded from his question any mechanism that would increase genetic variability:

robertleva writes:

So if all species are undergoing selection, how can anything be said to be "evolving"? Seems to me that everything is in a state of genetic decay. Now it's decay with a good purpose, to continue the species in an environment that is constantly changing, but the end result is a loss of genetic information.

In the original:

robertleva writes:

My issue: ​Selection (either natural selection or human breeding programs) produces a life form that is more adapted or specialized, but is genetically less complex than the original.

You have to remember that, as a creationist, robertleva does not understand evolution but rather misunderstands it as he has been trained to do. Creationism claims to attack evolution, but in reality it attacks their misrepresentations of evolution while keeping well away from actual evolution.

Your reply uses actual evolution, which he will not understand since he's misrepresenting evolution.

To illustrate his fundamental error, here is a description of a generic single-objective genetic algorithm (which is based on how evolution works):

quote:
Step One: Generate the initial population of individuals randomly. (First generation)

Step Two: Repeat the following regenerational steps until termination:

  1. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population (time limit, sufficient fitness achieved, etc.)
  2. Select the fittest individuals for reproduction. (Parents)
  3. Breed new individuals through crossover and mutation operations to give birth to offspring.
  4. Replace the least-fit individuals of the population with new individuals.

Instead, robertleva removes sources of increases in genetic variability, " ... through crossover and mutation operations ... ", reducing sub-step 3 to:

quote:
3. Breed new individuals to give birth to offspring.

Evolution works because of both increases in genetic variability and natural selection. Remove either one and it's no longer evolution but something entirely different. What he is trying to "disprove" is not evolution and really has next to nothing to do with evolution.

A possible analogy to make that more clear might be efforts to "prove" that heavier-than-air flight is impossible. A 737 is supposed to be able to fly great distances. So your test builds a 737 airframe minus the engines and you try to fly it. Gee look! It can't even take off, leave the ground. Doesn't work!

When they point out to you that it needs engines to work, you set up an engine separate from the airframe and start it up. At best it careens off out of control. Well! That's certainly not flight! It still doesn't work!

Even when they mount the engines properly onto the airframe and have you watch as they take off in controlled flight, you still don't believe them since you "already proved it couldn't possibly work."

 
BTW, even though robertleva has posted a lie, I have no doubt that he doesn't realize that it's a lie. That's just what he's been taught and he has made the mistake of believing and trusting them (as I'm sure that his immediate handlers have also done).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2021 1:21 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33409
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 6 of 8 (886058)
05-03-2021 7:25 PM


Even if what robert posted in the OP were true it would still have absolutely no impact on the fact of evolution.

Evolving only required increased complexity when there was only single cell organisms. A critter can evolve by becoming less complex or less genetically complex (whatever that means).

robert like all the other deprived kids that were educated in the Christian Cult of ********* simply grew up in an environment of total ********** and complete disconnection from reality.


My Website: My Website

  
Barry Deaborough
Junior Member
Posts: 5
From: LAVIT
Joined: 05-31-2021


Message 7 of 8 (887357)
08-01-2021 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robertleva
04-25-2021 7:54 AM


Post and run?

"Evolutionist" is defined as someone who "believes" in evolution. Virtually nobody "believes" in evolution. They conclude it by applying reasoning to the evidence.

Re. dogs and wolves, what is it thet prevents the genetic changes that led wolfishness to doggyness being reversed?

Oh. I forgot. Post and run.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robertleva, posted 04-25-2021 7:54 AM robertleva has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2021 8:18 AM Barry Deaborough has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 8 (887430)
08-03-2021 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Barry Deaborough
08-01-2021 8:34 AM


Post and run?

Looking at the record (click on his name as a link), this OP was the first thing he had posted (25 Apr 2021) , but it didn't get promoted until 03 May 2021, a week later. While he did participate a bit in four other topics, his last message listed was on 28 Apr 2021, about 5 days before this topic was belatedly promoted. That might suggest that he had not intended this to be a post-and-run, but rather he had already decided to brush the dust off his sandals and forget about us (New Testament reference for writing off a community you fail to convert).

This OP was the only time I recall seeing him even mention evolution. As I recall, in all his other messages he affirmed his belief in demons, tried to convert us while pulling the typical proselytizing BS (including denying the Cheeto dust of proselytizing all over his face and hands), and generally engaged in typical fundamentalist nonsense.

I suspected he was yet another case of what we'd seen before. In a number of fundamentalist schools students will be given an assignment in which they find an "atheist" forum ("evolutionist" means the same thing to them) and troll it with "challenges to evolutionists", reporting back to the class for credit.

There was even a "grassroots" campaign a decade ago (04 May 2011) organized by one ministry (so much for "grassroots") with its own webpage: Question evolution - creation.com . The idea was to arm creationist students with a set of questions to raise in class. The purpose was to put the teacher on the spot with "unanswerable questions" that would show that what the teacher was saying wasn't true and so to cast doubt on evolution -- BTW, slamming your victim with "unanswerable questions" is a common proselytizing tactic. That page lists their list of 15 questions which of course are nothing but PRATTs ("Points Refuted A Thousand Times"). A few other sites added to that list with even worse questions. My personal was "Looky at all these compounds! What did they all come from?" to which the obvious answer was, "Start paying attention in chemistry class and you'll learn where they come from, and so much more!"

It used to be very common to get some of those students doing that homework assignment here, but it's been a while now. The pattern would be for them to post an OP with one or some (or even all) of those questions, maybe offer a few weak responses, and then abruptly disappear to go collect their class credits.

This OP certainly smelled like one of those, however his email suggests that he is at least a young adult who is either a service member or a veteran (MacDill AFB is near him and it does have a Navy Reserve presence). At one point he mentioned not being very well received in the gaming community, which I assume to be on-line gaming, so I assume him to be rather young still (old gamers tend to do more table-top gaming). Maybe his adult RE class handed out those same assignments.

"Evolutionist" is defined as someone who "believes" in evolution. Virtually nobody "believes" in evolution. They conclude it by applying reasoning to the evidence.

My senior English teacher taught us that words have both denotations and connotations. The denotation is the factual definition, basically what's in the dictionary. But the connotation is the set of emotions and prejudices that are associated with that word.

"Evolutionist" has both denotations and connotations. Every time you ask someone, especially a creationist (also loaded with connotations), what "evolutionist" means and he'll always give you a somewhat neutral denotation: someone who "believes in", ie accepts, evolution.

But that creationist never ever offers any of the connotations they have for that word, virtually all of them negative. To them, an "evolutionist" is not only an atheist, but also outright anti-God and wanting to destroy religion. Furthermore, they deem by definition "evolutionism" and creationism to be mutually exclusive, therefore an evolutionist cannot be a creationist nor can a creationist be an evolutionist (not by their narrow definitions; see below).

This works as a trap for their opponents, especially in any kind of discussion or debate format before an audience of believers. Especially in the earlier debates (ie, before we figured out this trick) the creationist was introduced as a creationist and his opponent was introduced as an "evolutionist". The opponent would usually accept that label ("OK, this is creation/evolution, so since I'm on the opposite side I guess that label makes sense.") without knowing about the very negative connotations that he was signing on for. So as a "self-admitted" "evolutionist", the audience immediately saw him as the most vile form of enemy and he lost the audience and the debate before either of them even spoke the first word.

That is why I keep asking creationists what an "evolutionist" is supposed to be, just as I keep asking them what they think that evolution is (clearly that's not what we normals know it to be), and they never ever give me a straight answer, if they even bother to answer (which is very rare).

Edited by dwise1, : he referred to the gaming community


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Barry Deaborough, posted 08-01-2021 8:34 AM Barry Deaborough has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021