That is not what has been stated. What we are stating is that this is what we OBSERVE. Yes, it is possible that evolution could occur through mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. However, this isn't the case. We OBSERVE that mutations are random with respect to fitness. The two best examples are:
What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree. For example, you observe me write a sentence and you say that this minor observation is convincing evidence that I have written everything that has ever been written, I am the font of all knowledge, I have constructed all buildings, I am the author of everything that ever was and will be - its absurd! Can you not see that?
Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information. For example, I'm drowning in a tank, above my head is a hole leading to air, but I can't fit through the hole, so I cut off my arm. I now fit through the hole and save my life, but I am disabled. I am less that what I was before my 'adaptation'.
You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.
quote: What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree.
But observing the mechanisms of development can be extended to the mechanisms of evolution ? I think that your argument is far worse. After all you have no real evidence for the mechanisms that would underly your ideas at all. If they are there then why are they so invisible ?
What you are proposing seems to me to be a variant of Orthogenesis, an idea rejected for just that very lack of evidence.
quote: Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information.
So creationists say. But if all they do is say it. If they don't propose a useful, usable and relevant measure of information which can be shown to decrease with every beneficial mutation then all they are doing is talking. Why believe that something is true just because a creationist says it ?
What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree.
Larger changes are only the accumulation of what you call "minor mutations".
Let's look at humans and chimps. We share a common ancestor. Why do humans and chimps look different? It is because our DNA is different. But how can this be if we both come from the same ancestral population? It is because we accumulated different mutations over time.
The differences between humans and chimps is not because one of the species is stuck in a certain developmental stage like your caterpillar and butterfly example. The differences are due to different mutations. The differences are due to the accumulation of what you call minor mutations.
For example, you observe me write a sentence and you say that this minor observation is convincing evidence that I have written everything that has ever been written, I am the font of all knowledge, I have constructed all buildings, I am the author of everything that ever was and will be - its absurd! Can you not see that?
The only absurd thing is how this relates to biology in any way.
Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information.
Then evolution can proceed with losses in information as you define it. Why is this a problem?
You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.
Are the differences between species due to a difference in DNA sequence? Yes or no?
... the benefit is achieved by a loss of information.
Different information isn't necessarily a "loss" of information. In your example, losing an arm doesn't constitute a loss of information. One arm or two arms is still the same amount of information.
Yes, we do not yet know how life evolved. Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. ...
There is so much wrong here I hardly know where to begin. The science that covers how life began is abiogenesis, and while there are several hypothesis currently being tested there is no over-reaching theory ... yet.
Evolution only applies once we have life - a breeding population of life, and this is a gray area (when life begins), and it is not helpful to confuse these different aspects of science.
It is hysterical that you say I didn't "properly identify" the theory of evolution after I listed the definitions of evolution from two universities from their resources for teaching evolution. Curiously I have not had one actual biologist take issue with my statements about the process and theory of evolution (except to help me refine them), including my father who used to teach biology at the University of Michigan.
You are obviously not a biologist, not even a hobby biologist - a person that has studied biology but doesn't hold a degree in it, because you do not appear to understand what evolution actually is and don't seem willing to learn. Further your purported theory is not just wrong, but it is an absolutely false portrayal of the theory of evolution, a hoax.
Biology in general and evolution in particular does not use or care about "information" because (a) it has not been defined in a way that can be measured and compared, and (b) it is irrelevant to the increase in diversity of life. Life can become more diverse through simplification as easily as through increased complexity, and the theory of evolution explains ALL the increases in diversity, not just ones that go in one direction.
Cave fish evolve to lose sight because it improves their use of energy for survival and breeding, and in doing so they increase the diversity of types of fish.
If someone told you that "random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome" was the theory of evolution they lied, they hoodwinked you and fooled you with a hoax.
Mutations can add to a genome and they can subtract from a genome, and both add diversity, both can produce novel traits that are selectable and that can lead to increased success in survival and reproduction. Evolution is concerned with what leads to increased success in survival and reproduction.
You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.
... Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it. You like this explanation. Cool, it's yours, though I personally think it is inadequate.
Curiously, neither your media player, nor the software used, reproduce, neither have random copy errors, and thus there is absolutely no way that these are comparable to evolution: your straw man fails, not because they don't change, but because it is not a proper portrayal of evolution.
You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.
My issue is the assumption that any argument to this theory is religiously driven and unscientific. What you are erroneously stating is that evolution can only happen one way - through arbitrary mutation. I claim 'certainty is the enemy of science'.
Your issue is that you don't know squat about biology in general and evolution in particular.
You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.
I take the position of Galileo and Einstein, who both believed and spent the last years of their lives looking for - a unified theory of all things ...
Another false statement. Einstein was interested in unifying the four forces in physics and could have cared less about biological evolution.
... We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life. It is a poor patchwork quilt of life and Nature does not work like that. ...
Amusingly science works that way, because you have to understand the jigsaw puzzle pieces before you can assemble them.
... I am much more interested in finding the truth.
Then start by eliminating everything that is false in your understanding of life, the universe, and everything (-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide).
You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.
To learn the truth you need to start with facts, but more importantly you need to eliminate false concepts.
Message 117: The definition of evolution on this site is narrowed down to a single interpretation - a theory of development through mutation. I will not accept, nor use that definition of evolution - it is an insult to Nature.
So you are now talking about Vanessology and not biology or evolution.
Nowhere in Nature does life develop through mutation. It is wrong to assume (and call it Naturalism) that all life on Earth developed this way.
Not by mutation alone, but hand in hand with selection in the dance of life.
Mutations occur in every offspring. The process of evolution has been observed and is a fact. The process of speciation has been observed and is a fact. It is wrong to assert that these cannot explain the diversity of life without providing some reason, some barrier to these processes.
Message 121: You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.
And again, mutation does not act alone in evolution, but hand in hand with selection in the dance of life.
Evolution only applies once you have a breeding population of life, so the definition of life is rather irrelevant to evolution, but if you are interested in pursuing that topic see Definition of Life. It's a gray area indeed.
quote:Message 69: Personally, I think the best working definition I've seen, is that life is some physical arrangement of atoms and molecules that is potentially capable of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent.
ie - it is life when it can undergo the processes of evolution ... which is a back-door kind of definition, but it also emphasizes that abiogenesis ends when evolution begins and evolution begins when abiogenesis ends.
We do not observe that computer programs reproduce and occasionally mutate in so doing.
You are completely right, it was a poor example.
... we observe, predict, and then either discard a theory, or determine that it seems to represent the best explanation available to us of the phenomena which we observe. As I understand it, scientists are not certain - they are sufficiently convinced to move scientific enquiry and advances in technology forward, but they are always open to improving their understanding.
That is an admirable but idealistic comment - like saying politicians are concerned for our welfare and bankers are concerned for our money. It is what we like to believe. And it is often true. But not when it counts. There is an expression "Science progresses one funeral at a time." No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed. Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution. To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion. How can an attack on religion support a scientific theory? Too many people in this forum have decided that the theory of mutation as the driving force of evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. That myopic view is what I argue against.
science in its widest sense will always be a patchwork - the explanations of how a cell functions; of how electrons (sort of) orbit an atom's nucleus; of how gravity bends light; of how plate tectonics create earthquakes, will all be different from each other.
True, but you give examples of widely different phenomena. If there was one theory that could explain the evolution of the solar system (vital for the development of life), the beginning of life and how it developed - would this not be preferable? If we could replace a multitude of theories with one, wouldn't it be better? What we are looking at is an engineering problem and yet we are not applying engineering principles. We have accepted an explanation of ad hoc mutations. What Darwin proposed was linked to Nature - variance in phenotype could produce new biological structures. He believed it was a simple process, like animal husbandry - we can make woolier sheep, meatier cows. But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
I attended an Intelligent Design conference and I asked a Christian woman if the truth of life were found out and it didn't agree with her Christian teachings, could she accept it. She didn't answer, but she found me the next day and said she would keep her Christian beliefs. I appreciated her honesty.
If the truth of life were found out and it did not agree with current evolutionary theory could you put aside your beliefs?
I use the word truth deliberately because that's what we want. If you have a disease you don't want a theory about what it could be, you want the truth.
... looking for "the truth" suggests too many preconceptions - let's just find out what is.
No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed.
This is the biggest eye roller in quite some time. It is the dream of every scientist to overturn the current consensus. Was Einstein against the idea of overturning 300 years of Newtonian mechanics? Apparently not, and he was rewarded greatly by his peers for falsifying the consensus.
I could list famous scientist after famous scientist that falsified the consensus. You are so far off base on this one that it isn't even funny.
Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution.
No, it isn't. It is based on doing solid research. As it turns out, using the theory of evolution allows you to turn out quality research.
No one is using ID to do research. No one. You know why? Because it isn't science. Evolution is science, and it works. That's why scientists use it.
Too many people in this forum have decided that the theory of mutation as the driving force of evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. That myopic view is what I argue against.
It is the only EVIDENCED theory which is why it is the only accepted theory. When you provide evidence of a different mechanism then it can be accepted. That is how it works. Evidence first, then acceptance. So where is the evidence?
If we could replace a multitude of theories with one, wouldn't it be better?
Only if it leads to a unification of explanations that makes sense. As for the evolution of life and the evolution of stars there really isn't too much to connect the two. Selective pressures on anaerobic soil bacteria are occuring through different mechanisms than nuclear fusion in the middle of stars. I don't see why keeping these two things separate hurts either one, do you?
But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
You need to provide evidence for these assertions. Please show that the differences between species is not due to differences in DNA. That would be a good start.
If the truth of life were found out and it did not agree with current evolutionary theory could you put aside your beliefs?
Absolutely. That would be a very exciting day. However, I really doubt you are going to be the one to do it.
quote: There is an expression "Science progresses one funeral at a time." No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed. Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution. To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion.
Really ? Or do you mean that scientists defend science and science education from the attacks coming from religion ?
quote: What Darwin proposed was linked to Nature - variance in phenotype could produce new biological structures. He believed it was a simple process, like animal husbandry - we can make woolier sheep, meatier cows. But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA
I have to say that if you believe this, then you really lack even a basic grasp of the science. Genetic mutations did not replace phenotypic variation, they were identified as the cause of (heritable) phenotypic variation.
quote: - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
As has already been pointed out, mutations do occur, they are natural and they do add variation which can serve to drive evolution. It is your presumed mechanisms which are not seen in nature.
Might I suggest that if you are really interested in the truth that you take the time to learn the science, and acquaint yourself with the evidence and then - when you are in a position to do so - rationally evaluate it.
If there was one theory that could explain the evolution of the solar system (vital for the development of life), the beginning of life and how it developed - would this not be preferable? If we could replace a multitude of theories with one, wouldn't it be better?
This is the heart of where we differ. It's not a question of what might be "preferable" or "better" - it's a question of what actually is. As I understand it, scientists aren't looking for something which is more satisfying - they're looking at the evidence to understand how things actually work, pure and simple.
The answers may appear messy; astonishingly complicated and beyond most people's abilities to process (mine very much included, when it comes to higher mathematics and quantum mechanics for example), but I don't refute them because I feel that there must be some other explanation which is "preferable" or "better". Thinking that there must be something better is a preconception.
Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it.
Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that reproduction is the method by which new organisms are produced. Like saying new computer programs are produced by existing programs having sex - like saying my media player will one day give birth to a media player.
This comparison shows how silly it is to say that organisms reproduce --- because if the immaculate intellectual structure that is creation science has taught us anything, it's that analogies are always perfect, and that consequently everything is exactly like everything else.
My issue is the assumption that any argument to this theory is religiously driven and unscientific.
That's not an assumption, that's calling it how we see it.
We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life.
And another for the evolution of jazz from ragtime. This will not stand!
Different things do have different reasons.
I take the position of Galileo and Einstein, who both believed and spent the last years of their lives looking for - a unified theory of all things.
Well, no. No they didn't. Your allusion to Galileo I do not understand at all; as for Einstein, he wished to (and failed to) unify various physical fields; but he did not try to unify all things, giving one single explanation for gravity, aardvarks, and spaghetti.
This is the heart of where we differ. It's not a question of what might be "preferable" or "better" - it's a question of what actually is.
This is exactly what I want.
The answers may appear messy; astonishingly complicated and beyond most people's abilities to process (mine very much included, when it comes to higher mathematics and quantum mechanics for example), but I don't refute them because I feel that there must be some other explanation which is "preferable" or "better". Thinking that there must be something better is a preconception.
I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.
I know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. I have only been on this site a couple of weeks. I did not intend to explain the theory I heard, I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.
In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge.
You mentioned this over on the other thread, and said you'd set out this theory for us. Please do - and could you please also set out the evidence you refer to ? I won't be able to do a great deal with it myself, I suspect, but the scientists on here will need to review your evidence to assess the theory.
No, you reject it. Refuting it would take actual work.
I did not intend to explain the theory I heard ...
So you know of a better idea, but you won't tell us what it is?
I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation.
Well, it's the only one we know.
This is arrogant ...
No it isn't.
We have a theory that works perfectly. We don't know of any alternative that works at all. We say so. This is not arrogant, it is merely factual. Now, I would not go so far as to say that it is the only possible explanation, but it is certainly the only extant explanation. (Note that an explanation that exists only in your head which you won't tell anyone about doesn't really count, because no-one else knows what it is.)
Good. The path to truth is being able to learn when you are wrong.
... To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion. ...
There is no war on religion. What there is involves a myopic religious view with proponents waging war on science, philosophy and other beliefs, and crying when they can't get their way.
Looking for truth also means rejecting false religious beliefs.
I attended an Intelligent Design conference and I asked a Christian woman if the truth of life were found out and it didn't agree with her Christian teachings, could she accept it. She didn't answer, but she found me the next day and said she would keep her Christian beliefs. I appreciated her honesty.
It isn't honesty, it is an inability to accept truth, to realize when one has false beliefs and be willing to change them.
... But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
Once again you have made statements that are wrong, terribly wrong.
Variance in the phenotype is due to mutations, selection acts on the phenotype (whether artificial via animal husbandry or natural in the wild survival and reproduction selection).
Selection is the part of evolution that you miss when you talk only about mutations:
There is objective empirical evidence of this occurring, generation by generation in breeding populations, there is no known species where this is NOT happening.
I use the word truth deliberately because that's what we want. If you have a disease you don't want a theory about what it could be, you want the truth.
If you have just been diagnosed with a deadly disease and the truth is that there is no known cure for that deadly disease, but there is a hypothetical as yet untested cure ... do you want the truth (start checking off your bucket list) or do you want the hypothetical possibility?
Me, I'll take the hypothetical possibility rather than the dogmatic "truth"
I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. ...
No, you are like the Christian woman at the conference, you reject the current explanation because you believe something else is true, even though there is objective empirical evidence that the current explanation -- the REAL evolution (mutation AND selection) is thus far sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
To refute something you provide evidence that shows it is false. Denial is not refutation.
Note how this last entry describes the Christian woman at the conference.
... A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.
I know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. ...
As others have said: produce it and the evidence and the predictions. Preferably in a reference that can be checked, such as a scientific journal.
... I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. ...
Curiously I am not aware of a "theory of arbitrary events" ...
... This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.
Says the person who arrogantly declares that the whole science of evolution is wrong even though she has not studied biology or evolution and cannot produce this magic theory or any evidence that shows modern evolution theory to be false.
Says the person who arrogantly declares someone who posts information from university websites that the information posted is wrong.
Says the person who arrogantly repeats assertions about what evolution is when she has been told that they are not true representations of evolution.
Arrogant is the woman at the conference who arrogantly decided that her belief was better than truth.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
