Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

So the first weener to appear was based on one mutation?

That's the Hopeless Monster idea, not evolutionary theory.

 

[One Brow]

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria.

What else would a bacteria evolve into?

In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all.

That's pretty much what evolutionary theory is.

Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

Actually, Darwin's theory applies to populations. It absolutely says the population gets taller individuals, when taller is favored by the environment.

Species come about when two different populations descended from a common population can/do no longer interbreed. It's a concept applied by humans for the purposes of categorization, not an evolutionary unit.

 

[One Brow]

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

If consensus referred to majority opinion, you might have a point.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I fixed that for you.
Would you say a "relevant expert" is also someone who has some evidence to dispute claims?

If you go with evolution, over ID or creation, on the basis of consensus then shouldn't you also take religion on the basis of consensus? Which ever belief system has the most support?

I go with the evidence that I find more compelling... and I find the evidence for evolution a hell of a lot more compelling than the "evidence" for creationism.

If you can give me evidence why Christianity is more likely to be true than Hinduism or Buddhism, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt you know much about either one, because you'd rather stick to what you're comfortable believing rather than what's more likely to be true.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So let me get this straight. Milhopsapa thinks evolutionary theory is random mutations creating wild changes in an organism despite being told countless times that it isn't?

Then he/she/ brings up social darwinism (survival of the fittest) which has never been used in evolutionary theory. Then he/she/ also seems to argue against Darwinian principles as if the scientific community holds dear the stuff Darwin suggested as if it's gospel, even though it should be quite well known that much of Darwin's suppositions have long since known to be inaccurate.

It's like Hopsapa is trying to dubunk 19th century evolutionism and then claiming he/she is debunking 21st century evolutionism in the process.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

So let me get this straight. Milhopsapa thinks evolutionary theory is random mutations creating wild changes in an organism despite being told countless times that it isn't?

Then he/she/ brings up social darwinism (survival of the fittest) which has never been used in evolutionary theory. Then he/she/ also seems to argue against Darwinian principles as if the scientific community holds dear the stuff Darwin suggested as if it's gospel, even though it should be quite well known that much of Darwin's suppositions have long since known to be inaccurate.

It's like Hopsapa is trying to dubunk 19th century evolutionism and then claiming he/she is debunking 21st century evolutionism in the process.

This.

I don't know why I even started posting in this thread. It's not going to accomplish anything other than give me headaches.

 

[The-Joker]

This.

I don't know why I even started posting in this thread. It's not going to accomplish anything other than give me headaches.

Agreed, slapper is either a hack genius... or the most stubborn person on earth... either way we can't help her.

 

[PearlWatson]

I go with the evidence that I find more compelling... and I find the evidence for evolution a hell of a lot more compelling than the "evidence" for creationism.

If you can give me evidence why Christianity is more likely to be true than Hinduism or Buddhism, I'd love to hear it. But I doubt you know much about either one, because you'd rather stick to what you're comfortable believing rather than what's more likely to be true.

That's not what you said initially. You brought up consensus among biologists. I thought it was weird for someone who had "atheist" in their name to believe something on consensus.
Can I ask what "evidence" you find so compelling?

In the end, it comes down to this: I am not a biologist. But all biologists I know personally -- and all but a very few "creation scientists" who make up less than 5% of the scientific community -- believe evolution is a fact. And since I'm not an expert in the area, I'm going to defer to the people who actually know something about it, much as most of them would defer to me on picking good video games. The people who claim not to believe in evolution... well, unless you're a biologist and have some compelling evidence for me, I'm not terribly inclined to listen to you, because 95% of the relevant experts are telling me something differently.

 

[PearlWatson]

So let me get this straight. Milhopsapa thinks evolutionary theory is random mutations creating wild changes in an organism despite being told countless times that it isn't?

Then he/she/ brings up social darwinism (survival of the fittest) which has never been used in evolutionary theory. Then he/she/ also seems to argue against Darwinian principles as if the scientific community holds dear the stuff Darwin suggested as if it's gospel, even though it should be quite well known that much of Darwin's suppositions have long since known to be inaccurate.

It's like Hopsapa is trying to dubunk 19th century evolutionism and then claiming he/she is debunking 21st century evolutionism in the process.

Why did you and many others argue that random mutation (whether subtle or wild) is an essential part of evolution if it isn't?

Are you trying to pretend that natural selection doesn't = survival of the fittest?

What's different about evolutionary theory today than Darwin's theory?

 

[PearlWatson]

This.

I don't know why I even started posting in this thread. It's not going to accomplish anything other than give me headaches.

That's weird. A preacher claims preaching gives him a headache.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

That's weird. A preacher claims preaching gives him a headache.

Only when I preach to obnoxious people who have no interest in listening.

Since you seem to want to talk so much and I've admitted that trying to talk to you gives me a headache, why don't you answer my query as to why Christianity is so much more compelling than Hinduism or Buddhism. That way you can run your mouth and I don't have to talk or get a headache.

 

[PearlWatson]

Nope. Literally, that is the definition of evolution
Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

Woopeedeedooo. Biologists showed that bacteria "change over time" and remain bacteria. Hooray for them. If that happened for a billion years all we would have would be extremely sturdy bacteria on the earth. But we don't so now can we start talking about the real theory of evolution that claims that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms by random mutation and natural selection?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Why did you and many others argue that random mutation (whether subtle or wild) is an essential part of evolution if it isn't?

Are you trying to pretend that natural selection doesn't = survival of the fittest?

What's different about evolutionary theory today than Darwin's theory?

Q#1: Mutation is essential. It's the only way a new trait can develop. It's basically a starting point for a particular trait or a change to a trait. Most viable mutations don't affect the phenotype at all. As mentioned, they'll occur in dormant sections of the genetic code, which end up doing nothing. The ones that do change the phenotype aren't drastic. It might turn off, say, the growth gene on a tail earlier than what it's done in the species in the past, leading to a shorter tail. This, for whatever reason, turns out to be betted suited for an individual of that species to reproduce, and so that trait begins to be more prominent in the population. After 600 generations, say 2000 years, you now have as many short tails as you do long tails.

That is simplistic and I could go on, for instance, the long-tails and short-tails end up not breeding with each other and over a span of time, say 10,000 years, the long-tails and short-tails can no longer produce reproductive children. Now we have two species instead of two. Pretty impossible to tell where and when the split occurred, especially when you may find one or two fossils of these species. All you know is what it used to be 12,000 years ago and two different species now.

Q2: There is no pretending. Survival of the fittest DOES NOT mean natural selection. Firstly, evolution is about reproducing, not surviving. Secondly, there's absolutely no way to define "fit." Whatever "fit," may be is under constant flux, so it doesn't even matter if one is "fit" for whatever environment it's in. That environment will change.

Q3: Darwin had no knowledge of the genetic code. He also had no real concept of anything outside natural selection, like genetic drift. He also didn't understand the gradual change in species over time.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

But we don't so now can we start talking about the real theory of evolution that claims that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms by random mutation and natural selection?

Evolution is more complicated than mutations and natural selection.

 

[PearlWatson]

Only when I preach to obnoxious people who have no interest in listening.

Since you seem to want to talk so much and I've admitted that trying to talk to you gives me a headache, why don't you answer my query as to why Christianity is so much more compelling than Hinduism or Buddhism. That way you can run your mouth and I don't have to talk or get a headache.

I'm the one who initially asked you questions and I read your long answers. I'm sorry that my inquires are tiresome for you and that you don't want to talk about the subject of evolution.

 

[PearlWatson]

Q#1: Mutation is essential. It's the only way a new trait can develop. It's basically a starting point for a particular trait or a change to a trait. Most viable mutations don't affect the phenotype at all. As mentioned, they'll occur in dormant sections of the genetic code, which end up doing nothing. The ones that do change the phenotype aren't drastic. It might turn off, say, the growth gene on a tail earlier than what it's done in the species in the past, leading to a shorter tail. This, for whatever reason, turns out to be betted suited for an individual of that species to reproduce, and so that trait begins to be more prominent in the population. After 600 generations, say 2000 years, you now have as many short tails as you do long tails.

That is simplistic and I could go on, for instance, the long-tails and short-tails end up not breeding with each other and over a span of time, say 10,000 years, the long-tails and short-tails can no longer produce reproductive children. Now we have two species instead of two. Pretty impossible to tell where and when the split occurred, especially when you may find one or two fossils of these species. All you know is what it used to be 12,000 years ago and two different species now.

Q2: There is no pretending. Survival of the fittest DOES NOT mean natural selection. Firstly, evolution is about reproducing, not surviving. Secondly, there's absolutely no way to define "fit." Whatever "fit," may be is under constant flux, so it doesn't even matter if one is "fit" for whatever environment it's in. That environment will change.

Q3: Darwin had no knowledge of the genetic code. He also had no real concept of anything outside natural selection, like genetic drift. He also didn't understand the gradual change in species over time.

Please define natural selection if you don't like my definition.

 

[PearlWatson]

(that's right evolution explains cancer)... some base pairs when mutated will kill you, others will make you Lebron James (the proof is Lebron James). This is science, I have observed it with my own eyes as a 1st year Biology student.

Its hard to document mutation because it occurs on such a large scale, but we do know of the existence of mutation and what it can do (kill you). We can usually even mark on which chromosome and where the mutation is (given controlled and uncontrolled variables).

Let's talk about this cancer thing. This question doesn't really matter to the subject but I'm going to ask it anyway. So cancer is mutation, but is it random mutation?
Are there not "causes" for cancer?

Yes we know mutation can kill you but the trick for evolutionists is being able to show how random mutation creates a new attribute that leads to a new species.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution is more complicated than mutations and natural selection.

What is the testable hypothesis for this NeoEvolution?

 

[The-Joker]

Woopeedeedooo. Biologists showed that bacteria "change over time" and remain bacteria. Hooray for them. If that happened for a billion years all we would have would be extremely sturdy bacteria on the earth. But we don't so now can we start talking about the real theory of evolution that claims that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms by random mutation and natural selection?

Now you're supporting microevolution, but still staying away from the idea that the grand scheme of things is explained by evolution as well. That's like believing that buying a carton of milk supports your local economy, but not believing that small economic purchase is also a part of the NYSE, GDP, or the National Debt.

 

[PearlWatson]

Now you're supporting microevolution, but still staying away from the idea that the grand scheme of things is explained by evolution as well. That's like believing that buying a carton of milk supports your local economy, but not believing that small economic purchase is also a part of the NYSE, GDP, or the National Debt.

This is what I hear you saying:

This desert is flat, so that means the whole Earth is.