Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

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

Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

[One Brow]

... the trick for evolutionists is being able to show how random mutation creates a new attribute that leads to a new species.

Since the theory of evolution does not say, "random mutation creates a new attribute that leads to a new species", it would indeed be a trick.

 

[One Brow]

The real question that evolutionists can't answer is where the hell the first bird came from.

Since the Theory of Evolution does not have a concept of "the first bird", what is there to explain?

 

[TheItinerantSon]

I've always thought that it was a strategic blunder, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition for the Dawkins crowd to be so obsessed with making sure that everyone believes in evolution. So I've never been particularly fond of these types of debates. In fact I really don't care if the Louisiana govt or the kansas govt decides to stop teaching evolution in schools paid for by the louisiana or kansas govts.

That said, I do fundamentally believe in evolution. I am a biologist (a cancer biologist) in training. And I can tell you that I believe natural selection explains not just what we see in the biological world, but (by memes if not genes) also much of what we see in the human world.

---

Some people have seemed to argue that it doesn't make sense that enough mutations could accumulate to generate a new trait. And I will admit that its a hard concept to lay your head around.

But I think it can be helpful to think about developmental biology. You may remember in your high school biology textbooks that dramatically different species look very similar at certain stages of development. See the image below

Thats because during embryogenesis, you have these master regulatory genes called HOX genes that direct programs of development. Slight mutations in these genes have ripple effects that can cause dramatically different physical outcomes.

Anecdotal evidence of a sped up version of this comes from the Siberian Farm-Fox experiment.

Which you can read about briefly here

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/science/new-breed-of-fox-as-tame-as-a-pussycat.html

or in-depth here

https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1

or watch a youtube video about here (10 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO1qv-p97G0&feature=related

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Your mom is a fox.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes it is. Your viewpoint is based on creation myths told in a religious book. So I would say it's very relevant to ask why that book should be considered authoritative over other religious texts.

That is where you are wrong. My viewpoint is based on ID proposed by scientists, and my criticisms of Darwinism are also based on scientific criticisms.

 

[The-Joker]

That is where you are wrong. My viewpoint is based on ID proposed by scientists, and my criticisms of Darwinism are also based on scientific criticisms.

95% of Scientists believe in evolution as it is defined... and you're making it sound like you're going with the scientific flow. Can I ask who are these scientists, and what are their beliefs?

 

[moevillini]

so here's my question: Do you believe that canned peas are canned vegetables?

some background: Canned goods is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of food items, including canned fruits, canned soups, and canned vegetables. Canned peas would be a specific example of one type of canned vegetable. So it is correct to say that canned peas are canned vegetables?




Trout, how'm I doin' here? Think this is helping you find your answers?
<3 Moe

 

[AtheistPreacher]

That is where you are wrong. My viewpoint is based on ID proposed by scientists, and my criticisms of Darwinism are also based on scientific criticisms.

Pardon me if I don't believe you. I'm sure you do have some "scientific criticisms," but I'm willing to bet you're trying to justify a Christian viewpoint. You are Christian, yes? Because if you weren't trying to justify a viewpoint that you felt was religiously important to defend, I'd think you would have been more willing to listen to everyone in this thread who's been telling you that your "scientific criticisms" don't make a lick of sense.

 

[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.

Shouldn't an Evolutionist include "random" right before that mutation part.

You can assert that this is the only way a new a trait develops but Evolutionists have been unable to show how a simple bacteria flagellum with 20+ coordinated parts develops this way, let alone a blood-clotting mechanism, and it gets extremely tricky explaining how the first female mammal simultaneously randomly mutated a uterus, fallopian tubes, and a ****** in order to reproduce with the first male mammal who also had to simultaneously mutate balls, a prostate, and a weener. She also simultaneously randomly mutated her way into having boobs that could feed her young once she popped it out.

It looks to me that these complicated traits, organs, and biological systems are designed into the genetic code/blueprint already (much like windows are designed to be in a building) or an intelligent force (like gravitational force) was involved in the "change over time" from simple to complex organisms. It takes a lot more faith to believe in an accidental process to get all life on earth (especially in the face of contrary evidence) than it does to believe in an intelligent force or being.

 

[PearlWatson]

95% of Scientists believe in evolution as it is defined... and you're making it sound like you're going with the scientific flow. Can I ask who are these scientists, and what are their beliefs?

If that is really the % (I haven't seen a real poll on it) it looks to me like I'm going with that 5% of scientists that don't believe in evolution because the evidence doesn't support it.

 

[PearlWatson]

Pardon me if I don't believe you. I'm sure you do have some "scientific criticisms," but I'm willing to bet you're trying to justify a Christian viewpoint. You are Christian, yes? Because if you weren't trying to justify a viewpoint that you felt was religiously important to defend, I'd think you would have been more willing to listen to everyone in this thread who's been telling you that your "scientific criticisms" don't make a lick of sense.

It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.

God believers don't need evolution to be false (God can do anything), atheists need evolution to be true. One evolutionist even said, "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

 

[AtheistPreacher]

God believers don't need evolution to be false (God can do anything), atheists need evolution to be true. One evolutionist even said, "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

Um... why? You talk as though there's some monolithic "atheist agenda," and that's just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Buddhists are atheists, but they're quite different from disillusioned Christian atheists. I can't imagine why an atheist would "need evolution to be true." The only reason evolution even became an issue in the general public was that the religious right believed -- wrongly -- that it somehow discredited their religious beliefs, when in reality it threatended nothing essential to their faith.

 

[One Brow]

That is where you are wrong. My viewpoint is based on ID proposed by scientists, and my criticisms of Darwinism are also based on scientific criticisms.

Since ID is a philosophical/religious position, you actually confirmed AtheistPreacher was right. Since you have not been using the scientific undertandings of the Theory of Evolution, you are not making criticisms of it.

 

[One Brow]

Evolutionists have been unable to show how a simple bacteria flagellum with 20+ coordinated parts develops this way,

You've already been provided with Maztke's explanation, which is one possible way, and you presented no substantive objections to it. Now, you can fairly claim that no one has shown how it *did* happen, but then you can't show that you were conceived by a sperm and ova, either. Both are historical events, and it is not more reasonable to deny one that the other based merly on their being historical.

let alone a blood-clotting mechanism,

Actually, we have good explanations for the blood-clotting mechanism, as well.

and it gets extremely tricky explaining how the first female mammal simultaneously randomly mutated a uterus, fallopian tubes, and a ****** in order to reproduce with the first male mammal who also had to simultaneously mutate balls, a prostate, and a weener.

That's not in the Theoy of Evolution to begin with, so there is no need to explain it. You're using the Hopeful Monster idea again.

It takes a lot more faith to believe in an accidental process to get all life on earth (especially in the face of contrary evidence) than it does to believe in an intelligent force or being.

Except, the accidental/reactive process can be studed in detail and shown to have the ability to generate the various forms of life on earth, while the intelligient force or being is removed from study by definiion in ID. It takes more faith to believe in what you can't see than what you can.

 

[One Brow]

...because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.

The answers to the criticism do't sease to exist simply becaue you stick your fingers in your ear when presented with them.

... atheists need evolution to be true.

Wrong. Before evolution, many atheists believed that life was static, and had always been the way it is in a never-altering chain.

 

[The-Joker]

Pardon me if I don't believe you. I'm sure you do have some "scientific criticisms," but I'm willing to bet you're trying to justify a Christian viewpoint. You are Christian, yes? Because if you weren't trying to justify a viewpoint that you felt was religiously important to defend, I'd think you would have been more willing to listen to everyone in this thread who's been telling you that your "scientific criticisms" don't make a lick of sense.

This,

would rep if could rep

 

[PearlWatson]

Um... why? You talk as though there's some monolithic "atheist agenda," and that's just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Buddhists are atheists, but they're quite different from disillusioned Christian atheists. I can't imagine why an atheist would "need evolution to be true." The only reason evolution even became an issue in the general public was that the religious right believed -- wrongly -- that it somehow discredited their religious beliefs, when in reality it threatended nothing essential to their faith.

They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.

 

[The-Joker]

It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.

God believers don't need evolution to be false (God can do anything), atheists need evolution to be true. One evolutionist even said, "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.

We've mentioned several relevant persons and their ideas... Darwin, Dawkins, the expert I quoted Futuyama, among others... from what I can tell you've essentially been pulling things out of your ***... hell you even tried to justify your grammar mistake with "I've heard it said that way before".

 

[The-Joker]

They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.

Social Darwinism and Darwinism are 2 different concepts based in 2 separate pools of ideas... the only thing they have in common is the word "Darwinism". And that's not even accurate... Evolution became a "issue in the general public" because Darwin was interpreted as saying "it can work without god", where before you couldn't possibly explain the intricacies of life without God.