Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Questioning Evolution

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 21 posts ] 
Questioning Evolution
Author Message
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Questioning Evolution

In many cases I see lots of aspects of evolution unquestionned, and for me the theory shows some mathematical and logical inconsistencies, in an abstract point of view I view evolution as a random variable and a process of sheer dumb luck. Let me explain what I mean by this : Evolution is essentially defined by two very famous mechanisms, that's to say Random Mutations, which are said to be somehow guided by Natural "Selection", but the latter is nothing more than defined environmental circumstances which would include the food chain and the relation between the organisms that exist in them, so technically it's not the real meaning of selecting, it's just a deterministic process that saves the succesfull organisms created by the Random mutations, as an analogy it's like saying that if you have 9 mail boxes and 10 letters then one letter should go. So the real drivivng force is Random Mutations which you should note are not linked,for example in a sequence of going from a chimp to a Human they shouldn't necessary follow a specific order, any mutation can happen at any time and that's what I call in general a process of a Random Variable, a sheer dumb luck, that can't explain how you get the right combinations to survive at a particular environment, can it ?
Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:35 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis, I would suggest reading the Wikipedia introduction to evolution and then explaining which claims made therein you think are incorrect.

That way you will at least be arguing against a more accurate representation of evolution.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:08 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Just an FYI: Yanis is here because I have invited him, since the YouTube comment section is a terrible place to hold a discussion.

Yanis wrote:In many cases I see lots of aspects of evolution unquestionned, and for me the theory shows some mathematical and logical inconsistencies...


Please provide said mathematical and logical inconsistencies. My guess is they are based on a straw man understanding of evolution you hold. In addition, what aspects are unquestioned? It would also be nice if you would define evolution in its biological context in your next post.

Yanis wrote:... in an abstract point of view I view evolution as a random variable and a process of sheer dumb luck. Let me explain what I mean by this : Evolution is essentially defined by two very famous mechanisms, that's to say Random Mutations, which are said to be somehow guided by Natural "Selection"...


Well, you are forgetting about gene flow and genetic drift. Both are random, but I would expect anyone who has actually studied this subject to not make the mistake of thinking that mutations and selection are the only game in town.

Yanis wrote:... but the latter is nothing more than defined environmental circumstances which would include the food chain and the relation between the organisms that exist in them, so technically it's not the real meaning of selecting, it's just a deterministic process that saves the succesfull organisms created by the Random mutations, as an analogy it's like saying that if you have 9 mail boxes and 10 letters then one letter should go.


This is actually a fairly decent description of natural selection, but I see you are hung up on the word "selection". Well, I have often said that semantics is the last bastion of creationism, so to not sink this ship at the beginning, let us change the term natural selection to "survival of the fittest" as you said you preferred. When we use the term "survival of the fittest" we are talking about how you defined natural selection above.

Now, do you agree that survival of the fittest happens and has been observed?

Yanis wrote:So the real drivivng force is Random Mutations which you should note are not linked,for example in a sequence of going from a chimp to a Human they shouldn't necessary follow a specific order, any mutation can happen at any time and that's what I call in general a process of a Random Variable, a sheer dumb luck, that can't explain how you get the right combinations to survive at a particular environment, can it ?


Well, you are incorrect to think that mutations are a stand alone driving force. Mutations are a force behind evolution, but there is also gene flow, genetic drift, and survival of the fittest. However, you are correct in stating that mutations happen at random and cannot come about at the whims of an organism. That is why no one claims they are for that. Mutations are acted upon by survival of the fittest. Now, as you pointed out above, survival of the fittest is able to weed out organisms that are not fit for their environment. That means if a mutation comes about that makes an organism less fit for its environment, it is far less likely to pass its genes down to the next generation; thus that mutation does not flourish. However, if a mutation comes about that is able to allow an organism to survive better in a given environment, that organism is far more likely to pass it genes down to the next generation; thus that mutation can flourish.

Do you agree with this thought experiment?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:30 pm
YIM WWW
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

This is actually a fairly decent description of natural selection, but I see you are hung up on the word "selection". Well, I have often said that semantics is the last bastion of creationism, so to not sink this ship at the beginning, let us change the term natural selection to "survival of the fittest" as you said you preferred. When we use the term "survival of the fittest" we are talking about how you defined natural selection above.

Now, do you agree that survival of the fittest happens and has been observed?


LOL, Creationism ? I think you are taking me for the wrong person bro, First of all I'm irreligious and if you define atheism as lack of belief in god/gods then I am an atheist in that sense, what ship you don't want to sink, Am I playing with words, or is it evolutionists that do so, because Dr.Dawkins for example says "Oh evolution is not random, natural selection is anything but random " and should I understand from this, did he answer how such mutation make these levels of complexity that later can be saved and selected, what about the "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" analogy, was it really necessary from a man with the intelligence of Richard, couldn't he see the fallacy he made there, I was intrigued by that Really. And furthermore did I give an alternative of evolution anywhere in this post or my previous arguments on Youtube ? Yes, I might be suggesting the idea of creationnism/intelligent design or whatever you'd call it as there are only two options design or randomness, and that's why I want to see some answer as I already stated for such questions that are suggestive of design. I think I already said that Natural Selection is obvious and that none can deny it, but what I find strange is that you accuse me of using a straw man against evolution, Really ? can you clear up you point please and tell me where is the straw man ? I am really sorry that I didn't know about gene flow and genetic drift which are random differentiations and variations in the gene sequence, I think I already stated that I am not an Expert in this topic, and by the way these are secondary elements in the process of evolution, but I have to thank you for this information.
Well, you are incorrect to think that mutations are a stand alone driving force. Mutations are a force behind evolution, but there is also gene flow, genetic drift, and survival of the fittest. However, you are correct in stating that mutations happen at random and cannot come about at the whims of an organism. That is why no one claims they are for that. Mutations are acted upon by survival of the fittest.
[/quote] Can you please give where I said that mutations are the only driving force, I said they are the ones which would make the new traits to be selected, and that is what you repeated here, is this a straw man ? Now, you do agree with that and here is my main question in here, Do you really think that mutations are able to make a breathing apparatuse for example with its many parts, the digestive system and the different body systems ? You stated in a previous response that interlocking complexity has been observed to have evolved, and here I have to ask what kind of complexity has been observed, teleological complexity ? Complexity like the lungs with its many constituants for example, the hemoglobine's ability to make oxygen arrive at the organs, and by the way this leads to an other question which is how the distibution of blood vessels emerged and the heart, the pump of blood, how do you get that, by blind mutations ? I'll give an other example which is the stomach that has its specific function, is that the work of a simple mutation, the digestive system for example, is it pure luck ? How do you get a mouth that is related to the rest of this system, did that, the tongue and teeth ... etc come by simple changing of nucleotides in already existing DNa, did different mutations magically make the parts one by one in a complemantary way, or should I believe that just one simple mutation was behind all of this ? Starting from teeth, let me ask you how does the skeleton which has his obvious function appear at the first place, how do get those bone structures ? How do you get muscles ? And the brain also ? I know you said it developped from fish, but how did they get it at the first place ? And getting to the topic of information, you told me that it is a different branch of biology, and throwing origins to the discussion was a dishonest way to mix things around, seriously ? If I commit to the widely accepted idea of naturalism and which has done amazing work to enlighten the universe and reveal its mysteries, there is the problem of how do you get a "code" that has instructive information, can information and the syntax specifically come by chance ? Or can the parts in the cell that do the translation and have the ability to decipher the syntax evolve by chance ? Can evolution explain the mutating replicator on which it depends ? How is it dishonest if this somehow contradicts with the current worldview ? Aren't we missing something ? Science had a serie of continuous debunking and reviewing, why would it be dishonest to ask this question ? And I come back to the question of sex, you explained to me how selections happenes between the mates, but where do the mates come from at first place, how can the sperms be able to mobilize themselves to reach the egg ? You also said that a multicelullar organism has been observed to have developped, Well, in which lab ? Where ? How was it named ? Where is the article, the experience or the observation ? What were the conditions in which that happened ? An animal with the body plan and the body systems evolving out of scratch ? Why no one ever talked about it, I checked many extremist atheistic sites, evolutionary reference and no one did talk about that, that is a fatal blow to all skeptecism ?

PS: Sorry for taking a long time, personal conditions and my studies didn't allow to reply.
Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:27 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:LOL, Creationism ? I think you are taking me for the wrong person bro, First of all I'm irreligious and if you define atheism as lack of belief in god/gods then I am an atheist in that sense, what ship you don't want to sink,


Sorry for making that assumption. My bad.

:oops:

Yanis wrote:Am I playing with words, or is it evolutionists that do so, because Dr.Dawkins for example says "Oh evolution is not random, natural selection is anything but random "


Dawkins makes the same mistake a lot of people make in equating natural selection to evolution alone. Dawkins is wrong.

Yanis wrote:and should I understand from this, did he answer how such mutation make these levels of complexity that later can be saved and selected,


From what you quoted of him, no. However, I would recommend reading his book The Blind Watchmaker if you want to see his explanation for this.

Yanis wrote:and should I understand from this, did he answer how such mutation make these levels of complexity that later can be saved and selected, what about the "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" analogy, was it really necessary from a man with the intelligence of Richard, couldn't he see the fallacy he made there, I was intrigued by that Really.


What fallacy might that be? His program shows how selection can work. His mistake is thinking that selection is the only game in town.

Yanis wrote: And furthermore did I give an alternative of evolution anywhere in this post or my previous arguments on Youtube ? Yes, I might be suggesting the idea of creationnism/intelligent design or whatever you'd call it as there are only two options design or randomness, and that's why I want to see some answer as I already stated for such questions that are suggestive of design.


Thus, you are not a creationist, your arguments just look like they are creationist. Got it. However, you are making a basic mistake here in that you believe it is evolution or intelligent design creationism. This is a false dichotomy. Right now, it is evolution and nothing else. That means if you were able to prove evolution wrong, nothing would take its place, it would simply be wrong and we would have to find a new theory to explain the diversity of life on earth. That is to say, negative evidence for evolution is not positive evidence for another position.

Yanis wrote:I think I already said that Natural Selection is obvious and that none can deny it, but what I find strange is that you accuse me of using a straw man against evolution, Really ? can you clear up you point please and tell me where is the straw man ?


Incorrect. You said, "In many cases I see lots of aspects of evolution unquestionned, and for me the theory shows some mathematical and logical inconsistencies..." To which I replied, "Please provide said mathematical and logical inconsistencies. My guess is they are based on a straw man understanding of evolution you hold. In addition, what aspects are unquestioned?" As you can plainly read, I am not accusing you of anything. You have not made a claim for me to accuse you of anything. I am simply predicting that if you think there are logical or mathematical inconsistencies, they are most likely based off of a straw-understanding of evolution. Again, please provide them and see if you can prove me wrong.

Yanis wrote:I am really sorry that I didn't know about gene flow and genetic drift which are random differentiations and variations in the gene sequence, I think I already stated that I am not an Expert in this topic, and by the way these are secondary elements in the process of evolution, but I have to thank you for this information.


You are welcome.

Yanis wrote:Can you please give where I said that mutations are the only driving force, I said they are the ones which would make the new traits to be selected, and that is what you repeated here, is this a straw man ?


Excuse my poor word choice. You were claiming that mutations is a larger driving force than selection, which is not true. Beyond that, you did not know about genetic drift, which is the largest driving force of evolution (that we know of).

Yanis wrote:Now, you do agree with that and here is my main question in here, Do you really think that mutations are able to make a breathing apparatuse for example with its many parts, the digestive system and the different body systems ?


No. However, mutations acted upon by selection and drift could.

Yanis wrote:You stated in a previous response that interlocking complexity has been observed to have evolved, and here I have to ask what kind of complexity has been observed, teleological complexity ?


No, since teleological complexity implies an end goal. The only goal in evolutionary theory is to produce more offspring. Since environments are always changing there could not be an end goal for any organism or organ.

Yanis wrote: Complexity like the lungs with its many constituants for example, the hemoglobine's ability to make oxygen arrive at the organs, and by the way this leads to an other question which is how the distibution of blood vessels emerged and the heart, the pump of blood, how do you get that, by blind mutations ?


You do not. You need selection as well. You already said you accept selection happens. Thus, what is the problem?

Yanis wrote: I'll give an other example which is the stomach that has its specific function, is that the work of a simple mutation, the digestive system for example, is it pure luck ?


Are you seriously asking if one mutation produced our stomach? Are you honestly unaware of the many diverse digestive systems in the world?

Yanis wrote:How do you get a mouth that is related to the rest of this system, did that, the tongue and teeth ... etc come by simple changing of nucleotides in already existing DNa, did different mutations magically make the parts one by one in a complemantary way, or should I believe that just one simple mutation was behind all of this ?


Do you honestly think you are asking different questions? Your basic argument is that our bodies has interlocking complexity, nature cannot produce interlocking complexity. Yet I already showed that nature can produce interlocking complexity. Thus, asking the same question worded differently over and over again is pointless.

Yanis wrote:And getting to the topic of information, you told me that it is a different branch of biology, and throwing origins to the discussion was a dishonest way to mix things around, seriously ?


I never said that. However, since you bring it up, can you please define information for us in a biologically relevant way?

Yanis wrote: If I commit to the widely accepted idea of naturalism and which has done amazing work to enlighten the universe and reveal its mysteries, there is the problem of how do you get a "code" that has instructive information, can information and the syntax specifically come by chance ?


The fact that you have to use scare quotes around code tells me that you do not even think DNA is a real code. However, once you give us your definition of information, we will come back to play with this idea of DNA being a code.

Yanis wrote:You also said that a multicelullar organism has been observed to have developped, Well, in which lab ? Where ? How was it named ? Where is the article, the experience or the observation ? What were the conditions in which that happened ? An animal with the body plan and the body systems evolving out of scratch ? Why no one ever talked about it, I checked many extremist atheistic sites, evolutionary reference and no one did talk about that, that is a fatal blow to all skeptecism ?


I gave you the reference1 back on YouTube, thus I am not sure why you had to look for it. However, the fact that you were unable to find it does say a lot about your researching skills. I always suspected that you were not reading my posts on YouTube, and this seems to verify that suspicion.

Yanis wrote:PS: Sorry for taking a long time, personal conditions and my studies didn't allow to reply.


No problem. We all have lives.

1) Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:33 am
YIM WWW
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

What fallacy might that be? His program shows how selection can work. His mistake is thinking that selection is the only game in town.


I don't see how that is not a fallacy, Dawkins shows that he can get that sentence through random variations (random flow of letters) and a selection process, but not any selection process, to get that sentence you have to programm the computer to save the right letter when it comes out, it's cheating because the sentence is already written inside the computer's memory with the aid of an intelligent agent no ? In this way, you can get an entire poem of shakespear, you can get "The Blind Watchmaker" book itself, you just need a fast flow of letters, there is no Randomness in this process, the selector is programmed by an intelligence. On the other hand, Natural selection is completely different, first of all it doesn't act at all on the level of the letters (genetic mutations), you have to get at first the right mutation (for an eye in example) that can provide an advantage and be selected only later, this is what I mean by saying it is not a real selector, this is what I mean by saying that mutations have to supply all the information (I didn't say they are the only driving force) and secondly, even if this adds nothing because "selection" as I said doesn't act on the information, you have to note that it must be intelligent to know the right combinations of information when acting as Natural Selection is just non-random as I've already shown. The right analogy for evolution would be getting the "Me thinks it is like a weasel" sentence through random mutations(flow of letters) entirely so that it can be selected and make a surviving combination.
Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:09 pm
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

I personally think that there is no evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, everything humans thought was the work of a supernatural agency was at the end discovered to be nature's, we live on a massive universe which is billions of light years wide, and that is MASSIVE in an unimaginable way, we live on a spherical mass of matter which happened to be in the exact place to sustain life, the earth is simply microscopic compared to its star which is just a grain of sand in an entire desert, things are exactly what you'd expect if we live in a universe left to its own devices, even if there was a god, creating us would mean that he had a purpose behind it, so why does he never appear, ? I don't find any answer convincing, evolution has amazing evidence but there is a piece of the puzzle that we are missing as I view it.
Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:01 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote: I don't find any answer convincing, evolution has amazing evidence but there is a piece of the puzzle that we are missing as I view it.


Hi Yanis,

If you don't mind me asking for simple clarification purposes, could your position be accurately summed up as "I accept the evidence for general evolution (i.e common ancestry) but I do not agree with the mechanisms driving such change as proposed by evolutionary biologists." ?
Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:31 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
What fallacy might that be? His program shows how selection can work. His mistake is thinking that selection is the only game in town.


I don't see how that is not a fallacy, Dawkins shows that he can get that sentence through random variations (random flow of letters) and a selection process, but not any selection process, to get that sentence you have to programm the computer to save the right letter when it comes out, it's cheating because the sentence is already written inside the computer's memory with the aid of an intelligent agent no ?


No. You are fundamentally mistaken about how that program works.

Ian Musgrave wrote:But as a demonstration of selection versus simple random mutation, with the string “methinks it is a weasel” being selected in a matter of minutes, when simple random mutation would take longer than the age of the Universe, it was pretty stunning. As a result, creationists have been having conniption fits over this little program for decades. Such is its power, the Issac Newton of Information Theory, William Dembski, spent a not inconsiderable portion of his time attacking this toy program. In particular, he claimed that after every successful mutation, the successful mutation was locked into place, and couldn’t be reversed. But he was wrong, and it seems he just can’t admit it.


Yanis wrote:In this way, you can get an entire poem of shakespear, you can get "The Blind Watchmaker" book itself, you just need a fast flow of letters, there is no Randomness in this process, the selector is programmed by an intelligence. On the other hand, Natural selection is completely different, first of all it doesn't act at all on the level of the letters (genetic mutations), you have to get at first the right mutation (for an eye in example) that can provide an advantage and be selected only later, this is what I mean by saying it is not a real selector, this is what I mean by saying that mutations have to supply all the information (I didn't say they are the only driving force) and secondly, even if this adds nothing because "selection" as I said doesn't act on the information, you have to note that it must be intelligent to know the right combinations of information when acting as Natural Selection is just non-random as I've already shown. The right analogy for evolution would be getting the "Me thinks it is like a weasel" sentence through random mutations(flow of letters) entirely so that it can be selected and make a surviving combination.


Honestly, it seems you are having a hard time accepting this example simply because there is an end goal in mind before the program is started. Fair enough, However, how do you account for simulation, such as the boxcar evolution game, which has a random track that the cars have to adapt to using only mutation and selection of the cars that run the fastest and farthest? There is no end goal choice before the program starts, yet the cars are still able to adapt to the terrain. This simulation is light years ahead of what Dawkins created in the 80s.

You also seem to be hung up on mutations. You do realize that mutations are a thing and we have observed beneficial mutations before. Beyond that, mutations can be acted upon by selection at both a genetic and phenotypic level. We, living in a macro-world are far more familar with seeing the phenotypic changes, but the genetic ones still happen.

Yanis wrote:I personally think that there is no evidence for the supernatural whatsoever, everything humans thought was the work of a supernatural agency was at the end discovered to be nature's, we live on a massive universe which is billions of light years wide, and that is MASSIVE in an unimaginable way, we live on a spherical mass of matter which happened to be in the exact place to sustain life, the earth is simply microscopic compared to its star which is just a grain of sand in an entire desert, things are exactly what you'd expect if we live in a universe left to its own devices, even if there was a god, creating us would mean that he had a purpose behind it, so why does he never appear, ? I don't find any answer convincing, evolution has amazing evidence but there is a piece of the puzzle that we are missing as I view it.


We are talking about biology and earth history. Whether or not the supernatural/gods exist is irrelevant to this discussion. You would not invoke the supernatural/gods when talking about orbital mechanics or geological processes, why do it for this conversation? This is an example of the 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:17 pm
YIM WWW
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

he_who_is_nobody wrote:No. You are fundamentally mistaken about how that program works.


Sorry, I had to get more details about it that's fair, that was bad from me, however I did search and it always stays in the cercle of the same problem

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL


there is still an end goal in mind as you've stated, but I had to add one more thing, let's compare with reality, what kind of survival benefit (if we take the real sentence as desired function) does the first sentence or the second or all that gibberish in the first stages account for ? What does this have to do with the real Natural Selection, this is merely a computer simulation to save letters gradually, so that you can match the wanted sentence.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:You also seem to be hung up on mutations. You do realize that mutations are a thing and we have observed beneficial mutations before. Beyond that, mutations can be acted upon by selection at both a genetic and phenotypic level. We, living in a macro-world are far more familar with seeing the phenotypic changes, but the genetic ones still happen.


I never said I don't, the problem is how do they make teleological complexity, or in simple terms what we call "design", Pr.Dawkins himself said that biology is the study of complex living structures that look as if they were designed for a purpose, the design is appereant and that's the problem, how do you get it ? That's what he tried to answer by this analogy. Furthermore, yeah there have been beneficial mutations observed but it depends on what you mean by beneficial mutations, a mutation that can make the digestive system I talked about ? Complexity can happen by means of evolution as you say, let's take the flagellum, if you want to explain it by simple means of exaptation, or any ground-up scenarion from less complex to more complex, from parts that served other function in the past, first of all how do you get them combined by simple mutations, an irreducibly complex system can't function without all the parts as Intelligent design proponent Pr.Michael Behe defined this term, your computer or whatever you are using is irreducibly complex, if you take the processor for example it shuts down, in the case of the flagellum you have to combine the tail with the motor which is in itself a teleologically complex assembling of many proteins that can spin on itself, can you get them by simply mutating some already existing parts ? How did we get them at the first place ? How did such genetic information that encoded for all those strangly complemantary structures come into play ? I don't think you will argue that every single one of those structures had a role in the past ? And even if that were the case how come you by means of mutations assemble them to create the flagellum, that specific intricate system ? Even if you assert that the motor evovlved from the type 3 secretory system, you still have to deal with such questions. Some people argue that the two structures are decently different, and what about the type 3 secretory system, do you get it with the propre process of evolution ? How do you make it a flagellum: add a tail ... ETC by what is in definition a change in a nucleotide(s) ?

he_who_is_nobody wrote: You would not invoke the supernatural/gods when talking about orbital mechanics or geological processes, why do it for this conversation?


I wouldn't do that because the evidence is against it I am completely convinced when I look at images of the vast universe that it is a clock-working system, and I mentionned that I think it is unlikely in the scope of all of that, that on one round piece of matter orbiting a nuclear reacting star the hypothetical designer of all of that decided to act, however these questions proposed do show that there are indeed problems in the theory of evolution or can slightly point to design whoever did it. And the fact of trying to refute them shows that these questions really stand on something, when you see Ken Miller trying to show that a mousetrap is reducibly complex by leaving just the hammer in it and telling you that he can use it as a tie holder or a spitball luncher was just intellectually dishonest, he uses the logic of saying that the central unit of a computer is reducibly complex because if he lost his motherboard he would use it as a pellow (nothing close to a central unit right ?) was that necessary to make on public ? I do not take any position at least for the moment because ID doesn't give predictions on the rest of the cosmos and evolution still has to answer this (if you personally do it I would be pleased)


he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, how do you account for simulation, such as the boxcar evolution game, which has a random track that the cars have to adapt to using only mutation and selection of the cars that run the fastest and farthest? There is no end goal choice before the program starts, yet the cars are still able to adapt to the terrain. This simulation is light years ahead of what Dawkins created in the 80s.


Ummmm, I don't know much about what are you tring to say, how is that wheel able to move ? And If there is no end goal whatsoever why are there wheels and not anything else falling on the track ? And look at the way the rest of the parts are attached to it just there in the middle ?
Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:44 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:No. You are fundamentally mistaken about how that program works.


Sorry, I had to get more details about it that's fair, that was bad from me, however I did search and it always stays in the cercle of the same problem

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL


there is still an end goal in mind as you've stated, but I had to add one more thing, let's compare with reality, what kind of survival benefit (if we take the real sentence as desired function) does the first sentence or the second or all that gibberish in the first stages account for ? What does this have to do with the real Natural Selection, this is merely a computer simulation to save letters gradually, so that you can match the wanted sentence.


Exactly, it was never meant to mimic natural selection, just show that with a guided random process, one was able to get a preprogrammed phrase.

Ian Musgrave wrote:Over at uncommon descent William Dembski is musing over Richard Dawkins Weasel program. Why you may ask? Way back in prehistory (the 1980’s) Dawkins wrote a little BASIC program (in Apple BASIC of all things) to demonstrate the difference between random mutation and random mutation with selection, which many people were having trouble grasping. Now, this wasn’t a simulation of natural selection, and Dawkins was very careful to point this out.


Honestly, if you took a few minutes to actually research these questions before asking them, we would save time.

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You also seem to be hung up on mutations. You do realize that mutations are a thing and we have observed beneficial mutations before. Beyond that, mutations can be acted upon by selection at both a genetic and phenotypic level. We, living in a macro-world are far more familar with seeing the phenotypic changes, but the genetic ones still happen.


I never said I don't, the problem is how do they make teleological complexity, or in simple terms what we call "design", Pr.Dawkins himself said that biology is the study of complex living structures that look as if they were designed for a purpose, the design is appereant and that's the problem, how do you get it ? That's what he tried to answer by this analogy.


You are confusing teleological design with things we see designed by nature. That is your mistake. The design that we do see in nature, is not teleological, it is adaptive. By asking about teleological design, you are already presupposing a designer making these things. Now, if you would like to propose that there are teleological designs in nature, you would need to come up with a way to distinguish between adapted organs and teleological designed organs. Until this is done, your point about teleological design is moot.

Yanis wrote:Furthermore, yeah there have been beneficial mutations observed but it depends on what you mean by beneficial mutations, a mutation that can make the digestive system I talked about ?


Again, are you unaware of how many different extant digestive systems there are in the world? Do you honestly believe that one mutation could account for a digestive system like ours? I am honestly asking you these questions because I need to gage your grasp of biology.

Yanis wrote:Complexity can happen by means of evolution as you say, let's take the flagellum, if you want to explain it by simple means of exaptation, or any ground-up scenarion from less complex to more complex, from parts that served other function in the past, first of all how do you get them combined by simple mutations,


I honestly do not understand what you are saying here. You first agree that complexity can arise through evolutionary processes, but you still think there is more? Why?

Yanis wrote:an irreducibly complex system can't function without all the parts as Intelligent design proponent Pr.Michael Behe defined this term, your computer or whatever you are using is irreducibly complex, if you take the processor for example it shuts down,


That is because the computer is top down designed. It is also an inanimate object that cannot reproduce making copies of itself. Thus, your analogy is flawed from the start.

Yanis wrote:in the case of the flagellum you have to combine the tail with the motor which is in itself a teleologically complex assembling of many proteins that can spin on itself, can you get them by simply mutating some already existing parts ?


Again, you must be unaware of how many different types of flagellum exist if you honestly think they are teleologically designed. The diversity of just this one feature alone demonstrates that there is not teleological design in flagellums.

Yanis wrote:How did we get them at the first place ? How did such genetic information that encoded for all those strangly complemantary structures come into play ? I don't think you will argue that every single one of those structures had a role in the past ? And even if that were the case how come you by means of mutations assemble them to create the flagellum, that specific intricate system ?


I will just share this video that explains how one is able to get a basic flagellum using nothing but selection, exaptation, and mutations. I honestly cannot believe someone is trying to use the flagellum as an example of something irreducibly complex post Dover.



Yanis wrote:Even if you assert that the motor evovlved from the type 3 secretory system, you still have to deal with such questions. Some people argue that the two structures are decently different, and what about the type 3 secretory system, do you get it with the propre process of evolution ? How do you make it a flagellum: add a tail ... ETC by what is in definition a change in a nucleotide(s) ?


No I do not have to deal with such questions. I have already demonstrated, and you agreed above, that complexity can come about with just our modern understanding of evolutionary processes; thus that question is already answered. Basically, all you are doing is asking questions for specific organs and pretending that if I am unable to answer them to your satisfaction, the question is unanswerable. That is not how that works, especially, since you already agreed that complexity can come about. What makes you think any of these systems are special?

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: You would not invoke the supernatural/gods when talking about orbital mechanics or geological processes, why do it for this conversation?


I wouldn't do that because the evidence is against it I am completely convinced when I look at images of the vast universe that it is a clock-working system, and I mentionned that I think it is unlikely in the scope of all of that, that on one round piece of matter orbiting a nuclear reacting star the hypothetical designer of all of that decided to act, however these questions proposed do show that there are indeed problems in the theory of evolution or can slightly point to design whoever did it.


No. It just shows your ignorance of biology. Once again, until you are able to demonstrate teleological design in nature, you are holding an empty bag.

Yanis wrote:I do not take any position at least for the moment because ID doesn't give predictions on the rest of the cosmos and evolution still has to answer this (if you personally do it I would be pleased)


I have already demonstrated that we have observed interlocking complex structures arise in a lab. I also demonstrated that we have observed single cellular life become multicellular. What more do you want? You have not demonstrated that any of the systems are fundamentally different and could not come about with the evolutionary processes already demonstrated or that they are teleologically designed.

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, how do you account for simulation, such as the boxcar evolution game, which has a random track that the cars have to adapt to using only mutation and selection of the cars that run the fastest and farthest? There is no end goal choice before the program starts, yet the cars are still able to adapt to the terrain. This simulation is light years ahead of what Dawkins created in the 80s.


Ummmm, I don't know much about what are you tring to say, how is that wheel able to move ? And If there is no end goal whatsoever why are there wheels and not anything else falling on the track ? And look at the way the rest of the parts are attached to it just there in the middle ?


Again, the boxcar evolution game is a simple simulation that demonstrates selection on a random set of traits (wheels, rate of rotation of wheels, and polygons). When you first open up the program, where those traits fall are completely random, along with the track. The program than select the fittest parents (i.e. the ones that went the farthest and fastest) to pass their traits on to the future generations. That means when you first open up the program, the different traits will appear randomly (the wheels can be on the top, there could be no wheels, etc...). However, once a few generations pass, the cars will start to look more like cars simply by selecting the fittest traits. At any time, mutations can happen to those traits (i.e. differently shaped polygons, different wheel sizes, different rates of rotation). Both of those (selection and mutation) allow for better and better cars as the generations go on. Again, this is just a simple simulation. If you want a real world example of this, you can research the E. coli long-term evolution experiment.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:37 pm
YIM WWW
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Oh, I'm sorry for both the two simulations I thought they were trying to show how you get seemingly designed things by random processes, I saw a video two months ago or something around that was promoting ID and I got fooled by them and with the title of the book which was the blind watchmaker which I couldn't get, it looked pretty convincing or should I say fooling, then I was looking at the second simulation and I was thinking what kind of relation it had with the first. Lol, sorry that was a mess, selection is an obvious concept for me.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Again, you must be unaware of how many different types of flagellum exist if you honestly think they are teleologically designed. The diversity of just this one feature alone demonstrates that there is not teleological design in flagellums.


Ummm fair enough, some of those structures are designed very well, my respect for ID proponents' honesty has incresed to infinity
Next time I think I have to search every claim by myself, I won't believe even one.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:The design that we do see in nature, is not teleological, it is adaptive


I am starting to agree much more. There is something tho in the video that is still spongeous to me, by definition mutations are a change in a nucleotide along the DNA sequence therefore changing the protein made in the translation process, I still can't see how you can get those complemantary proteins by such a mechanism. To me it kinda looks like a "Just so" story.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:can happen by means of evolution as you say, let's take the flagellum


that was a way of reporting your sentence, sorry I'm not that much good in english.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:That is because the computer is top down designed. It is also an inanimate object that cannot reproduce making copies of itself. Thus, your analogy is flawed from the start.


Are you tying to say that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex with your statement ?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Do you honestly believe that one mutation could account for a digestive system like ours?


Definitely no. LOL. I mean that's too far.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have already demonstrated that we have observed interlocking complex structures arise in a lab.


Since you mentionned this, I actually did read some of the article but I would need more time to look at it carefully. When I started the discussion I thought I would have the required time for it.

Finally I would like to say that just like you I do accept the theory of evolution, I mean c'mon you just have to look at it, I can't get how ID and co are still promoting the lie that the cambrian "explosion" REFUTES evolution ... sudden appearence of geological fossils while at the same time they agree without noticing it with the concept of gradualism, give me the fossil of a bunny from the cambrian era :lol: ... they are so easy to refute. The only level at which ID can make statements is at the beginning or origins of the first living cell, but even then they can't offer positive claims about the supernatural or the hypothetical designer, the best they can do is to doubt the current understanding of things and you just don't need an organisation called Discovery Institute and oppose the whole scientific community to do that.
Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:59 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:The design that we do see in nature, is not teleological, it is adaptive


I am starting to agree much more. There is something tho in the video that is still spongeous to me, by definition mutations are a change in a nucleotide along the DNA sequence therefore changing the protein made in the translation process, I still can't see how you can get those complemantary proteins by such a mechanism. To me it kinda looks like a "Just so" story.


Okay. We already agree that mutations happen and a mutation to the DNA changes the protein, which makes the feature. Now, if that is indeed the case, what exactly is there to stop it from happening? Granted, the probability of such an event is low, but a low probability does not equate to impossible. One has to also factor in that mutations are happening all the time to these organisms (at random) and the population size (which could be in the millions). Any mutation that is not directly detrimental to the organism has a chance to be carried into the future. Now whether one mutation is able to produce a positive feature or several mutations combine later to create a positive feature, once that positive feature is created, it should spread at a higher rate to future generations simply because it allows the organism to produce more offspring. Does any of this make sense?

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:can happen by means of evolution as you say, let's take the flagellum


that was a way of reporting your sentence, sorry I'm not that much good in english.


Oh, do not worry. People might say the same about me.

;)

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:That is because the computer is top down designed. It is also an inanimate object that cannot reproduce making copies of itself. Thus, your analogy is flawed from the start.


Are you tying to say that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex with your statement ?


No. What I am trying to say is that comparing life to created things is a flawed way of looking at biology. Whether or not a specific type of bacterial flagellum (and remember, there is not just one bacterial flagellum) is irreducibly/interlockingly complex is irrelevant to that statement. Our artifacts are designed by definition, while life can adapt. Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples to fake oranges.

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have already demonstrated that we have observed interlocking complex structures arise in a lab.


Since you mentionned this, I actually did read some of the article but I would need more time to look at it carefully. When I started the discussion I thought I would have the required time for it.


Do not worry. We all have lives outside of this forum. This is why I prefer having a conversation on a forum like this.

Yanis wrote:Finally I would like to say that just like you I do accept the theory of evolution, I mean c'mon you just have to look at it, I can't get how ID and co are still promoting the lie that the cambrian "explosion" REFUTES evolution ... sudden appearence of geological fossils while at the same time they agree without noticing it with the concept of gradualism, give me the fossil of a bunny from the cambrian era :lol: ... they are so easy to refute. The only level at which ID can make statements is at the beginning or origins of the first living cell, but even then they can't offer positive claims about the supernatural or the hypothetical designer, the best they can do is to doubt the current understanding of things and you just don't need an organisation called Discovery Institute and oppose the whole scientific community to do that.


I completely agree with you that intelligent design creationism could only be used as an answer to the first cell; a very bad answer in my opinion. However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that? A bacterial flagellum would not have been apart of the first cell. The only way one could argue that the bacterial flagellum has anything to do with intelligent design creationism is to argue that their designer created life, then came back later and tinkered with its creation to give some of them flagellum.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:24 pm
YIM WWW
YanisPosts: 7Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:14 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that?


Well, since you mentionned that let me get back to a point I was talking about in the beginning, so by definition you want to say that the bacterial flagellum and most of evolutionnary processes are nothing but sheer chance, right ? Ok, but why does the sperm have a tail that allows it to move inside the female's body until it units with the egg ? Is it the same process of chance and low propabilities that happened at the same level ? If the sperm wasn't like that we wouldn't be here right now because there would be no offspring, how did beat the odds ? What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?
Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:19 am
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 234Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that?


Well, since you mentionned that let me get back to a point I was talking about in the beginning, so by definition you want to say that the bacterial flagellum and most of evolutionnary processes are nothing but sheer chance, right ? Ok, but why does the sperm have a tail that allows it to move inside the female's body until it units with the egg ? Is it the same process of chance and low propabilities that happened at the same level ? If the sperm wasn't like that we wouldn't be here right now because there would be no offspring, how did beat the odds ? What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?


So if the designing was not done by a Devine being then who or what did the designing? Aliens?
Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:48 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that?


Well, since you mentionned that let me get back to a point I was talking about in the beginning, so by definition you want to say that the bacterial flagellum and most of evolutionnary processes are nothing but sheer chance, right ?


Wrong. Selection is not chance. Even if most processes are chance, one driving force is not.

Yanis wrote:Ok, but why does the sperm have a tail that allows it to move inside the female's body until it units with the egg ?


Most likely selection.

Yanis wrote:Is it the same process of chance and low propabilities that happened at the same level ? If the sperm wasn't like that we wouldn't be here right now because there would be no offspring, how did beat the odds ?


Again, selection is not chance. Besides that, you have not shown any odds for anything.

Yanis wrote:What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?


What if fairies were real, and they create snow flakes. The time to entertain ideas like this is after one has shown evidence for it. Until this is done, there is no reason to entertain any counter factual.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 01, 2016 1:16 am
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?

Lets say that there was a non-divine intelligent designer. Who designed the designer? Who designed the designer of the designer? In the end we must either end up with a natural explanation, ie some kind of evolution, or a supernatural designer. But lets face it, when the ID crowd talks about an intelligent designer they don't mean an naturally evolved alien, they mean a god.
Mon May 02, 2016 12:12 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that?


Ok, but why does the sperm have a tail that allows it to move inside the female's body until it units with the egg ? Is it the same process of chance and low propabilities that happened at the same level ? If the sperm wasn't like that we wouldn't be here right now because there would be no offspring, how did beat the odds ? What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?


You seem to be implying that since life began reproduction has been sexual and involved sperm swimming to an egg. I hope you realize that this isn't the case.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Tue May 03, 2016 4:39 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, why are we talking about bacterial flagellum if we agree on that?


Well, since you mentionned that let me get back to a point I was talking about in the beginning, so by definition you want to say that the bacterial flagellum and most of evolutionnary processes are nothing but sheer chance, right ? Ok, but why does the sperm have a tail that allows it to move inside the female's body until it units with the egg ? Is it the same process of chance and low propabilities that happened at the same level ? If the sperm wasn't like that we wouldn't be here right now because there would be no offspring, how did beat the odds ? What if there was an Intelligent Designing but not Divine Intelligent design ?


Evolutionary changes are not sheer chance.

Think of it like a game of Yahtzee. The mutations are analogous to the dice roll itself, which is random within a certain set of parameters. The selection process is like the player choosing the die to hold and not roll the next time. This is decidedly not random. Rolling 5 sixes randomly is not that likely, but if you get to hold each 6 and then roll the others again, your odds of ending up with 5 sixes is increased.

In other words the mutations can occur at random, but the factors that allow that mutation to survive into the next generation are not. It's also cumulative, so the mutations that are passed on are kept and added too.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:57 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2376Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Questioning Evolution

Yanis wrote:there is still an end goal in mind as you've stated


The only real difference there is that a specific definition of 'fitness' has been applied, because this elucidates how one can arrive at something useful. As with all analogies, if you focus on the wrong part of the analogy, you end up being misled. Analogies should never directly reflect what's being analogised, because a perfect reflection is useless as an analogy.

You can find instances of me discussing this here at length with the phrase 'DNA is a code like London is a map'.

There's a pretty comprehensive but approachable précis of evolution, what it is, what it isn't, and some of the evidence for it HERE.
Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:46 am
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 21 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests