Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Define "The Theory Of Evolution"

Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 11:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."

http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (P. 157)
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:18:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Read the wikipedia page dude: http://en.wikipedia.org... it's one of the most epically sourced by peer reviewed articles on wikipedia. It explains what evolution is and what it's implications are in explicit detail if you read it all the way through, and check out a lot of the sub articles.

There's also a less technical explanation you should probably read first: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:44:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:05:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I would love as much input from as many people as I can.

I'd have to say that the word evolution is now used in a way that transcends Darwin's biological theory, it is now applied to cosmology, the history of ideas, and a host of other areas.

So I think it is a good idea to generalize the term evolution to mean the emergence of novelty by the introducition of a discontinuity into an underlying continuity. Which is to say that unpredictable novelty emerges because an underlying continuity is transformed by unpredictable discontinuities, in biology the discontinuity would be genetic mutations for example.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:35:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:44:08 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:05:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I would love as much input from as many people as I can.

I'd have to say that the word evolution is now used in a way that transcends Darwin's biological theory, it is now applied to cosmology, the history of ideas, and a host of other areas.

So I think it is a good idea to generalize the term evolution to mean the emergence of novelty by the introducition of a discontinuity into an underlying continuity. Which is to say that unpredictable novelty emerges because an underlying continuity is transformed by unpredictable discontinuities, in biology the discontinuity would be genetic mutations for example.

Your use of continuity and discontinuity just blinded me.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:36:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:05:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I would love as much input from as many people as I can.

The most straight forward definition is the change in allele frequency over time.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:51:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 11:26:11 PM, Muted wrote:
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."

http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (P. 157)

Your source conflates biological evolution, with Abiogenesis.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.

- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).

- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.

- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary

- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:33:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.

All? That's not true by any stretch of the imagination.

- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).

Yeah, except the evidence doesn't provide a record of gradual change and it doesn't show natural selection to be a creative force. The changes recorded by the fossil record look more episodic and sudden than gradual, the nonlinear nature of the fossil record with its gaps and its abrupt starts and stops, is somewhat explained by allopatric speciation and what appears to be six distinct mass extinctions in which over 95% of all life forms perished. All but the meteor strike in the Gulf 65 million years ago are largely unexplained.

- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.

Natural selection only tells us that in hindsight, we can see that the survivors survived, it's a truism at best, it doesn't really say much about cause and effect, I'm not so sure not it can be called the "main mechanism of change".

- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary

You have to think in terms of both, individuals are selected, populations evolve.

- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

That is true, the rate of change isn't constant but the record does clearly demonstrate a direction to it all, and that direction is towards greater complexity and a higher degree of sentience,.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 3:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:49:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.

All? That's not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Name one that can't.


- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).

Yeah, except the evidence doesn't provide a record of gradual change and it doesn't show natural selection to be a creative force. The changes recorded by the fossil record look more episodic and sudden than gradual, the nonlinear nature of the fossil record with its gaps and its abrupt starts and stops, is somewhat explained by allopatric speciation and what appears to be six distinct mass extinctions in which over 95% of all life forms perished. All but the meteor strike in the Gulf 65 million years ago are largely unexplained.

The fossile record is a progression over time. The fossile record is not proof of natural selection; only evidence of the species that have previously lived. Explaining the specifics of what caused all mass-exinctions is not part of evolutionary theory; only that extinction of species can happen.


- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.

Natural selection only tells us that in hindsight, we can see that the survivors survived, it's a truism at best, it doesn't really say much about cause and effect, I'm not so sure not it can be called the "main mechanism of change".

On what grounds do you make this assertion? It is contrary to what we have actually observed about natural selection.

Natural selection is simply the bias in the system that causes random effects to turn into non random outcomes. Your ultimately simplistic view of it, seems not to understand the power such a bias has on determining the gene composition of future generations.


- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary

You have to think in terms of both, individuals are selected, populations evolve.

This statement does not preclude this. It states "Primary". Individuals mutate, populations evolve.


- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

That is true, the rate of change isn't constant but the record does clearly demonstrate a direction to it all, and that direction is towards greater complexity and a higher degree of sentience,.

Of course the fossile record shows a direction. In the older strata you have very simple life, and over the fossile record there is a gradual progression to more complexity.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 4:30:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:49:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Yeah, except the evidence doesn't provide a record of gradual change and it doesn't show natural selection to be a creative force. The changes recorded by the fossil record look more episodic and sudden than gradual, the nonlinear nature of the fossil record with its gaps and its abrupt starts and stops, is somewhat explained by allopatric speciation and what appears to be six distinct mass extinctions in which over 95% of all life forms perished. All but the meteor strike in the Gulf 65 million years ago are largely unexplained.

We must remember the time span we are talking about. Rapid diversification in say a 15 million year period, would in geologic time be considered abrupt, relative to other changes in earth's natural history but it's still a gradual change in real time.

Natural selection only tells us that in hindsight, we can see that the survivors survived, it's a truism at best, , it doesn't really say much about cause and effect, I'm not so sure not it can be called the "main mechanism of change".

No, Natural selection isn't the effect, it's the processes whereby those organisms that survive the longest reproduce in greater numbers. The cause in this case are the traits, that either hinder or help survival and thus the ability to proliferate.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:09:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:51:13 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/16/2013 11:26:11 PM, Muted wrote:
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."

http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (P. 157)

Your source conflates biological evolution, with Abiogenesis.

This source is a monologue by a philosopher of science on the very topic we are on. Evolution.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:09:14 PM, Muted wrote:
At 2/17/2013 10:51:13 AM, Polaris wrote:
Your source conflates biological evolution, with Abiogenesis.

This source is a monologue by a philosopher of science on the very topic we are on. Evolution.

...and therefore could not have possibly conflated the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis? *Raises Eyebrow*

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:27:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 3:30:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:49:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.

All? That's not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Name one that can't.

Oh pulease, considering that genetic mechanisms are not "known", you can"t name any that can be explained.

But I"ll play along, and name plenty of evolutionary phenomena that are not fully understood or explained by "known genetic mechanisms", let's start with genetic mechanisms themselves, the fact is we are completely perplexed by genes, the mechanisms by which they operate are not "known". Genetic mutation almost always confers less fitness and what we know about genetics certainly doesn't provide any possibility of explaining the broadly coordinated favorable changes that are evident in the direction of evolution. To say that genetic change always accompanies evolution is no more than another truism; it says nothing about whether it is a cause or an effect. "Correlation does not imply causation", we have observed that they are associated with characteristics but don't understand how they manifest outward form at all. We only presume that they code growth and outward form. but only because we notice that they are always there and we can see a genetic correspondence to traits and outward form, so we presume that they are some kind of code. But the fact is, the scientific world hasn't even proposed a speculative theory for how genes translate into outward form. it's a complete mystery. We have no knowledge regarding cause and effect and simply assume that a mechanism exists that results in outward form, but we understand nothing about how it functions. It"s principles that explain, and random genetic mutation isn't an explanatory principle, randomness is the lack of a principle.

I"ll name a few more too. Some simple things, like the absence of selective advantage in dreaming, or the six-leggedness of insects, show me how your over simplistic model explains why of all the millions of species of insects have six legs, while no species of non-insects have six legs. How do random mutation and natural selection combine to explain that phenomena?

Then there's "parallel evolution" and "Homologous organs", they are evolutionary phenomena that remain unexplained. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs. There is clearly something more going on here than "known genetic mechanisms" can explain, especially since the genetic mechanisms just aren't known yet.

Or let"s take the eye, the "evolutionary phenomena" that made Darwin "shudder", it takes a system of coordinated variables with the probability of about a bazillion to none to get a functioning eye. But that didn't just happen by chance once, it happened around forty times, independently and in almost all the different phyla long after eyeless creatures split apart from the evolutionary tree of life. That is not "explained" by random mutations and natural selection by any stretch of the imagination. And if you do try to explain it with these so called "mechanisms", even if you could bring yourself to propose such statistical audacity for the eye, you would then have to then go on to apply such nonsense to the development of flight with the coordination of highly specialized adaptations creating ready to use wings occurring independently and separately in life at least four times. Next you could tackle the evolution of snakes from reptiles and explain how they randomly coordinated the mutations that increased the number of vertebrae while losing their hip bones and legs and show us that it happened several times, independently and in widely differing parts of the world. You would then have to tackle problems with whales, feathers, blood circulation, poisonous snakes, segmentation in vertebrates and arthropods, and hair in mammals.

Or let"s get really basic, where did consciousness come from, if life came from non-life, if we evolved from inanimate matter, isn't consciousness the big question? Do you really want to content that a simple formula of natural selection and chance mutation can explain consciousness?

Tell me how your simplistic definition of the mechanisms that explain "all evolutionary phenomena" explicates how the components for the first cell came together within a membrane, what caused the various prokaryotes to assemble into a symbiotic whole to become the first eukaryotic cells. There is some completely unexplained principle there, something that caused single celled creatures to form colonies that became multi-cellular creatures, and those multicellular creatures became unified into single sentient entities at some point, and mutations and natural selection certainly don't explain it. Rather than oversimplify evolution, let's look at "all evolutionary phenomena" squarely in the eye and apprehend the coherent behavior it exhibits and recognize that there are underlying principles over the large-scale dimensions that are presented to us by the study of evolution. Seen in its entirety, seen the way the study of evolution demands that we see it; there is a direction to life, towards greater complexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, to thought, to intelligence, to self-reflective consciousness. No simplistic reference to "known genetic mechanisms" is even in the ballpark of explaining that evolutionary phenomena.

The fact is, "all evolutionary phenomena" CAN NOT "be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists". Biologists simply do not have a comprehensive theory of evolution, and it is a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theory to assert that they do.


- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).

Yeah, except the evidence doesn't provide a record of gradual change and it doesn't show natural selection to be a creative force. The changes recorded by the fossil record look more episodic and sudden than gradual, the nonlinear nature of the fossil record with its gaps and its abrupt starts and stops, is somewhat explained by allopatric speciation and what appears to be six distinct mass extinctions in which over 95% of all life forms perished. All but the meteor strike in the Gulf 65 million years ago are largely unexplained.

The fossile record is a progression over time. The fossile record is not proof of natural selection; only evidence of the species that have previously lived. Explaining the specifics of what caused all mass-exinctions is not part of evolutionary theory; only that extinction of species can happen.

Oh pulease again, the fossil record is the best evidence we have in support of evolutionary theory because it clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence in time.

Continued...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 3:30:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:49:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

...continued.

- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.

Natural selection only tells us that in hindsight, we can see that the survivors survived, it's a truism at best, it doesn't really say much about cause and effect, I'm not so sure not it can be called the "main mechanism of change".

On what grounds do you make this assertion? It is contrary to what we have actually observed about natural selection.

Natural selection is simply the bias in the system that causes random effects to turn into non random outcomes. Your ultimately simplistic view of it, seems not to understand the power such a bias has on determining the gene composition of future generations.

Your assertion that natural selection is a mechanism of change is nothing but an ideological claim, it is unscientific circular reasoning and it has no explanatory power as a mechanism of change. Natural selection is indeed an observed fact, but it is the data that needs to be explained, it is not an explanation of that data. It is descriptive rather than explanatory, and presenting it as explanatory is nothing more than a misguided ideological response to religious or Creationist views, but like those views, it is patently unscientific. There can be no doubt that natural selection is one component of evolutionary processes, but its agency as the sole factor in the progression of major forms is a preposterous contention at best, it"s no more scientific than the "God did it" argument that it is ideologically contrived to refute.

- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary

You have to think in terms of both, individuals are selected, populations evolve.

This statement does not preclude this. It states "Primary". Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

Nonsense, evolutionary theory is inexplicable without recognizing that it is a dynamic between the two, natural selection operates on individuals and consequently, populations evolve, they go hand in hand, it is the dynamic between the two that is primary to understanding.

- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

That is true, the rate of change isn't constant but the record does clearly demonstrate a direction to it all, and that direction is towards greater complexity and a higher degree of sentience,.

Of course the fossile record shows a direction. In the older strata you have very simple life, and over the fossile record there is a gradual progression to more complexity.

When we take an honest look it becomes self-evident that the evolution of life shows itself to involve a creative force rather than the adaptive force represented by your overly simplistic evolutionary model. With a comprehensive view of life we can perceive laws that are non-random laws, there are underlying patterns and forms in nature, we can see clearly that life reveals itself to be self-transcendent, constantly reaching out beyond the systems boundaries in ways that are not explained by natural selection or "known genetic mechanisms". Those undeniable observations are not in any way consistent or even remotely explainable by a simple model of chance mutation combined with natural selection.

Evolutionary theory isn"t necessarily wrong, but it is obviously incomplete, and your simplistic assertion doesn"t even come close to being explanatory of "all evolutionary phenomena".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 3:06:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 7:27:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Then there's "parallel evolution" and "Homologous organs", they are evolutionary phenomena that remain unexplained. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs. There is clearly something more going on here than "known genetic mechanisms" can explain...

If by "remain unexplained" you mean explained by Convergent Evolution, then yes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Or let"s take the eye, the "evolutionary phenomena" that made Darwin "shudder", it takes a system of coordinated variables with the probability of about a bazillion to none to get a functioning eye. But that didn't just happen by chance once, it happened around forty times, independently and in almost all the different phyla long after eyeless creatures split apart from the evolutionary tree of life. That is not "explained" by random mutations and natural selection by any stretch of the imagination.

"The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species. While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 8:55:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 3:06:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/18/2013 7:27:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Then there's "parallel evolution" and "Homologous organs", they are evolutionary phenomena that remain unexplained. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs. There is clearly something more going on here than "known genetic mechanisms" can explain...

If by "remain unexplained" you mean explained by Convergent Evolution, then yes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Giving phenomena a name doesn't explain it, that is a descriptive process rather than explanatory. Convergent evolution is just the name given to the observation that needs to be explained; it demonstrates that there are predetermined genetic pathways that are not explained by natural selection and random genetic mutations. There is some other mechanism at work that is not yet understood and the problem with oversimplifying evolution with contentions that all phenomena are understood because we have given them a name is that it inhibits exploration of those mechanisms.

When the continental plates drifted apart sometime during the Cretaceous period the common ancestry of marsupials and placentals in Australia and the rest of the world, something resembling a shrew became isolated from the rest of its population. Random mutations and natural selection adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats cannot explain how this common ancestor developed into wolves, squirrels, cats, mice, anteaters, ground hogs, and moles both in Australia and elsewhere. It isn't just unsettling that they are so similar, they are simply too similar to be explained by current mechanisms of evolutionary theory and calling it convergent evolution doesn't explain anything.



Or let"s take the eye, the "evolutionary phenomena" that made Darwin "shudder", it takes a system of coordinated variables with the probability of about a bazillion to none to get a functioning eye. But that didn't just happen by chance once, it happened around forty times, independently and in almost all the different phyla long after eyeless creatures split apart from the evolutionary tree of life. That is not "explained" by random mutations and natural selection by any stretch of the imagination.

"The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species. While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm familiar with this research, it certainly isn"t considered conclusive, but even if it was, it doesn"t change the point I was making. It partially comes down to how you define "eye", but even if there was a common ancestor with photoreceptor cells modulating circadian rhythms that you can call a pro-toeye, it is still completely incomprehensible that functioning eyes could evolve from that somewhere between 40 and 60 times in different phyla without some additional mechanism beyond random mutations and natural selection. You would still need to postulate the fortuitous coordination of thousands of unrelated chance mutations coming together to form an eye and in good conscience, you simply can"t, certainly not 40 to 60 times.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, of course it did, but there must be a mechanism besides random chance that explains the fortuitous coordination of tear glands and movable eyelids, a cornea with a self-adjusting pupil with an adjustable lens focusing light directly on the back of a retina with a hundred million light sensitive rods and cones which would happen to transmit the light into electrical pulses conveyed through optical nerves, across synapses by ion exchange to a brain that would somehow have mutated primary visual cortexes and higher cortical regions that could transform the impression of the received light into a billion electrical impulses a second that pass through synapses via things like chemical neurotransmitters and ion exchanges and parcel them out to different brain structures that independently process color, form, and movement and somehow converge, in a way we do not understand yet, into an image.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between invoking statistically impossible explanations and invoking supernatural explanations, neither one is scientific. As science goes, it's time to reconsider just how complete your theory is when the statistical improbability of the data you are explaining is indistinguishable from a miracle.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 8:55:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 3:06:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/18/2013 7:27:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Then there's "parallel evolution" and "Homologous organs", they are evolutionary phenomena that remain unexplained. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs. There is clearly something more going on here than "known genetic mechanisms" can explain...

If by "remain unexplained" you mean explained by Convergent Evolution, then yes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Giving phenomena a name doesn't explain it, that is a descriptive process rather than explanatory. Convergent evolution is just the name given to the observation that needs to be explained; it demonstrates that there are predetermined genetic pathways that are not explained by natural selection and random genetic mutations. There is some other mechanism at work that is not yet understood and the problem with oversimplifying evolution with contentions that all phenomena are understood because we have given them a name is that it inhibits exploration of those mechanisms.

When the continental plates drifted apart sometime during the Cretaceous period the common ancestry of marsupials and placentals in Australia and the rest of the world, something resembling a shrew became isolated from the rest of its population. Random mutations and natural selection adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats cannot explain how this common ancestor developed into wolves, squirrels, cats, mice, anteaters, ground hogs, and moles both in Australia and elsewhere. It isn't just unsettling that they are so similar, they are simply too similar to be explained by current mechanisms of evolutionary theory and calling it convergent evolution doesn't explain anything.

It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.




Or let"s take the eye, the "evolutionary phenomena" that made Darwin "shudder", it takes a system of coordinated variables with the probability of about a bazillion to none to get a functioning eye. But that didn't just happen by chance once, it happened around forty times, independently and in almost all the different phyla long after eyeless creatures split apart from the evolutionary tree of life. That is not "explained" by random mutations and natural selection by any stretch of the imagination.

"The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species. While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm familiar with this research, it certainly isn"t considered conclusive, but even if it was, it doesn"t change the point I was making. It partially comes down to how you define "eye", but even if there was a common ancestor with photoreceptor cells modulating circadian rhythms that you can call a pro-toeye, it is still completely incomprehensible that functioning eyes could evolve from that somewhere between 40 and 60 times in different phyla without some additional mechanism beyond random mutations and natural selection. You would still need to postulate the fortuitous coordination of thousands of unrelated chance mutations coming together to form an eye and in good conscience, you simply can"t, certainly not 40 to 60 times.

The point of the source, was to show that it didn't arise independently, but that each different eye is a successful variation of an established trait. There is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, and thus without that information any claim of 'fortuitous-ness' is premature.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between invoking statistically impossible explanations and invoking supernatural explanations, neither one is scientific. As science goes, it's time to reconsider just how complete your theory is when the statistical improbability of the data you are explaining is indistinguishable from a miracle.

And what statistics do you have on the matter?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Even given that there was some proto-eye from which all other eyes evolved, it doesn't explain a lot of other coincidences:

Why did all mammals and birds evolve 2 eyes, instead of one more three or more; why are they both on the front of their head; why do they all have pupils, and eyelids, and tearducts, etc.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:34:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:11:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Even given that there was some proto-eye from which all other eyes evolved, it doesn't explain a lot of other coincidences:

Why did all mammals and birds evolve 2 eyes , instead of one more three or more

Because that is all that is necessary for depth perception, but also because our bodies tend towards symmetry.

why are they both on the front of their head;

Because it's most advantageous to see in the direction in which we are moving.

why do they all have pupils, and eyelids, and tearducts, etc.

To adapt to lighting conditions, to protect our eyes from foreign debris, and 'we don't know yet' respectively.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/19/2013 8:55:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 3:06:24 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/18/2013 7:27:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Then there's "parallel evolution" and "Homologous organs", they are evolutionary phenomena that remain unexplained. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed with profoundly similar designs. There is clearly something more going on here than "known genetic mechanisms" can explain...

If by "remain unexplained" you mean explained by Convergent Evolution, then yes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Giving phenomena a name doesn't explain it, that is a descriptive process rather than explanatory. Convergent evolution is just the name given to the observation that needs to be explained; it demonstrates that there are predetermined genetic pathways that are not explained by natural selection and random genetic mutations. There is some other mechanism at work that is not yet understood and the problem with oversimplifying evolution with contentions that all phenomena are understood because we have given them a name is that it inhibits exploration of those mechanisms.

When the continental plates drifted apart sometime during the Cretaceous period the common ancestry of marsupials and placentals in Australia and the rest of the world, something resembling a shrew became isolated from the rest of its population. Random mutations and natural selection adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats cannot explain how this common ancestor developed into wolves, squirrels, cats, mice, anteaters, ground hogs, and moles both in Australia and elsewhere. It isn't just unsettling that they are so similar, they are simply too similar to be explained by current mechanisms of evolutionary theory and calling it convergent evolution doesn't explain anything.


It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.




Or let"s take the eye, the "evolutionary phenomena" that made Darwin "shudder", it takes a system of coordinated variables with the probability of about a bazillion to none to get a functioning eye. But that didn't just happen by chance once, it happened around forty times, independently and in almost all the different phyla long after eyeless creatures split apart from the evolutionary tree of life. That is not "explained" by random mutations and natural selection by any stretch of the imagination.

"The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species. While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm familiar with this research, it certainly isn"t considered conclusive, but even if it was, it doesn"t change the point I was making. It partially comes down to how you define "eye", but even if there was a common ancestor with photoreceptor cells modulating circadian rhythms that you can call a pro-toeye, it is still completely incomprehensible that functioning eyes could evolve from that somewhere between 40 and 60 times in different phyla without some additional mechanism beyond random mutations and natural selection. You would still need to postulate the fortuitous coordination of thousands of unrelated chance mutations coming together to form an eye and in good conscience, you simply can"t, certainly not 40 to 60 times.

The point of the source, was to show that it didn't arise independently, but that each different eye is a successful variation of an established trait. There is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, and thus without that information any claim of 'fortuitous-ness' is premature.

The point of my reply was that it doesn't matter that it didn't arise independently. And yes, there is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, but attempts to say that a lack of information supports your presumptions is a logically invalid argument.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between invoking statistically impossible explanations and invoking supernatural explanations, neither one is scientific. As science goes, it's time to reconsider just how complete your theory is when the statistical improbability of the data you are explaining is indistinguishable from a miracle.

And what statistics do you have on the matter?

I already gave the statistics in a previous post, it's a bazillion to none. pay attention.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.

Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms. No faith, just basic probability.

The point of the source, was to show that it didn't arise independently, but that each different eye is a successful variation of an established trait. There is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, and thus without that information any claim of 'fortuitous-ness' is premature.

The point of my reply was that it doesn't matter that it didn't arise independently. And yes, there is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, but attempts to say that a lack of information supports your presumptions is a logically invalid argument.

I've not asserted any such thing, except to say that if you are going to argue against something on the basis of probability, you should at least know what the probability is first.

And what statistics do you have on the matter?

I already gave the statistics in a previous post, it's a bazillion to none. pay attention.

Sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic. I don't suppose you have any math to actually back this up, do you?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 8:48:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.

Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms.

Define 'maximally efficient forms.'
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 10:11:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 8:48:43 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.

Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms.

Define 'maximally efficient forms.'

Morphological traits or forms, which in their respective environments are the peak of efficiency.

To give an example I would say fins are maximally efficient forms for mid-ocean travel. Fins are the most efficient way to travel long distances through the ocean and so it's not inconceivable that Fish, Marine mammals, and sea turtles have adapted homologous traits.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 12:43:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 10:11:53 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/20/2013 8:48:43 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.

Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms.

Define 'maximally efficient forms.'

Morphological traits or forms, which in their respective environments are the peak of efficiency.

To give an example I would say fins are maximally efficient forms for mid-ocean travel. Fins are the most efficient way to travel long distances through the ocean and so it's not inconceivable that Fish, Marine mammals, and sea turtles have adapted homologous traits.

Really? So its impossible for a slightly more efficient life-form to evolve?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 12:55:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:43:33 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:32:41 PM, Polaris wrote:
It isn't unusual that certain forms are maximally efficient for certain ecological niches.

Yeah, and it isn't unusual that randomness brings about maximal efficiency because of faith in the "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", but I was talking about science, I'm not really all that interested in religious theories of evolution.

Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms. No faith, just basic probability.

"You are bound to find some that will only have one or two" is a basic probability?

The point of the source, was to show that it didn't arise independently, but that each different eye is a successful variation of an established trait. There is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, and thus without that information any claim of 'fortuitous-ness' is premature.

The point of my reply was that it doesn't matter that it didn't arise independently. And yes, there is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been, but attempts to say that a lack of information supports your presumptions is a logically invalid argument.

I've not asserted any such thing, except to say that if you are going to argue against something on the basis of probability, you should at least know what the probability is first.

And "there is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been" is supposed to mean you "at least know what the probability is"?
And what statistics do you have on the matter?

I already gave the statistics in a previous post, it's a bazillion to none. pay attention.

Sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic. I don't suppose you have any math to actually back this up, do you?

Well, nothing as rigorous as your complex math above, but I did name it "Bazillionist Evolution", so now it's a complete explanatory theory. If you want to refute it you'll need to get me some statistics and show me the math.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 1:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 12:55:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2013 11:43:23 PM, Polaris wrote:
Some ecological niches have more viable forms, and some have less. Examine enough ecological niches and you are bound to find some that will only have one or two maximally efficient forms. No faith, just basic probability.

"You are bound to find some that will only have one or two" is a basic probability?

When we're talking about tens of thousands of ecological niches (a conservative estimate), yes. There are bound to be some that have just one or two maximally efficient forms. I gave an example of one already.

I've not asserted any such thing, except to say that if you are going to argue against something on the basis of probability, you should at least know what the probability is first.

And "there is no telling how many unsuccessful variations there may have been" is supposed to mean you "at least know what the probability is"?

It's subtext. Your objection was that it would be improbable to evolve via natural selection. That you don't know how many unsuccessful variations there are/were tells me that you couldn't possibly know the probability, and thus your objection is unfounded.

Sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic. I don't suppose you have any math to actually back this up, do you?

Well, nothing as rigorous as your complex math above, but I did name it "Bazillionist Evolution", so now it's a complete explanatory theory. If you want to refute it you'll need to get me some statistics and show me the math.

I'm sorry, what is your argument here?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 4:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Polaris, you keep making the assumption that you KNOW that maximally efficient life-forms even exist.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 5:10:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 12:43:23 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
To give an example I would say fins are maximally efficient forms for mid-ocean travel. Fins are the most efficient way to travel long distances through the ocean and so it's not inconceivable that Fish, Marine mammals, and sea turtles have adapted homologous traits.

Really? So its impossible for a slightly more efficient life-form to evolve?

When I say "form" I'm referring to morphological traits, and not "life-forms".