Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

the Third Way of evolution

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 11:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 8:43:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Here's an interesting site for those who are not convinced that the current model of evolution is correct.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com...

That's kinda neat. But I will say that it's not that the current evolutionary model is wrong, just incomplete. This isn't really groundbreaking in that respect as it doesn't overturn what we already know as much as it may add additional understanding of the processes involved and the detail of everything that goes on.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:45:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Oh, and this is the first time I've heard this claim from ID. Please cite a link.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 8:43:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Here's an interesting site for those who are not convinced that the current model of evolution is correct.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com...

So I went to the 3rd way web site, and it opens with some really dreadful logic:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process.

Now, it might be legitimate to say Creationism is not part of the discipline of science because it can't be subject to the scientific method, but the implication above is that creationism must be rejected because a creator is above the scientist's pay grade, which is obviously pretty silly.

None of us gets to define reality. None of us gets to say "well, this thing can exist, but that thing can't". Step numero uno of ANY serious attempt to understand reality is to understand that we must conform our thinking to what is, not the other way around. Or maybe we can define our own reality. Hmmm. Clearly there are basic assumptions to be made before even getting started.

So the web site has made itself pretty suspect from the start. That doesn't mean they can't have valuable insights, but I wouldn't look for any useful philosophic perspective from them. (And philosophy is the first of all sciences, btw: The scientist must have a basis for thinking he can think before any science can be done. Otherwise he's the rookie weighing samples on a scale that wasn't calibrated)
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:56:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/17/2015 8:43:09 PM, janesix wrote:
Here's an interesting site for those who are not convinced that the current model of evolution is correct.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com...

So I went to the 3rd way web site, and it opens with some really dreadful logic:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process.

Now, it might be legitimate to say Creationism is not part of the discipline of science because it can't be subject to the scientific method, but the implication above is that creationism must be rejected because a creator is above the scientist's pay grade, which is obviously pretty silly.

None of us gets to define reality. None of us gets to say "well, this thing can exist, but that thing can't". Step numero uno of ANY serious attempt to understand reality is to understand that we must conform our thinking to what is, not the other way around. Or maybe we can define our own reality. Hmmm. Clearly there are basic assumptions to be made before even getting started.

So the web site has made itself pretty suspect from the start. That doesn't mean they can't have valuable insights, but I wouldn't look for any useful philosophic perspective from them. (And philosophy is the first of all sciences, btw: The scientist must have a basis for thinking he can think before any science can be done. Otherwise he's the rookie weighing samples on a scale that wasn't calibrated)

It's not saying God doesn't exist; just that when you invoke an arbitrary supernatural force to explain the evidence; you can explain anything with goddidit, and therefore it ceases to be an explanation.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 1:01:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.

There is a massive wealth of difference between there being additional mechanisms (which we know about, and are perfectly reasonable), and darwinian evolution being wrong; which you seem to be arguing in your post.

I see you also went from "Most", which is not supported by anything in that site, to "sometimes" in your reply with respect to HGT.

My point is that despite you immediately ceasing on this and vastly overselling that ID even made the claim you cite, as well as saying it is MOSTly like that, this is not true. We know darwinian processes do exist, and do work the way they say they do. That there is more to it hardly comes as a major surprise.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 4:26:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.

Could it be that the ease with which these DNA fragments jump from one place to another, is a feature effectively generated and/or favored by the evolutionary process? Hum...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 10:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 4:26:08 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.

Could it be that the ease with which these DNA fragments jump from one place to another, is a feature effectively generated and/or favored by the evolutionary process? Hum...

Well, of course it could be. Evolution can do anything. We already know evolution is the answer to everything, so whatever comes along must be explained by evolution.

Simple. We all love it when things are simple.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 10:52:36 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 4:26:08 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.

Could it be that the ease with which these DNA fragments jump from one place to another, is a feature effectively generated and/or favored by the evolutionary process? Hum...

Well, of course it could be. Evolution can do anything. We already know evolution is the answer to everything, so whatever comes along must be explained by evolution.

Simple. We all love it when things are simple.

No it can't. Indeed, it is massively, extraordinarily limited in the types of things it can do and what it can produce.

You are thinking of Intelligent Design, where a designer is capable of designing anything he wants and you can claim anything is intelligently designed regardless of it's properties.

Which is why you seem to have no problem with the designer choosing to design life EXACTLY how it is required to appear for evolution to it's explanation, despite having no compelling reason or need or rational motivation or desire to do so; and indeed where it would make more sense for any reasonable designer to have done things completely differently.

Thought I would clear that up for you.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 12:05:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 10:52:36 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 4:26:08 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:56:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:42:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2015 12:38:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2015 11:55:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
I find it a bit dumb when supposedly scientific sites state "this or that is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution" as if such thing existed. I guess they are trying to say, in a controversial/sensationalist/misleading manner, that they think populations change, mainly, due to processes different from natural selection...

Yeah, it's interesting that they want to preserve the evolution moniker.

At a quick read, the theory seems to confirm the ID claim that most variation is genetic, not mutation. In other words, the ability of species to adapt over generations is a sophisticated design feature, not something accidental.

Except we know it isn't like that. And this is additional on top of the stuff we already know happens the ways already establish by evolution.

The site has evidence that it IS like that. Maybe you need to expose yourself to some 21st century science, as Shapiro frames it? Have you read, for instance, how microbes can share snippets of DNA? So antibiotic resistance is sometimes not Darwinian mutation AT ALL.

Could it be that the ease with which these DNA fragments jump from one place to another, is a feature effectively generated and/or favored by the evolutionary process? Hum...

Well, of course it could be. Evolution can do anything. We already know evolution is the answer to everything,

Everything that is related to life in any way, is related to evolution, yes. Evolution is a definitory trait of life. Life can not exist without evolution, which is something everyone already knew before Darwin, btw.

so whatever comes along must be explained by evolution.

Simple. We all love it when things are simple.