Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific alternatives to evolution

janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.

If special creation is wrong and the modern synthesis of evolution is wrong, then what could the alternative be? I think it would have to involve unknown biological laws.

https://www.youtube.com... Here is one possible law, that of scaling.

And another https://www.youtube.com... that talks about possible fractal laws in biology.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Also, natural selection and mutations are independent. Natural selection does not encompass mutations, as your first sentence would suggest. If all offspring were identical to their parent(s), natural selection would still occur. It would just likely lead to the extinction of all life.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:24:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.

If special creation is wrong and the modern synthesis of evolution is wrong, then what could the alternative be?

Non-special creation? Just joking...

I think it would have to involve unknown biological laws.

I think you are just making things up... if the theory of gravity is wrong then what would the alternative be? I think it would have to involve unknown physical laws. Interesting right? Not really...

https://www.youtube.com... Here is one possible law, that of scaling.

The only problem is that it is the observed behavior of cities and has nothing to do with evolution. If you would like to apply it to evolution in a logically consistent argument that would be interesting, but that isn't so easy to do.

And another https://www.youtube.com... that talks about possible fractal laws in biology.

All I can say here is I am not surprised that you can't tell this guy is just making stuff up. You would be better off sticking with "God did it".
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:21:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Adaptation is observable and yields highly localized small adjustments with very limited scope, the mathematical space in which these changes arise very confined, never seeming to do more than simply adjust to environmental change, much as a servo mechanism can adapt a ships gun to yaw/roll but never generating a new kind of gun or new kind of ammo.

Evolution is the belief that all diverse life on earth arose through a succession of adaptations, that this adaptive mechanism is capable of very large scale, broad scoped changes, culminating in the claim (which it amounts to) that single cell bacteria and the like will eventually yield, people, birds, fish etc.

Also, natural selection and mutations are independent. Natural selection does not encompass mutations, as your first sentence would suggest. If all offspring were identical to their parent(s), natural selection would still occur. It would just likely lead to the extinction of all life.

I never confused the two, mutation - genetic mutation (which of course requires genes to already exist!) though is necessary for the process to generate the complex life we see from the primitive starting point 3 billion years ago.

Harry.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.
This space for rent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:09:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:21:32 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Adaptation is observable and yields highly localized small adjustments with very limited scope, the mathematical space in which these changes arise very confined, never seeming to do more than simply adjust to environmental change, much as a servo mechanism can adapt a ships gun to yaw/roll but never generating a new kind of gun or new kind of ammo.

Evolution is the belief that all diverse life on earth arose through a succession of adaptations, that this adaptive mechanism is capable of very large scale, broad scoped changes, culminating in the claim (which it amounts to) that single cell bacteria and the like will eventually yield, people, birds, fish etc.

Can you point me to a scientific reference that describes evolution that way? What you've written sounds like a conclusion of evolutionary theory rather than what the term actually refers to.

Is there a mechanistic difference between adaptation and evolution?

Also, natural selection and mutations are independent. Natural selection does not encompass mutations, as your first sentence would suggest. If all offspring were identical to their parent(s), natural selection would still occur. It would just likely lead to the extinction of all life.

I never confused the two, mutation - genetic mutation (which of course requires genes to already exist!) though is necessary for the process to generate the complex life we see from the primitive starting point 3 billion years ago.

Harry.

You may not feel confused about the two, but your wording made it sound like natural selection encompasses mutation. I have a seen a lot of discussions about evolution wind up in the weeds because of sloppy language, so I was making sure the distinction is clear.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:11:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:33:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 2:05:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?

I was going to post something along the same lines. Got to give some props for the metaphors. If they are his, he should copyright them
v3nesl
Posts: 4,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 12:46:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:11:45 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...what is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?

No, nobody can explain evolution in actual biological terms because the actual biological functions don't exist. Adaptation exists, creative evolution is a fantasy.

The human brain is all about pattern matching, my evolutionist friends. Pattern matching is useful to us precisely because everything in the physical world obeys the same physical laws. So biological functions obey the same physical laws of chemistry and electricity as gloves or dice do. The problem with making evolution analogies is that they highlight how evolution is inevitably a belief in magic. It is the new pantheism, a belief in secret magic powers hidden in all of nature. The rise of evolution signals the decline of the golden age of science and reason, I'm afraid, and the only cure is to find the courage to listen to your own common sense.
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 4:23:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:09:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:21:32 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Adaptation is observable and yields highly localized small adjustments with very limited scope, the mathematical space in which these changes arise very confined, never seeming to do more than simply adjust to environmental change, much as a servo mechanism can adapt a ships gun to yaw/roll but never generating a new kind of gun or new kind of ammo.

Evolution is the belief that all diverse life on earth arose through a succession of adaptations, that this adaptive mechanism is capable of very large scale, broad scoped changes, culminating in the claim (which it amounts to) that single cell bacteria and the like will eventually yield, people, birds, fish etc.

Can you point me to a scientific reference that describes evolution that way? What you've written sounds like a conclusion of evolutionary theory rather than what the term actually refers to.

Is there a mechanistic difference between adaptation and evolution?

Also, natural selection and mutations are independent. Natural selection does not encompass mutations, as your first sentence would suggest. If all offspring were identical to their parent(s), natural selection would still occur. It would just likely lead to the extinction of all life.

I never confused the two, mutation - genetic mutation (which of course requires genes to already exist!) though is necessary for the process to generate the complex life we see from the primitive starting point 3 billion years ago.

Harry.

You may not feel confused about the two, but your wording made it sound like natural selection encompasses mutation. I have a seen a lot of discussions about evolution wind up in the weeds because of sloppy language, so I was making sure the distinction is clear.

I wasn't citing any references just pointing out that "evolution by natural selection" as commonly understood can be demonstrated in small domains on small scales via experiment, I referred to this as simply "adaptation" - in that narrow sense.

The term "evolution" like it or not - is commonly understood to refer to the hypothesis that this small scale adaptive mechanism can and does account for the huge diversity of life on earth today - but this is an extrapolation without sufficient evidence.

I mentioned servo mechanisms - often seen in model aircraft and military hardware, radar, missiles as examples of a human designed adaptive mechanism, able to adjust to environmental variations like wind etc. These seem to mirror biology's ability to alter moth wing color or finch beak shapes etc, but operate specifically in some narrow domain and never yield any major kind of new structures.

Finally without mutation the very concept of "selecting" becomes meaningless because without a gene diversity there's nothing to select from and without mutation (however it may arise) there'll be no gene diversity - surely this is an acceptable way to express my view?

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:09:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:21:32 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 6:20:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:48:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/29/2015 4:58:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:31:50 AM, janesix wrote:
At 12/29/2015 2:20:45 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I don't see how there could possibly be an alternative to evolution. The two primary factors of evolution have been demonstrated to exist: mutation and natural selection. We can argue about whether mutations are "random" or not, but it doesn't matter. Mutations and natural selection lead to diversity. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Mutation and selection are only proof of adaptation, not evolution. They are two separate things.

What's the difference? Please be specific.

Natural selection in the broad sense amounts to random genetic mutations occasionally inferring some advantage to some organism, which is then passed on to subsequent generations.

That such a process can take place is indeed demonstrable but only in highly limited scenarios (finch beaks altering, moth wings changing color etc).

However there is not sufficient scientific empirical evidence that this same process is what has led to the wide varieties of living things on earth.

That is no evidence exists that demonstrates that this limited scope adaptation is sufficient for explaining life, its is based on nothing more than extrapolation and opportunistic appeal to selected observations (fossils etc).

Bear in mind there are atheist scientists that also express this view, but their voice is seldom heard in the cacophonous obsession that evolution/atheism has recently become.

Harry.

I don't see anything in that explanation that answers my request. What, specifically, is the difference between adaptation and evolution?

Adaptation is observable and yields highly localized small adjustments with very limited scope, the mathematical space in which these changes arise very confined, never seeming to do more than simply adjust to environmental change, much as a servo mechanism can adapt a ships gun to yaw/roll but never generating a new kind of gun or new kind of ammo.

Evolution is the belief that all diverse life on earth arose through a succession of adaptations, that this adaptive mechanism is capable of very large scale, broad scoped changes, culminating in the claim (which it amounts to) that single cell bacteria and the like will eventually yield, people, birds, fish etc.

Can you point me to a scientific reference that describes evolution that way? What you've written sounds like a conclusion of evolutionary theory rather than what the term actually refers to.

Is there a mechanistic difference between adaptation and evolution?

Also, natural selection and mutations are independent. Natural selection does not encompass mutations, as your first sentence would suggest. If all offspring were identical to their parent(s), natural selection would still occur. It would just likely lead to the extinction of all life.

I never confused the two, mutation - genetic mutation (which of course requires genes to already exist!) though is necessary for the process to generate the complex life we see from the primitive starting point 3 billion years ago.

Harry.

You may not feel confused about the two, but your wording made it sound like natural selection encompasses mutation. I have a seen a lot of discussions about evolution wind up in the weeds because of sloppy language, so I was making sure the distinction is clear.

I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:05:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 12:46:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:11:45 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...what is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?

No, nobody can explain evolution in actual biological terms because the actual biological functions don't exist. Adaptation exists, creative evolution is a fantasy.

What biological functions don't exist?

The human brain is all about pattern matching, my evolutionist friends. Pattern matching is useful to us precisely because everything in the physical world obeys the same physical laws. So biological functions obey the same physical laws of chemistry and electricity as gloves or dice do. The problem with making evolution analogies is that they highlight how evolution is inevitably a belief in magic. It is the new pantheism, a belief in secret magic powers hidden in all of nature. The rise of evolution signals the decline of the golden age of science and reason, I'm afraid, and the only cure is to find the courage to listen to your own common sense.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:13:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 4:23:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wasn't citing any references just pointing out that "evolution by natural selection" as commonly understood can be demonstrated in small domains on small scales via experiment, I referred to this as simply "adaptation" - in that narrow sense.

The term "evolution" like it or not - is commonly understood to refer to the hypothesis that this small scale adaptive mechanism can and does account for the huge diversity of life on earth today - but this is an extrapolation without sufficient evidence.

That may be how the term is (mis)understood outside of the scientific community. This is the point I'm trying to illustrate when asking for an explanation of how "adaptation" and "evolution" are different. It seems that many of the contentions people have with evolution come from an incomplete or wrong understanding of it.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like the only difference between the two is what has been observed and what hasn't. So right now we have many documented cases of new species emerging. I guess you'd call that adaptation, but new genuses emerging would be evolution, since that hasn't been observed? Is that accurate?

I mentioned servo mechanisms - often seen in model aircraft and military hardware, radar, missiles as examples of a human designed adaptive mechanism, able to adjust to environmental variations like wind etc. These seem to mirror biology's ability to alter moth wing color or finch beak shapes etc, but operate specifically in some narrow domain and never yield any major kind of new structures.

Like I said to v3nesl, I'm trying to avoid analogies so things don't get muddy.

Finally without mutation the very concept of "selecting" becomes meaningless because without a gene diversity there's nothing to select from and without mutation (however it may arise) there'll be no gene diversity - surely this is an acceptable way to express my view?



Harry.

Not necessarily. Recombination as a result of sexual reproduction provides some limited diversity for selection. So do processes like plasmid transfer and viral infection.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:24:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.

How do you separate small scale from large? Color change seems like something that is obviously small scale. What about tissue changes? Organ changes? How about a single-celled organism becoming multi-cellular?

Also, what is the limiting factor that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point that a large overall change has occurred? This is the other thing I was getting at when asking for a difference between adaptation and evolution. Even your own description just seems to be a matter of degree. Where is the actual line between the processes of adaptation and evolution?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:53:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:13:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:23:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wasn't citing any references just pointing out that "evolution by natural selection" as commonly understood can be demonstrated in small domains on small scales via experiment, I referred to this as simply "adaptation" - in that narrow sense.

The term "evolution" like it or not - is commonly understood to refer to the hypothesis that this small scale adaptive mechanism can and does account for the huge diversity of life on earth today - but this is an extrapolation without sufficient evidence.

That may be how the term is (mis)understood outside of the scientific community. This is the point I'm trying to illustrate when asking for an explanation of how "adaptation" and "evolution" are different. It seems that many of the contentions people have with evolution come from an incomplete or wrong understanding of it.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like the only difference between the two is what has been observed and what hasn't. So right now we have many documented cases of new species emerging. I guess you'd call that adaptation, but new genuses emerging would be evolution, since that hasn't been observed? Is that accurate?

Well also they differ in scale and scope, two finches who's bills may have adapted amount to a tiny morphological difference. Whereas a snake and a kangaroo are somewhat larger morphological differences.

The small scale adaptations are cited as evidence for large scale changes, but they are not evidence for that at all, since science is supposedly based upon evidence the "macro" evolutionary changes are in fact speculative not "fact" as writers like Dawkins like to describe them.

I mentioned servo mechanisms - often seen in model aircraft and military hardware, radar, missiles as examples of a human designed adaptive mechanism, able to adjust to environmental variations like wind etc. These seem to mirror biology's ability to alter moth wing color or finch beak shapes etc, but operate specifically in some narrow domain and never yield any major kind of new structures.

Like I said to v3nesl, I'm trying to avoid analogies so things don't get muddy.
Fine, I'll hold you to that then.

Finally without mutation the very concept of "selecting" becomes meaningless because without a gene diversity there's nothing to select from and without mutation (however it may arise) there'll be no gene diversity - surely this is an acceptable way to express my view?



Harry.

Not necessarily. Recombination as a result of sexual reproduction provides some limited diversity for selection. So do processes like plasmid transfer and viral infection.

OK, I'll stand corrected on that point.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 9:10:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:24:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.

How do you separate small scale from large? Color change seems like something that is obviously small scale. What about tissue changes? Organ changes? How about a single-celled organism becoming multi-cellular?
A good example of large might be the diversity that appears in the fossil record for the Cambrian explosion - with most of that occurring withing approx 6 million years (that is during the Atdabanian stage) a huge number of organisms like 20 new orders, 40 new classes these are what I'd call large morphological changes.

This particular event is assumed to be the result of naturalistic mechanisms yet there's zero evidence for this claim, particularly since there is no credible fossil record corresponding to what must have been a huge tree of increasing diversity (even the humble trilobite just appears out of the blue as do most if not all of these organisms).

Also, what is the limiting factor that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point that a large overall change has occurred? This is the other thing I was getting at when asking for a difference between adaptation and evolution. Even your own description just seems to be a matter of degree. Where is the actual line between the processes of adaptation and evolution?

That's for science to determine through experiment and research - its is the assumption that there is no limit that needs to be questioned.

An example of a limit in the real world of biology is growth - every species of tree has a recognized maximum size, every breed of dog and so on, biology is full of self limiting mechanisms, it is axiomatic that adaptations are not subject to some limiting factor it is not empirically verified.

The Cambrian is even worse - the data, the fossil record - suggest not only rapid development of high disparity but that this development took place with little if any small level adaptations!

Harry.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 9:37:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:05:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 12:46:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:11:45 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...what is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?

No, nobody can explain evolution in actual biological terms because the actual biological functions don't exist. Adaptation exists, creative evolution is a fantasy.

What biological functions don't exist?


Really? You want me to list things that don't exist?

I think the distinction I drew between adaptation and evolution is clear enough, and as rigorous as it can be when one of the things compared is vaporware. Genes encode for features, so the expression of features from genes is plain enough. Genes rearranging themselves based on specific excitations is plain enough. But getting unpredictable new genes from unspecified causes - that's hand waving, not science.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 9:45:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:24:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

I cannot readily think of *any* phenomenon that can be extrapolated in an unlimited way. Most of us learned this in the stacking blocks stage of life.


The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.

How do you separate small scale from large?

I gave you the distinction as it is characterized by ID thinking. It is a qualitative difference and not a quantitative one. Disagree if you like, but don't simply ignore it, because it's based on very clear thinking.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
If special creation is wrong and the modern synthesis of evolution is wrong, then what could the alternative be? I think it would have to involve unknown biological laws.

Is there any valid reason to suppose that modern evolution is wrong?

Here's what I'm aware of:
1) Genetic analyses have established universal common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt;
2) A diverse range of mutation mechanisms have been identified;
3) These mechanisms have been shown to remove organs, relocate organs, modify organs, and produce new organs.
4) They have also been shown to insert, delete, alter and transpose genetic codes, thus linking genetic alterations to altered organic function

There may be missing pieces of the puzzle: e.g, new ways to alter and exchange genetic information, and interesting systemic effects resulting in explosions of diversity at times (some of which are already identified.)

But if 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.

Are you?
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 11:52:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
If special creation is wrong and the modern synthesis of evolution is wrong, then what could the alternative be? I think it would have to involve unknown biological laws.

Is there any valid reason to suppose that modern evolution is wrong?
Yes, but I want to discuss and explore alternatives to the modern synthesis in this thread.

Here's what I'm aware of:
1) Genetic analyses have established universal common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt;
2) A diverse range of mutation mechanisms have been identified;
3) These mechanisms have been shown to remove organs, relocate organs, modify organs, and produce new organs.
4) They have also been shown to insert, delete, alter and transpose genetic codes, thus linking genetic alterations to altered organic function

There may be missing pieces of the puzzle: e.g, new ways to alter and exchange genetic information, and interesting systemic effects resulting in explosions of diversity at times (some of which are already identified.)

But if 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.

Are you?

Natural genetic engineering hints that there is something else going on. Also, there are things such as possible scaling laws that suggest things may evolve according to scientific laws.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 12:20:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 11:52:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
What 'obvious' flaws? Reported by which biologists where, please?

If 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.
Are you?
Natural genetic engineering hints that there is something else going on.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?

Also, there are things such as possible scaling laws that suggest things may evolve according to scientific laws.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?

Most of the controversy and conjecture reported around evolution is not being prosecuted by biologists. There are pseudoscientific conjectures (some driven by Evangelical politics; others by spiritualist commerce; some by tinfoil-hat individuals) persuading the ignorant that they know something.

But if 'obvious flaws' aren't obvious to the professionals working in and scrutinising the science every day, and using it to make specific real-world predictions, then they are likely flaws in non-scientific understanding, rather than the models themselves.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 2:00:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 12:20:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:52:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
What 'obvious' flaws? Reported by which biologists where, please?

If 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.
Are you?
Natural genetic engineering hints that there is something else going on.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?

Also, there are things such as possible scaling laws that suggest things may evolve according to scientific laws.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?

Most of the controversy and conjecture reported around evolution is not being prosecuted by biologists. There are pseudoscientific conjectures (some driven by Evangelical politics; others by spiritualist commerce; some by tinfoil-hat individuals) persuading the ignorant that they know something.

But if 'obvious flaws' aren't obvious to the professionals working in and scrutinising the science every day, and using it to make specific real-world predictions, then they are likely flaws in non-scientific understanding, rather than the models themselves.

RuvDraba, If you are going to dismiss all reason and evidence against what you currently believe and assume its pseudoscience just because the conclusion wasn't spoon-fed to you in the conclusion of a peer reviewed biological paper, then you should update your profile and remove 'freethinker' from your list of beliefs.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:31:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 2:00:40 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/31/2015 12:20:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:52:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
What 'obvious' flaws? Reported by which biologists where, please?
If 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.
Are you?
Natural genetic engineering hints that there is something else going on.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?
Also, there are things such as possible scaling laws that suggest things may evolve according to scientific laws.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?
Most of the controversy and conjecture reported around evolution is not being prosecuted by biologists. There are pseudoscientific conjectures (some driven by Evangelical politics; others by spiritualist commerce; some by tinfoil-hat individuals) persuading the ignorant that they know something.
But if 'obvious flaws' aren't obvious to the professionals working in and scrutinising the science every day, and using it to make specific real-world predictions, then they are likely flaws in non-scientific understanding, rather than the models themselves.
RuvDraba, If you are going to dismiss all reason and evidence against what you currently believe and assume its pseudoscience just because the conclusion wasn't spoon-fed to you in the conclusion of a peer reviewed biological paper, then you should update your profile and remove 'freethinker' from your list of beliefs.
What evidence? Do you mean scientific evidence? That means: significant, specific, transparent, accountable, repeatable, empirical evidence? If so the standard way of validating and verifying such evidence is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so my question is not unreasonable.

Or if not, do you just mean rhetorical argument? The sort of appeal to bias, intuition, tradition and ignorance that works in advertising and election speeches, but which is not rigorous enough to work in science?

Science is happy to change in response to real evidence, Rainbow. It has changed faster, further and more often than have law or theology, for example.

So my question is not about being closed-minded. It is about establishing whether a claim is valid to make in the first place. In this case, the claim was unambiguous: evolution is 'obviously flawed'.

So the questions are reasonable: flawed how? As evidenced by what? As observed by whom? As evaluated how? If the flaw isn't one documented by peer-reviewed science, by what criteria is it 'obvious'?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:14:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 8:53:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:13:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:23:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I wasn't citing any references just pointing out that "evolution by natural selection" as commonly understood can be demonstrated in small domains on small scales via experiment, I referred to this as simply "adaptation" - in that narrow sense.

The term "evolution" like it or not - is commonly understood to refer to the hypothesis that this small scale adaptive mechanism can and does account for the huge diversity of life on earth today - but this is an extrapolation without sufficient evidence.

That may be how the term is (mis)understood outside of the scientific community. This is the point I'm trying to illustrate when asking for an explanation of how "adaptation" and "evolution" are different. It seems that many of the contentions people have with evolution come from an incomplete or wrong understanding of it.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like the only difference between the two is what has been observed and what hasn't. So right now we have many documented cases of new species emerging. I guess you'd call that adaptation, but new genuses emerging would be evolution, since that hasn't been observed? Is that accurate?

Well also they differ in scale and scope, two finches who's bills may have adapted amount to a tiny morphological difference. Whereas a snake and a kangaroo are somewhat larger morphological differences.

The small scale adaptations are cited as evidence for large scale changes, but they are not evidence for that at all, since science is supposedly based upon evidence the "macro" evolutionary changes are in fact speculative not "fact" as writers like Dawkins like to describe them.

You didn't really answer the question. Would you consider changes enough to qualify as a difference in genus to be "evolution" because it has not been observed? If so, then if we did someday observe it, would you decide it is now adaptation instead? That type of thinking is what I get from what you've written.

At 12/30/2015 9:10:00 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:24:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.

How do you separate small scale from large? Color change seems like something that is obviously small scale. What about tissue changes? Organ changes? How about a single-celled organism becoming multi-cellular?
A good example of large might be the diversity that appears in the fossil record for the Cambrian explosion - with most of that occurring withing approx 6 million years (that is during the Atdabanian stage) a huge number of organisms like 20 new orders, 40 new classes these are what I'd call large morphological changes.

So we've identified some extremes (small and large). I'm trying to find the distinction between them, or even just the gray area. Is single-celled to multi-celled a small or large scale change?

This particular event is assumed to be the result of naturalistic mechanisms yet there's zero evidence for this claim, particularly since there is no credible fossil record corresponding to what must have been a huge tree of increasing diversity (even the humble trilobite just appears out of the blue as do most if not all of these organisms).

Zero evidence other than the complete lack of evidence for non-naturalistic mechanisms. If there isn't reason to suspect something non-naturalistic, I don't know how you can go with any other assumption. That 6, 10, or 25 million year span (depends on how you scope it), is a relatively small range of the earth in which related fossils are found. Fossils are so rare that I think it's absurd to think we would get anything close to a complete picture of how diversity developed during that time. You're really looking at a fraction of a percent of organisms that existed over that period of time and complaining that the path of development is not clear.

Also, what is the limiting factor that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point that a large overall change has occurred? This is the other thing I was getting at when asking for a difference between adaptation and evolution. Even your own description just seems to be a matter of degree. Where is the actual line between the processes of adaptation and evolution?

That's for science to determine through experiment and research - its is the assumption that there is no limit that needs to be questioned.

An example of a limit in the real world of biology is growth - every species of tree has a recognized maximum size, every breed of dog and so on, biology is full of self limiting mechanisms, it is axiomatic that adaptations are not subject to some limiting factor it is not empirically verified.

And if a dog exceeded some recognized maximum size, among other changes, we might no longer call it a dog. These limitations tend to be a matter of definition rather than actual physical barrier. Europeans no doubt thought trees had a certain limit until someone reported on the giant redwoods in the western US.

The Cambrian is even worse - the data, the fossil record - suggest not only rapid development of high disparity but that this development took place with little if any small level adaptations!

Harry.

"Rapid" seems like a poor description for something that happened over 6 to 25 million years.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:22:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 9:37:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:05:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 12:46:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:11:45 PM, Burzmali wrote:
...what is the difference between adaptation and evolution?


The basic distinction drawn by ID is that of selection from existing information vs creation of new information. Adaptation is putting on your gloves when the weather is cold, evolution is having gloves gradually form where they didn't exist before. Adaptation is rolling 2 through 12 with a pair of dice, evolution is rolling a 13.

I can appreciate your attempt at a metaphor, but I don't think it helps. I asked for specificity in order to avoid invalid or confusing imagery. Can you explain the difference in actual biological terms?

No, nobody can explain evolution in actual biological terms because the actual biological functions don't exist. Adaptation exists, creative evolution is a fantasy.

What biological functions don't exist?


Really? You want me to list things that don't exist?

I want you to at least name a biological mechanism that you think is part of evolutionary theory but doesn't actually exist. Your post seems to indicate that you know of a few.

I think the distinction I drew between adaptation and evolution is clear enough, and as rigorous as it can be when one of the things compared is vaporware. Genes encode for features, so the expression of features from genes is plain enough. Genes rearranging themselves based on specific excitations is plain enough. But getting unpredictable new genes from unspecified causes - that's hand waving, not science.

As I said, your distinction is made with metaphor. I'm not going to get into an argument over the validity of imagery. Please use biological terms. As to what you say about genes above, you're calling something "hand waving" when it has actually been observed. Gene duplication occurs. Duplicated genes mutate further and result in different proteins. You're no longer arguing against what you think is speculation. These types of mutations have been observed.

At 12/30/2015 9:45:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:24:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:34:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I think its misleading to use the terms adaptation and evolution interchangeably. Because in the casual or gullible listener's mind it subliminally conveys that small scale localized adaptability (observable) somehow serves as evidence for evolution - large scale morphological change.

Do you find it difficult to conceive of mechanistic systems that exhibit adaptability within some narrow domain yet can never do anything more?

I cannot readily think of *any* phenomenon that can be extrapolated in an unlimited way. Most of us learned this in the stacking blocks stage of life.

The general public with atheist leanings (not helped by Dawkins, Atkins et al) seem to think that by showing real examples of this small scale adaptability evolution (in the broad sense) somehow follows as an inevitable consequence.

This is completely untenable and unscientific in my opinion and incidentally is a common objection raised by other critically thinking scientists who dispute evoluition to whom the likes of Dawkins would do well to listen to.

Harry.

How do you separate small scale from large?

I gave you the distinction as it is characterized by ID thinking. It is a qualitative difference and not a quantitative one. Disagree if you like, but don't simply ignore it, because it's based on very clear thinking.

You gave a metaphor. Try being specific.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 6:33:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:31:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 2:00:40 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 12/31/2015 12:20:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:52:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/30/2015 11:44:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/28/2015 9:05:56 PM, janesix wrote:
I now understand why people cling on to evolution despite it's obvious flaws. It is because there are no scientific alternative theories that attempt to explain life.
What 'obvious' flaws? Reported by which biologists where, please?
If 'wrong' means replacing mutation and competitive selection with other mechanisms, then I'm not aware of a single, current, peer-reviewed biological paper in any respectable journal offering any evidence that this is necessary.
Are you?
Natural genetic engineering hints that there is something else going on.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?
Also, there are things such as possible scaling laws that suggest things may evolve according to scientific laws.
Peer-reviewed biological reference please?
Most of the controversy and conjecture reported around evolution is not being prosecuted by biologists. There are pseudoscientific conjectures (some driven by Evangelical politics; others by spiritualist commerce; some by tinfoil-hat individuals) persuading the ignorant that they know something.
But if 'obvious flaws' aren't obvious to the professionals working in and scrutinising the science every day, and using it to make specific real-world predictions, then they are likely flaws in non-scientific understanding, rather than the models themselves.
RuvDraba, If you are going to dismiss all reason and evidence against what you currently believe and assume its pseudoscience just because the conclusion wasn't spoon-fed to you in the conclusion of a peer reviewed biological paper, then you should update your profile and remove 'freethinker' from your list of beliefs.

What evidence? Do you mean scientific evidence? That means: significant, specific, transparent, accountable, repeatable, empirical evidence? If so the standard way of validating and verifying such evidence is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so my question is not unreasonable.

These buzz words (significant, specific, transparent, accountable, repeatable, empirical) have vague definitions which you abuse to have them only apply to sources that you like, so you have an excuse to label everything else as pseudoscience. What you are using is pure rhetoric.

Another perfect example of how you are relying on rhetoric: you refer to peer review science as the standard way. It is just A Way of doing things, you added the word 'standard' to make it sound more official without having to make an actual argument.

Or if not, do you just mean rhetorical argument? The sort of appeal to bias, intuition, tradition and ignorance that works in advertising and election speeches, but which is not rigorous enough to work in science?

Says the king of rhetoric.

Science is happy to change in response to real evidence, Rainbow. It has changed faster, further and more often than have law or theology, for example.

But people, including scientists, have confirmation bias, which makes them good at recognizing evidence that supports their beliefs, but bad at recognizing evidence that goes against their beliefs. Science can respond to evidence, but you can't respond to the evidence you can't recognized.

So my question is not about being closed-minded. It is about establishing whether a claim is valid to make in the first place. In this case, the claim was unambiguous: evolution is 'obviously flawed'.

Asking "What 'obvious' flaws? " was fine, but the "Reported by which biologists where, please?" was just rhetoric which you were using to imply that if these obvious flaw exist, then it must have been mentioned explicitly in a biological peer reviewed paper, and if it wasn't you would have the excuse you are looking for to dismiss it as pseudoscience.

So the questions are reasonable: flawed how? As evidenced by what? As observed by whom? As evaluated how? If the flaw isn't one documented by peer-reviewed science, by what criteria is it 'obvious'?

Those first 2 questions are fine, the third and fourth questions are redundant since evidenced essentially means 'proven by' and once proof is given, and asking for additional information about the flaw would be either redundant or unnecessary, which makes the third and fourth questions just rhetoric. and the last question could have just stated "how is it obvious?", without using the unnecessary rhetoric.