Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution Q&A.

Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 8:46:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

By "observations", do you mean seeing it happen now, or seeing it's happened in the past?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 8:49:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 8:46:13 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

By "observations", do you mean seeing it happen now, or seeing it's happened in the past?

I am looking for things that we have seen happening now. I have my own list. I am just curious if you have any example I don't know about. If you don't have any, no bother, I know this is thread is mostly meant for creationists to ask their questions.
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 8:51:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

I would say, the most convnicing argument ist die visible trail, that the evolution of microorganisms have left in worldwide chalk deposits .
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 8:55:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 8:49:42 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/21/2016 8:46:13 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

By "observations", do you mean seeing it happen now, or seeing it's happened in the past?

I am looking for things that we have seen happening now. I have my own list. I am just curious if you have any example I don't know about. If you don't have any, no bother, I know this is thread is mostly meant for creationists to ask their questions.

I found this just today: https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm curious to hear your list.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 5:54:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How did butterflies evolve?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 9:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 8:55:34 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 8:49:42 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/21/2016 8:46:13 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

By "observations", do you mean seeing it happen now, or seeing it's happened in the past?

I am looking for things that we have seen happening now. I have my own list. I am just curious if you have any example I don't know about. If you don't have any, no bother, I know this is thread is mostly meant for creationists to ask their questions.

I found this just today: https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm curious to hear your list.

Vestigial organs... jacobsons, appendixes... in humans
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:37:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 5:54:55 PM, janesix wrote:
How did butterflies evolve?

Butterflies descend from prehistoric moths, with the oldest butterfly fossils dating to about 50 million years ago. Their dependence on flowering plants drove much of their evolution, so that as new species of flower emerged, new species of butterfly adapted to feed on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Moths first evolved about 190 million years ago. Both butterflies and moths are part of the order Lepidoptera, with "moth" denoting any Lepidopteran that isn't part of the butterfly.

Is there anything you'd like me to elaborate on?
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 12:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 11:37:17 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 5:54:55 PM, janesix wrote:
How did butterflies evolve?

Butterflies descend from prehistoric moths, with the oldest butterfly fossils dating to about 50 million years ago. Their dependence on flowering plants drove much of their evolution, so that as new species of flower emerged, new species of butterfly adapted to feed on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Moths first evolved about 190 million years ago. Both butterflies and moths are part of the order Lepidoptera, with "moth" denoting any Lepidopteran that isn't part of the butterfly.

Is there anything you'd like me to elaborate on?

Yes. Please elaborate on how the process of metamorphosis evolved in an incrimental step-by-step fashion through random mutations and natural selection.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:07:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

What in your opinion are the most challenging arguments against Darwinian natural selection? What would you say are the weakest areas of the theory? Which of the scientist critics do you think give the best reasons for doubting the theory?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:15:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 12:05:49 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/21/2016 11:37:17 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 5:54:55 PM, janesix wrote:
How did butterflies evolve?

Butterflies descend from prehistoric moths, with the oldest butterfly fossils dating to about 50 million years ago. Their dependence on flowering plants drove much of their evolution, so that as new species of flower emerged, new species of butterfly adapted to feed on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Moths first evolved about 190 million years ago. Both butterflies and moths are part of the order Lepidoptera, with "moth" denoting any Lepidopteran that isn't part of the butterfly.

Is there anything you'd like me to elaborate on?

Yes. Please elaborate on how the process of metamorphosis evolved in an incrimental step-by-step fashion through random mutations and natural selection.

No idea. Next.
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:00:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 12:05:49 AM, janesix wrote:
Yes. Please elaborate on how the process of metamorphosis evolved in an incrimental step-by-step fashion through random mutations and natural selection.
Take alook at this article ...
How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve? -- https://www.scientificamerican.com...
There is a huge advantage to an animal to have two distinct forms of life; one feeding oon leaves, and the other on the nectar of flowers.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?

Both. Mutations themselves are random. An organism with invulnerable DNA would be unable to adapt to a new environment, and would die out very quickly. An organism with mutatable DNA potentially could adapt, giving it an advantage. However, since mutations can also damage the genome, most organisms have repair mechanisms that correct replication mistakes, as well as checkpoints that can pause mitosis.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:15:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?

Both. Mutations themselves are random.

You seem to imply confidence, which is intriguing. How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:18:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?

An organism with invulnerable DNA would be unable to adapt to a new environment, and would die out very quickly.

It was to my understanding that organisms can and has remained relatively unchanged for extended periods so long as their niche exists. Should I replace this notion?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 5:02:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:15:12 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Both. Mutations themselves are random.

You seem to imply confidence, which is intriguing. How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?

We know what causes mutation: stuff like replication errors, strand slippage, free radicals, ionizing radiation, and transposons, though this list is not exhaustive. We cannot predict these things, so they are random for all intents and purposes.

An organism with invulnerable DNA would be unable to adapt to a new environment, and would die out very quickly.

It was to my understanding that organisms can and has remained relatively unchanged for extended periods so long as their niche exists.

It depends how you define "relatively". Humans have had fingers for millions of generations, but have only developed HIV resistance in the last couple. Also, an individual human could be born without fingers, but does this change whether humans as a group have fingers?

Should I replace this notion?

I would. It isn't necessarily wrong, but it's misleading.
Dujec
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 6:14:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:18:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?

An organism with invulnerable DNA would be unable to adapt to a new environment, and would die out very quickly.

It was to my understanding that organisms can and has remained relatively unchanged for extended periods so long as their niche exists. Should I replace this notion?

There are a lot of living examples of living fossils. Horseshoe Crabs were around long before dinosaurs ruled around 230 million years ago. I think this is very rare.

http://io9.gizmodo.com...
Dujec
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 6:40:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 8:55:34 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 8:49:42 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/21/2016 8:46:13 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:56:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

As an evolutionist I have a question for you. What are the most convincing observations of evolution that you know of?

By "observations", do you mean seeing it happen now, or seeing it's happened in the past?

I am looking for things that we have seen happening now. I have my own list. I am just curious if you have any example I don't know about. If you don't have any, no bother, I know this is thread is mostly meant for creationists to ask their questions.

I found this just today: https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm curious to hear your list.

Vestigial Hips and leg bones often appear in wales and snakes and many other animals.

Cytochrome C (an important protein found in all animals) mutations follow the predicted path of the branching generations of many species. For instance it is exactly the same in various non-human primates when there are roughly 2*10^90 functional versions.

There are vestigial genes in virtually any animal. For instance humans have a stop gene mutation preventing the majority 90%+ of genes used to detect scents but the gene are still there (at some point they did not give an advantage). Chickens have stopped genes for teeth.

There are strings of random junk DNA passed from generation along the predicted path of evolution. Being that they are completely random and serve no purpose this is great evidence for genetic ancestry.

Species often split in two and become able to mate when separated by geography or other reasons and the gradual change takes two branched paths of change that eventually causes extreme differences.

Observed, reproducible evidence of positive paths of mutation for bacteria in a controlled experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org...

AronRa has some great along with some kick *ss hair and mustache:

https://www.youtube.com...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:01:23 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:38:09 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:33:42 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:29:53 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

How many theories of evolution do you know of.....How many of them are possible, in other words, not yet disproven?

Just one.

I'm particularly interested in mutations at the moment. Are they random, or is it an adaptive trait in our DNA to occasionally do something new?

Both. Mutations themselves are random. An organism with invulnerable DNA would be unable to adapt to a new environment, and would die out very quickly. An organism with mutatable DNA potentially could adapt, giving it an advantage. However, since mutations can also damage the genome, most organisms have repair mechanisms that correct replication mistakes, as well as checkpoints that can pause mitosis.

How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 9:58:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:59:30 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?

From Post #20:

"We know what causes mutation: stuff like replication errors, strand slippage, free radicals, ionizing radiation, and transposons, though this list is not exhaustive. We cannot predict these things, so they are random for all intents and purposes."
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?

While you make this sound like the burden of proof is on the Pro evolution side, because we're claiming that they are random so we should show that they are, is really a shifting of the burden of proof.

Why?

Because you are the one claiming that the processes are guided, and you're using the term random to mean not guided.
You're asking Pro evolution people to demonstrate why the processes aren't guided, which is a shifting of the burden of proof and an appeal to ignorance i.e. "you can't show that they're not guided, so they must be."

Therefore, the burden of proof to show a guide, the agent in a guided process, is on you, and sans this burden being met, I and others are reasonable in rejecting such a claim.

Show the guide, or you can't say the process is guided.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:59:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:49:35 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
How do we know the mutations are random? What methodology was used for proving it?

While you make this sound like the burden of proof is on the Pro evolution side, because we're claiming that they are random so we should show that they are, is really a shifting of the burden of proof.

Why?

Because you are the one claiming that the processes are guided, and you're using the term random to mean not guided.
You're asking Pro evolution people to demonstrate why the processes aren't guided, which is a shifting of the burden of proof and an appeal to ignorance i.e. "you can't show that they're not guided, so they must be."

Therefore, the burden of proof to show a guide, the agent in a guided process, is on you, and sans this burden being met, I and others are reasonable in rejecting such a claim.

Show the guide, or you can't say the process is guided.

There is no burden of proof. He just seemed confident in something I don't recall being proven, and I'm just asking questions. I love ecology, and I love long term projections. It seems like research on DNA interaction is coming out with new insight at a seemingly growing pace and I find it difficult to keep up with the priorities that take precedence in my life.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
There is no burden of proof. He just seemed confident in something I don't recall being proven, and I'm just asking questions. I love ecology, and I love long term projections. It seems like research on DNA interaction is coming out with new insight at a seemingly growing pace and I find it difficult to keep up with the priorities that take precedence in my life.

We're confident in the fact that mutations are random because there hasn't been any evidence shown for or a reason to believe in some external agent guiding everything negating the randomness of mutations.

Genes mutate randomly, and if you don't think so, you should say why...what external agent is guiding it all?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 9:09:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:46:03 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
There is no burden of proof. He just seemed confident in something I don't recall being proven, and I'm just asking questions. I love ecology, and I love long term projections. It seems like research on DNA interaction is coming out with new insight at a seemingly growing pace and I find it difficult to keep up with the priorities that take precedence in my life.

We're confident in the fact that mutations are random because there hasn't been any evidence shown for or a reason to believe in some external agent guiding everything negating the randomness of mutations.

Genes mutate randomly, and if you don't think so, you should say why...what external agent is guiding it all?

No need for an external agent. Directed mutations in response to external conditions can occur without external agents.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 9:24:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:55:36 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
It seems that a lot of people here don't understand the Theory of Evolution, or have some misconceptions about it. Perhaps they consider it a crackpot idea, which deters them from "reading a book on the subject".

This thread is for people genuinely interested in learning more about Evolution. If you have a question about the subject, feel free to post it on this thread. I'll answer the questions as best I can, and I invite other debaters to do the same.

Okay.

1) How did consciousness evolve ?

2) How did sex evolve ?

3) How did the genetic code evolve ?

4) Evolution ultimately rests on the presumption that Nature unaided can increase complexity ? What's the evidence for this ?

5) ID folks believe that natural processes can't account for the specified complexity in the form of the genetic code in living things. This is because building codes with encoders and decoders requires foresight which nature lacks. Why is this not a problem for evolution ?

That's all for now.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 10:00:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
'Random' and 'directed' are slippery terms.

Consider a microbe we put into an environment where being able to digest nylon would be very helpful. Let' further suppose that nylon digestion requires a tweak to the enzymes the microbe produces, which in turn requires a particular genetic mutation.

It would be a very clever microbe that could work out what enzymes are needed to digest nylon, and it would have to be even cleverer to work out what mutation would produce that enzyme.

The need for cleverness is avoided by crudely trying different mutations chosen at random. Most of them won't work and make thing worse, so those mutants have few or no offspring and die - they don't get noticed amongst the millions of normal microbes. But if a mutation that produces nylon digestion turns up then before long the nylon digesters will outnumber the normals and the 'evolutionary change' will be obvious.

It would look as if the nylon digestion mutation was brought about by a 'directed' process because no one notices all the failures.

Directed evolution of a sort also occurs because organisms often increase their mutation rates when stressed. They don't know they are doing so, and they don't know what mutation they are seeking, but just by trying out more random alteration the chance of hitting on a beneficial mutation is increased.

You don't want to get bogged down with 'random' as a mathematical term. In this context it only means that mutations occur all the time with no regard to whether they are beneficial or not. They happen because of accidents, such a being hit by an X- or cosmic ray, or a rare slip in the copying of a DNA strand, not because (eg) being able to digest nylon (or, say, to see in colour) would be a good thing. 'Random with respect to need' is one way to put it.