Do you believe in evolution?

[Dan123]

No. I think we agree that if parents will always be of the same species as their offspring then we should have a single species. What other options do we have?

That species change over time. Eventually we see fit to label it a new species because it’s sufficiently different from its ancestor. Species is a human concept, nature doesn’t always fit neatly into the boxes we draw.

Unfortunately for evolution, the definition of a species draws a very clear line.

Deciding where to draw a line between species is NOT a clear line. Species concept - Wikipedia

 

[o_mlly]

Over eons it has no fixed direction. It is not random, but follows the prevailing local environment. Some of the environment is random: meteorite strikes.

If events are random in part then outcomes are random in whole. If one variable in the formula is significant and cannot be fixed with coefficient or exponent then the calculation is unpredictable.

 

[Dan123]

As to the answer, yes. The dominant gene will be expressed regardless and the recessive gene will also be expressed at every opportunity.

Okay so we now have 2 populations of dogs, one the big ones and one the small ones. Let’s say we find that due to this difference in size there’s an issue. I’ll be careful in case children are present, but lets say we find the two populations of dogs, can’t physically reproduce with each other. That is they’re genetically the same species of course, but the male dogs just … don’t physically line up with members of the other population. If they did they would of course mate just fine, but they don’t.

Now lets space a mutation occurs in one of the small dogs, lets even say something minor like a new color fur. Will that mutation spread to the large dog population?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

If events are random in part then outcomes are random in whole. If one variable in the formula is significant and cannot be fixed with coefficient or exponent then the calculation is unpredictable.

There is not enough time in the age of the universe to achieve the kinds of beneficial mutations required to match the claims made. But even still, blind, random, mindless mutations cannot result in sophisticated function that indicates the role of intelligent design.
Random outputs, as you describe, will not produce sophisticated functional order.
It can’t even be shown in a computer simulation where the environment is stable and controlled.

 

[rossum]

Lenski tried at least:

You have the wrong Lenski experiment. As I have said, you need to learn more about the subject first.

You can’t even demonstrate bacteria to eukaryotes.

And you cannot demonstrate any deity creating a eukaryote. You demand evidence, but have none yourself. Science has evidence yet you refuse to accept it.

There is plenty of water, but you appear to be afraid to drink it because it might conflict with your narrow interpretation of scripture.

 

[rossum]

If events are random in part then outcomes are random in whole.

No. Gravity is not random. You are not making a lot of sense here. If I pass a random, or partly random, (name removed by moderator)ut through a filter then the output is not random.

• (name removed by moderator)ut: random numbers.
• Filter: only pass odd numbers between 1000 and 2000.
• Output: odd numbers in the specified range.

Any good statistical analysis, such as the Diehard tests, will tell you that the output is not random. Certainly nowhere near as random as the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

You have the wrong Lenski experiment.

There is no right one. No bacteria to eukaryote. You know this and admit it. Lenski observed what happened to bacteria over the equivalent of a million years. No eukaryotes.

And you cannot demonstrate any deity creating a eukaryote.

I accept that I am correct. Evolution cannot demonstrate even a very minor part of it’s claim. You affirm this, and turn the tables against God.

But as before, Rossum – you’ve spent years on CAF arguing about evolution. You never seem to take much interest in the teachings of Christ, the life of Jesus, the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, what is required for salvation and a happy death and judgement.
Instead, your passion (obsession?) is evolution.
I don’t understand that, except for an atheistic world view, it’s the only creation-story one has to work with.
To understand who you are, you look to evolution as your source of being.
But why not look at the teachings of Jesus?
Have you read the Gospels? Why do you reject those testimonies of miracles - spiritual and physical.
Have you read the lives of the Catholic Saints? Why do you reject their testimonies?

 

[o_mlly]

• (name removed by moderator)ut: random numbers.
• Filter: only pass odd numbers between 1000 and 2000.
• Output: odd numbers in the specified range.

No, not quite. Forget the random number (name removed by moderator)ut and apply the fixed filter to any (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Rau]

Wherever you choose to draw the line, you’ll have to separate parents and their off spring.

Species are identified looking backwards at widely spaced intervals. A new born and the predecessor many generations past may be of a different species. Assigning a species identification is not as clear cut as you might envision.

 

[rossum]

Forget the random number (name removed by moderator)ut and apply the fixed filter to any (name removed by moderator)ut.

The filter is fixed: “Have more fertile offspring than average for the population.”

 

[rossum]

No bacteria to eukaryote.

Like I said, you have the wrong Lenski experiment. The data I gave was not from the long term E-coli experiment, but from a different experiment, “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features”. Is this another indication that you did not bother to click on the link I gave earlier to the Line of Descent from that experiment?

You ask questions but cannot be bothered to look at the answers you are given. That is not a good attitude to have if you want to do well in a discussion.

You never seem to take much interest in the teachings of Christ, the life of Jesus, the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, what is required for salvation and a happy death and judgement.

I am Buddhist, so my religious interests lie elsewhere. The Abrahamic God kills far to many people to be a good example for a Buddhist to follow.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The Abrahamic God kills far to many people to be a good example for a Buddhist to follow.

How many people did He kill?

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

The Abrahamic God kills far to many people to be a good example for a Buddhist to follow.

How many people did He kill?

I think I read that it was the whole planet.

If I was a biology teacher and was teaching evolution I would get my students to read this thread and pick the ten most common mistakes people make when they try to deny evolution and then write a short paragraph correcting it.

Actually, I would have to limit it to ten.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I think I read that it was the whole planet.

Good to know you believe that story. A lot of people do not.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think I read that it was the whole planet.

Good to know you believe that story. A lot of people do not.

You can include me as well, Bill.

May I ask how old you think the planet is? I generally poke around for this answer when discussing evolution with someone new as it saves everyone a lot of time down the track.

 

[Noose001]

Okay so we now have 2 populations of dogs, one the big ones and one the small ones. Let’s say we find that due to this difference in size there’s an issue. I’ll be careful in case children are present, but lets say we find the two populations of dogs, can’t physically reproduce with each other. That is they’re genetically the same species of course, but the male dogs just … don’t physically line up with members of the other population. If they did they would of course mate just fine, but they don’t.

Now lets space a mutation occurs in one of the small dogs, lets even say something minor like a new color fur. Will that mutation spread to the large dog population?

It is never about mutations but gene dominance.

It is impossible to find significantly varied populations within the same species in nature.
If genes that code for small dogs are co-dominant with genes that code for the big dogs, then the mixture will produce medium sized dogs. If the small dog genes are recessive (only expressed in homozygous state), the frequency will be very low which means the small dog population will naturally die out. There won’t be any small dog population at any given moment.

Your proposal can only work with artificial selection.

 

[Noose001]

Species are identified looking backwards at widely spaced intervals. A new born and the predecessor many generations past may be of a different species. Assigning a species identification is not as clear cut as you might envision.

That’s the evolution cop out, meanwhile in Taxonomy and other proven sciences, a species is clearly identifiable with very clear boundaries never to be crossed.

Let’s have a look at these generations:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7…50,51,52,53…1001,1002,1003,1004.

If it is true that parents will always be of the same species as their offspring, then generation 1004 and generation 1 are the same species. If gen’ 1001 is a different species from gen’ 53 because of accumulated variations, then gen’ 54 -1000 are neither of the same species as 1001 or 53, what species are they?

A line will be drawn either way and when it is drawn, a parent will lose its young ones to a different species. That’s how funny the theory is.

 

[rossum]

How many people did He kill?

The entire population of the earth less eight (or at least the entire population of a large area of the Middle East) in a flood. Entire tribes: women, children, babies and the unborn included. Entire cities: women, children, babies and the unborn included. Children torn apart by bears for teasing an old man. The Abrahamic God has a great deal of blood on His hands, some of it innocent – all those babies and unborn.

Now tell me how many people the Buddha killed.

 

[Noose001]

The entire population of the earth less eight (or at least the entire population of a large area of the Middle East) in a flood. Entire tribes: women, children, babies and the unborn included. Entire cities: women, children, babies and the unborn included. Children torn apart by bears for teasing an old man. The Abrahamic God has a great deal of blood on His hands, some of it innocent – all those babies and unborn.

Now tell me how many people the Buddha killed.

Budha doesn’t exist, only beings that exist exercise authority and power. Destruction is well within exercise of dominion. Humans do that every day with regard to harmful microbes.

Another example; Currently locusts, young and aged plus their eggs are being fumigated by men just because we have dominion over them. It would be funny to think we are killing our distant cousins.

 

[Rau]

a species is clearly identifiable with very clear boundaries never to be crossed.

Where did you get this idea? Did you know that some argue Neanderthal man is just a subspecies. The definition of “species” is not as cut and dried as you might think. When asexual reproduction is involved, the usual definition (capacity to interbreed) fails. Then there are hybrids.

Most commonly we think of speciation occurring when populations become physically separated in different environments. The ordinary processes of mutation and natural selection see the pool of animals (and genes) in an environment shift. Speciation is about how the separated pools of animals compare over long time periods, not the incremental differences between mum/dad and the kids.

And remember, while differences in life forms are real and tangible, the notion of species is a human invention.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter a lot how you feel about the current theories that propose how the range of life forms emerged on earth. If you prefer to view the departure of dinosaurs, the emergence of mammals, etc etc as particular deliberate acts of God at time points in our history - that’s fine. Or if you can imagine that God’s plan plays out through some biological processes (perhaps indistinguishable from random change filtered by natural selection), that fine too.