Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Techno2000

Guest
What was the environmental catalyst that triggered random mutations to produce the beautiful fragrance of the Rose?
 
Maybe the bees became more demanding and wanted more fragrant flowers?
 
And the bees became more demanding were triggered by random mutataions due to the flowers becoming more fragrant.
 
Or maybe random mutations knew man would come along one day and really like that smell ?
 
Last edited:
Why has evolution slowed down?

Why is this thread only 4.1 not 5.0?
 
buffalo said:
Predictions in Biology
ID predicts … [etc.]
Click to expand...
Most of your predictions are observations, not predictions. Even so, your list does not seem to distinguish ID from evolution. Is there anything ID observes or predicts that Evolution doesn’t?

Irreducible complexity is the only one I can find, which has so far not been convincingly demonstrated. This is hardly surprising, as it demands ‘proof of a negative’, which is, of course, very difficult to do, so we can’t blame it for that.

As I understand it, the crucial differences do not lie in any of your predictions or observations. One is that Evolution holds that all organisms on earth today are descended from one single ‘kind’, whereas ID holds that all organisms on earth today are descended from several thousand distinct ‘kinds’ which are not hereditarily related. Am I correct?

That being so, the strength of each theory lie in the evidence within current biology, and from fossil biology, relating to the common descent, or otherwise, of all living things. In my opinion an evolutionary explanation fits the evidence better.

From current biology, many of your ‘predictions’ seem to relate to similarities between organisms, which to my mind favour common descent over separate descent. To me, a simple comparison of the genetic similarities (and differences) between apples, mushrooms, amoebas and elephants fits one common hereditary explanation better than many separate ones. The ID response is usually that God used similar templates to produce all the different ‘kinds’, but this in itself helps support, rather than weaken, an evolutionary hypothesis.

From fossil biology, we find that all the different ‘kinds’ appeared at widely different times over the last billion years or two, in stages which again, to me, suggest a common hereditary relationship better than several different ones.

Supporters of ID usually respond with the idea that God could have done this or could have done that, all of which prompts more questions of ‘why’? Evolution provides reasonable explanations for the observed phenomena (which is what science is), while ID only generates more questions and additional complications.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
What was the environmental catalyst that triggered random mutations to produce the beautiful fragrance of the Rose?
Click to expand...
The environmental catalyst producing the rose was entirely human. The rose as depicted is the result of selective breeding with a full body, deep colour and intense scent as desired outcomes. It has nothing to do with environmental pressures in its ‘natural’ habitat. Those garden plants which have been transplanted fully formed from discoveries elsewhere have usually developed under the stress of competition for insect attention, and the retention of that attention once achieved.
 
Exactly. This isn’t an example of creation but the sorts of transformations we see in different kinds of animals over time and in different areas of the world. Some of it is adaptive, most simply an artistic expression of ultimately Divine will, some of it designed, some a serendipitous surprise. So even a term adaptation, let alone evolution is inappropriate. What we have are psychological factors, a sort of design or better yet, a quest for beauty driving the diversity in flowers. There is nothing utilitarian about it except for a reductionistic perspective that sees human behaviour as purely a physical event and the consequent elimination of all other types of roses as a form of natural selection. Reality is much more complex and spectacular.
 
Last edited:
CD45 said:
Pretty much anybody who continues to post on this thread. Why don’t you switch topics for awhile? Like debating if the world 🌎 is flat?
Click to expand...
Stay a while, you might learn something. Regardless, you might want to reflect of what it is that prompted your post. There is a certain lack of humility inherent in the implication that you have some sort of insight into the truth of things that reveals the pointlessness of this activity. What would be time better spent is clearly not the acquisition of more possessions, fame, power or pleasures that are gone in a moment. This could qualify as a way to serve others. If we are so ignorant, perhaps you can act as a light to show us the way out of the darkness. But essentially this discussion is about the creation of the world and of what constitutes truth. God being the Truth and our Creator, one’s contributions can act as a form of prayer.
 
Last edited:
CD45 said:
Pretty much anybody who continues to post on this thread. Why don’t you switch topics for awhile? Like debating if the world 🌎 is flat?
Click to expand...
Ah! Thanks. I wonder what Search Engine bought you here. A quick glimpse at the name of the thread will show you that it is devoted to Evolution. If we want to switch topics, and indeed many of us do, we post comments on one of the hundreds of other threads on this site. If you don’t care to discuss evolution, browse around and see if you find something you like.

The website (again, the clue is in the name) is devoted to particularly Catholic approaches to various topics. The truth of evolution has been a subject of Catholic theological discussion for many years, and is a valid topic on this site. Whether the earth is flat or not is of less dispute, I think (although, as we have seen a little while back, there are some proponents of a geocentric planetary system). I don’t know how to go about starting a thread, but I’m sure you could, if you thought such a discussion would be relevant.
 
Last edited:
Well, most of us do know what it means to exist in this century. The fruits of its “knowledge” are everywhere to be seen. Some of them unfortunately are hidden from ourselves by the mythos of the times which justifies certain behaviours detrimental to our salvation. That’s the central issue. I’m not discussing string theory, for although it might not be for me a waste of my God-given intellectual capacity, the consequences of that belief seem negligeable. Evolutionary theory rests on a materialistic vision of existence, which does away with the person as does its focus on the group of organisms rather than on the individual expression of a kind of being. The utilitarian basis of natural selection is counter-intuitive when we gaze upon the wonders and the diversity of unique species in all their various manifestations. These philosophical approaches to life promote consumerist and communistic social organizations, which impact on how we see ourselves and interact with one another. I would surmise that it is a limited vision of what life is and how we got here, fostered by brain-numbing unquestionable indoctrination that brought you to this place where you would stifle such conversations. You appear not to understand the various issues that are involved.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
The rose as depicted is the result of selective breeding with a full body, deep colour and intense scent as desired outcomes.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Rose is the only flower that has a fragrance ?There are probably flower out there with fragrances that man hasn’t even discovered yet.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
The rose as depicted is the result of selective breeding
Click to expand...
I suppose Neanderthal Man was hard at work selectively breeding all these flowers to get them to smell just right.

Scented Primrose
Plumeria
Sweet autumn clematis
Ylang-Ylang (Cananga Odorata)
Nicotiana
Lily of the Valley
Viburnum
Tuberose
Osmanthus fragrans
Mock Orange
Lilac
Brugmansia
Daphne
Night scented stocks
Michelia Champaca
Jasminum Sambac
Stargazer Lily
Honeysuckle
Freesia
Hyacinth
Jasmine
Gardenia
 
In the previous iteration of this thread (4.0) buffalo posted some predictions of ID at post #2011. Here I want to discuss a few of them:
ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
Click to expand...
What property of the ID designer makes it impossible for the designer to design a living system without IC? I accept that a designer can design IC systems; my question here is why the designer must design IC systems, and cannot design a system without using IC at all. What scientific research is there to show this property of the ID designer?
ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
Click to expand...
This is not a prediction about ID or life, it is a prediction about scientific research, and hence of more relevance to the history of science than to biology.
ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
Click to expand...
This prediction has already been falsified. The Apo A-I Milano mutation is a point mutation, with only one mutation required: Arg → Cys. It has a new function of reducing the build up of arterial plaque compared with the unmutated standard Apo A-I.

New protein functions may require one or more mutations. Those mutations may, or may not, be adaptive. My example of Apo A-I Milano was an adaptive single mutation leading to a new function. The HbC mutation is another example of a single adaptive mutation leading to a new function.
ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
Click to expand...
What property of the ID designer makes it impossible for the designer to design a living system without junk DNA? How does this prediction arise from ID? Human designers are certainly capable of adding junk to designs: for example, cryptographers do it to disguise the real length of a message. Why is the ID designer incapable of incorporating junk into his/her/its/their designs?
ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).
Click to expand...
Front loading has been disproved by the Luria-Delbruck and the Lederberg experiments. Random mutations can give the appearance of front loading, but that is just an appearance. If front loading is correct, then ID scientists should be able to analyse a flu virus and pick out the existing front-loading. Knowing what front-loading is present will allow the development of a vaccine that avoids all of the front-loading and is immediately effective. The fact that no commercial company is making big profits off this sort of work shows that this ID prediction is indeed false.

rossum
 
Feel free to use the mute feature and not enter topics that you find pointless in future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top