Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Ender]

Are the top “Evos” highly religious or are they, as Glark says, all atheists?

I would really like to get away from this argument. It really doesn’t matter what a person believes; all that matters is whether the arguments being made are reasonable. If an atheist argues for Darwinism solely because it reinforces his “God does not exist” beliefs; I don’t care. Either the arguments he uses to support his position are valid or they aren’t; his reasons for proposing them are simply irrelevant.

 

[Metis1]

Darwinian evolution is a bottom-up phenomenon; genetic changes produce new organisms. It was Lamarck who proposed the alternative possibility that environmental pressures on the organism could effect genetic changes.

There are environmental changes through natural selection but there’s no evidence that I’m aware of that links environmental pressures beyond what can happen through a possible environmental effect on mutation. Again, there’s natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift, and my reading doesn’t suggest that there’s anything beyond that as far as the basic causes of evolution. If you have a link, not to Lamarck but to newer research, I’d appreciate that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t doubt that such structures can evolve that rapidly, but that this has been shown does not at all show that Darwinism (random mutations over lots of time) actually accounts for it.

There is nothing else that could account for it other than divine intervention. And when we start positing divine intervention for things we don’t understand, we give up on science.

Two problems here: again, rapid change is not a characteristic of Darwinian evolution, and, if the changes are truly random, how can one explain how the second iteration of flagella ended up just like the first

1st: Darwinian evolution does not require absolutely uniform rates of change.
2nd: As I said earlier, perhaps they didn’t remove all the relevant sequences, so of course it would appear in the same form.

 

[Ender]

You might try this. It was a talk given at a meeting of the Royal Society in November of last year.

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives

The down side of this is that they are all simply audio recordings of the presentations, but the one I listened to was the first talk of Session 4 by Professor Denis Noble.

Other papers and comments by Noble (I use him as my reference because I’m just not familiar with who’s doing what in this field, I know about him, and his credentials are impeccable) are here, and here.

I think I would start with the last reference first. If you listen to the audio presentation, pay particular attention at minute 33. That’s where he states that organisms show “..a response to the environment that produces an acquired characteristic which is inherited. That is the original definition of one form of Lamarckism.”

I haven’t read the second reference yet. I put it in simply because I ran into it and it seemed to raise interesting questions.

 

[Metis1]

I haven’t read the second reference yet. I put it in simply because I ran into it and it seemed to raise interesting questions.

Thanks for the links and I did check them out as well as checking Noble at Wiki whereas the word “controversial” is used. However, I’m not saying or implying he’s wrong as genetics is simply not my area of specialization.

Again, thanks.

 

[edwest211]

That’s my observation. The starting premise is incorrect and is simply repeated to those who come after. Since it is atheistic, it appears that is the primary purpose to keep the idea going.

 

[Ender]

There is nothing else that could account for it other than divine intervention. And when we start positing divine intervention for things we don’t understand, we give up on science.

This is the only alternative according to you, but since I have never brought up the subject of divine guidance it is best to wait until I do before you comment on it.

In fact my whole argument here is that there is another way, which is precisely what is being explored by many evolutionists today. Specifically, it is a form of evolution first proposed by Lamarck; and it is fundamentally different than the process proposed by Darwin.

1st: Darwinian evolution does not require absolutely uniform rates of change.

Of course it doesn’t, nor has that been suggested. What it does require are considerable amounts of time, however variable they may be.

2nd: As I said earlier, perhaps they didn’t remove all the relevant sequences, so of course it would appear in the same form.

And if they didn’t screw up the experiment, and it is as they said, what would that mean to Darwinism? Is it irrelevant? Is it Earth shaking?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And if they didn’t screw up the experiment, and it is as they said, what would that mean to Darwinism? Is it irrelevant? Is it Earth shaking?

Let’s verify that they didn’t “screw it up” before speculating about what it would mean.

 

[rossum]

Programming implies a programmer.

Now all you have to do is to show that it is actually programming rather than just chemistry. Alternatively you could provide independent evidence of your programmer.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Matter evolves into what? Matter always remains matter. Life on earth from a materialist perspective is an infinitely complex matrix of electrochemical events.

The standard theory of evolution is based on random mutation and natural selection. So getting a dose of X-rays should be like buying your to-be-born kids a lottery ticket.

 

[rossum]

I don’t doubt that such structures can evolve that rapidly, but that this has been shown does not at all show that Darwinism (random mutations over lots of time) actually accounts for it.

It has been shown, and by Darwinian mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. See Line of Descent from Lenski (2003).

Two problems here: again, rapid change is not a characteristic of Darwinian evolution, and, if the changes are truly random, how can one explain how the second iteration of flagella ended up just like the first? (That last is an assumption on my part; I’m not that familiar with the details of the experiment.)

Nor am I familiar with the details, that is why I asked for the reference. In science a request for the reference is always admissible. The absence of a reference is often an indication of the use of a secondary source, which means that data has been filtered through a journalist or similar. Secondary sources, and assumptions, are to be avoided if possible.

You asked about the reference to the research paper (reasonable), but I’ll ask why? Does it essentially matter?

No, unless you are going to claim that it falsifies evolution. Absent that claim then the details are unimportant. If you wish to use it as a “gotcha” against evolution then I will need the reference to check that any secondary source is not misusing/misunderstanding the original research.

rossum

 

[Metis1]

Matter evolves into what? Matter always remains matter. Life on earth from a materialist perspective is an infinitely complex matrix of electrochemical events.

Matter itself is not a static entity, and your second sentence above answers your first sentence.

 

[Aloysium]

@ Metis

I don’t see life and matter as synonymous. Matter is subsumed within a living form which is something different than those substances that remain when it dies and decomposes. The physiology is the physical manifestation of a living organism which is a form of being in itself.

The two pillars of random mutation and natural selection are valid only in the case of genetic disorder. As we contemplate such matters, the neurons that make up our brain are, in purely electrochemical terms, depolarizing in a random fashion. There is an actual order to them which can be understood when we compare the events in that dimension of the unity of the person, to what occurs in the dimension we refer to as mind. Similarly, there exists an order to creation, determined by the Word of God, which science will discover once it lets go of the invalid foundations of evolutionary theory.

 

[edwest211]

That’s right. Assuming anything happened is just that, assuming. The odds for winning a lottery are better.

 

[Aloysium]

Programming is a more comprehensive way to understand the same phenomenon, which we have narrowed down when imagining it as matter undergoing the interactions that define it.

 

[Aloysium]

The odds of getting an X-Man, super mutant are zero. We did not come to be as a result of glitches in a system that simply formed itself by chance.

 

[edwest211]

"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

"Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[buffalo]

Do you deny the DNA code?

 

[Rau]

Absolutely they are seeing design

So if I accept Glark’s assessment that most are atheists, what designer do they defer to?

 

[buffalo]

Dawkins suggested aliens, but those aliens must have evolved.