Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Metis1]

If the evolution of man happen in let’s say Alaska, then man would not have lost its fur?

That probably would be the case.

 

[Metis1]

I can’t believe you ascribed this quote to me!

I take it this was an accident?

I’m new here and it appears I still don’t have the quoting mechanism down pat. Sorry.

 

[Metis1]

It is the “embryo problem”. When embryos experience mutations they usually are deformed (birth defects) or do not survive.

But not all do, and that’s what’s important.

 

[Rau]

Why call it random at all?

Because science finds no other process at work. The theory is a product of science and must fit in the domain of science. Not metaphysics nor theology.

 

[Metis1]

We do not do science by consensus or authority.

It only takes one scientist with a major finding to overturn an entire paradigm.

This is what is happening now.

False on both counts.

As scientists, we work on the backs of those who preceded us even if we strongly disagree with even their main conclusion(s). Also, no one scientist dominates any field-- just ask Steven Hawking about that.

 

[Metis1]

That the Theory of evolution is nonsense is proven every time the X-ray technician leaves the room to turn the switch rather than staying in order to have smarter and stronger kids.

The above appears to be a non-sequitur.

And the ToE is essentially proven every day of the week-- all matter appears to evolve and genes are matter. Or, to put it another way, “everything changes, nothing stays the same”.

 

[Rau]

Darwinism really has no means of explaining this.

I think it very likely there is more going on than young Mr Darwin proposed.

 

[buffalo]

So now deformities are a case for evolution?

 

[buffalo]

On the backs? That is an appeal to authority. If the base assumptions are wrong a whole lot of people are wrong and barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Rau]

The top evos know it and so should you.

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

 

[buffalo]

They are scientists. Many are atheists, but not all. Prediction: when this all settles in there will be some conversions.

 

[Rau]

On the backs? That is an appeal to authority. If the base assumptions are wrong a whole lot of people are wrong and barking up the wrong tree.

An alternative approach is that ALL work must proceed from first principles. Whatever comes around goes around…

 

[Rau]

Many are atheists,

So the top evos are not seeing a designer in the sense you, Glark and others claim is evident ??

 

[Metis1]

So now deformities are a case for evolution?

On the backs? That is an appeal to authority. If the base assumptions are wrong a whole lot of people are wrong and barking up the wrong tree.

We’re done as it seems that all you want to do is argue out of ignorance as to how we do things in the real world of science, not your fairy-tale version.

 

[buffalo]

Absolutely they are seeing design or what Dawkins called the “illusion of design”. Their a priori position is they “cannot let the Divine foot in the door”.

Their god is the god of BUC (bling unguided chance). They have faith in BUC without evidence. Christianity is based on reason, logic and evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Have you even followed one of my references?

When out of arguments always follow Rule #1, attack the poster.

 

[Metis1]

When out of arguments always follow Rule #1, attack the poster.

Your right as I shouldn’t have done that-- sorry.

However, I still have no interest in discussing this with you.

 

[Ender]

Professor Behe has shown that such structures can evolve within 20,000 years. See Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, that is the same professor Behe.

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.

I would need to see the reference to the research paper that published this experiment. Of course, one possible explanation is that it only takes four days to evolve a flagellum from scratch.

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.)

You asked about the reference to the research paper (reasonable), but I’ll ask why? Does it essentially matter? Does it disprove Darwinian evolution if it is true? If it doesn’t matter, if it doesn’t question the essential mechanism of Darwinism then I won’t go to the trouble of searching it out. If it matters, however, if it’s a game changer, then I’ll go find the details.

 

[Metis1]

There really is no such thing as “Darwinism”, plus Darwin did not bat a 1000. The rate of evolution is not quick/slow or “pretty” because there’s numerous variables involved.

 

[Ender]

“Acquired characteristics” can be either the result of inheritance or of a mutation(s). However, even acquired characteristics can still mutate after fertilization.

This evades the problem. 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. That is a fundamentally different mechanism for evolution. The suggestion that Lamarck was right is now being taking seriously after over a century of derisive dismissal.