Question for evolutionists

[Into the Night]

You would have to read the posts.

I did. You were presenting no arguments. Just throwing insults and redirections.

Many mutations are "caught" and corrected by normal cellular processes in real time upon replication. On occasion a mutation may have both advantageous and disadvantageous outcomes simultaneously. Sickle Cell Disease for example. It is a one base mutation in the DNA sequence (recall that 3 bases code for one amino acid during translation) which results in the "wrong" amino acid being ultimately incorporated into the peptide (or protein, enzyme, coenzyme, etc.) during translation.

This mutational adaptation has evolved among the black population not of all of Africa, but of West Africa, where the mutation, detrimental as it is, confers immunity to the malaria prevalent there, thus natural selection has allowed it to persist in this population due to the phenotypically displayed immunity to malaria.

Finally an argument from you.

Yes, it has been observed that many mutations are corrected in this way. Your example of Sickle Cell disease mentions natural selection 'allowing' it to exist, as if it had some kind of intelligence. There is no 'natural selection' acting as an intelligence.

Sickle Cell is a variance (what you would call a 'mutation'?) among those of African heritage (they don't even have to have black skin!). Natural Selection has nothing to do with it.

 

[Into the Night]

So you can't? You're arguing about mutations and you don't know what they actually are? I know, been reading your posts on evolution.



Looks like we're both using it.

Indeed. Yet you have undefined the word. I will consider your use of it a buzzword fallacy until you define the word. As for me, I define a 'mutation' as a variance of an organism passed genetically. Do you agree to this definition?

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah we're done, you don't know shit about molecular biology or evolution.

Quitter. Want to go back to just insulting people, eh?

You don't even know the difference between evolution and cross breeding.

None.

Gregor Mendel's traits of inheritance work is grade school school curricula material.

Did you know that covers cross breeding?

 

[Into the Night]

You rather clearly have a belief system you feel is threatened.

I have a belief system, just like everybody else. It is not threatened at all.

 

[Into the Night]

You haven't described anything, you simply chose to call closed systems "complete", and that is all.

Pay attention. I was specifically referring to open circulatory systems in my response.

 

[Into the Night]

no, because they all died leaving no issue.....

Can you name a fossil of such an organism?

 

[Into the Night]

I shell not be contradicted......

You are in a public forum. You will be contradicted.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Not at all. Science does not disprove the Bible or anything about the existence of any god or gods. Non-sequitur.

Science is agnostic. It cares not for any religion. It doesn't try to prove or disprove any religion.

Science exists solely to understand and explain, and sometimes also to predict.

 

[Into the Night]

There are a wide variety of circulatory systems in various animals in nature with varying degrees of complexity, and different kinds of conduits for oxygen. Read up on this. Don't just find something you don't understand, and be like aha, God!

Non-sequitur. He was not arguing about any god or gods. He simply stated that both blood and the circulatory system for it occurred at the same time, or were created at the same time. That is not an argument about any god or gods.

 

[Damocles]

Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.

It doesn't take long to use google...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It doesn't take long to use google...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/

Shhh. We don't want to disturb the deeply-ingrained belief system by introducing facts.

 

[Into the Night]

So when you dismiss every book, lecture, etc as mere opinion, that was you doing your argument of the stone thing, right?

Nope. I am not dismissing their arguments. I am merely saying they are nothing more than arguments. They are not Universal Truth or even correct at all simply by virtue of being bound in a book or put up on a website.

Philosophy has basically only one rule. No outside references. You must present not only your conclusion, but the reasoning for that conclusion as well. That reasoning must come from you. It cannot come from any other. This is the very nature of debate.
Things like books, websites, etc. are external to the argument. If you use them, they can only be used to support YOUR argument and YOUR reasoning for it. You can't just replace YOUR argument or YOUR reasoning for it by pointing to someone else's argument.

I am curious who you think you’re conversing with on the Internet. How many people here are quoting their own independent research?

On this forum? A few. Typical of forums like this. Too few. It is a number greater than zero, however. I find such people on every forum I visit.

I’m pretty well read in this subject and pretty good at remembering what I read, so yeah, I could spend an hour typing out what I recall about the research on evolution of circulatory systems. But all I’d be doing is citing the research, and you’ve already dismissed all of that as mere opinion. It is not the subject of any professional work I have done myself. So I guess by your (frankly nonsense) debate rules, I can’t say anything, because the experts aren’t here to say it instead.

Void argument fallacy. You are not saying anything.

But I doubt you’re an expert on anything.

Insult fallacy. You don't know what my credentials, licenses, or certifications are. Neither do I depend on them to make my arguments. Claims of such credentials are useless on blind forums such as this one.

you’ve misdefined a few fallacies just now.

None.

So I’m just going to dismiss you as spouting nothing but opinions and doing your stone thing.

Bulverism fallacy.

what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

False equivalence fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

"Evolutionist" is not a word or a person.

Actually, it is both. It is one that believes in the Theory of Evolution, which states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'.

The understanding of evolution means acknowledging that it is the biological engine that drives the existence of carbon-based life on this planet. It is not a religion or a belief system.

It is both. It is not a theory of science.

Many organisms don't possess a circulatory system consisting of a pump and tubing and fluid that flows through. Even unicellular organisms circulate fluids throughout their "bodies," as they receive nutrients and expel wastes.

Nobody is claiming that is a requirement at all. Strawman.

You might want to consider taking a basic Bio 101 class at your local community college. You might find it both enlightening and endlessly amazing!

Non-sequitur. Biology has nothing to do with evolution or the Theory of Evolution. It developed independently of both.

 

[Into the Night]

What good advice. I discovered that the more I've learned about the inner workings of the Universe, the more amazed and enthralled I've become. I expect that for someone who is truly devout, it would just make you admire your god all the more.

I think you will find that the more people learn about the inner workings of their god they are more amazed and enthralled just the same. Indeed, you noted this yourself right here in your post.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, succinctly stated. Unfortunately, this theory has been falsified.

Sure it has. Please explain then how it’s being used almost every day by biologist, physicians, pharmocologist, biophysicist, agronomist and virtually all the applied life sciences and remains a foundational concept needed to undertall of biology?

 

[/MSG/]

Then it is not random.

Yes. It. Is.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I think you will find that the more people learn about the inner workings of their god they are more amazed and enthralled just the same. Indeed, you noted this yourself right here in your post.

Your assumption is that I have a god. Oops.

You're arguing for argument's sake. Not interested, but thanks for the words.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How do you reconcile natural selection allowing random mutations in the first place? Natural selection tends to NOT allow random mutations, yet you have to have random mutations for natural selection to select from. Paradox.

Because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic mutations occurring. It has to do with those mutations being reproduced. The mutation is either advantageous and is selected or it is not. Genetic mutations exist independently of evolutionary forces but are the primary mechanism by which natural selection works guided by the law of inheritance, law of variation and law of super fecundity.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yes. It. Is.

You're correct. Mutations are random and are the results of encounters with environmental factors like cosmic or earth-based radiation, exposure to chemicals in the environment, and mistranscriptions, among others. There is no "Finger of God" causing these things.

 

[Into the Night]

Science exists solely to understand and explain, and sometimes also to predict.

A theory is an explanatory argument, including nonscientific theories. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, so science does explain.

Science is incapable of prediction. It can only describe, not predict. This is because science is an open functional system. There are no proofs. There is no power of prediction inherent in such systems.

Theories of science must turn to a closed functional system, such as mathematics or logic. Only in closed functional systems there is the formal proof. With is comes the power of prediction. Transcribing a theory of science into a closed functional system is called 'formalizing' a theory. The result is an equation, called a 'law'. It is this equation that gives that theory the power of prediction, for mathematics exists only within the closed boundaries set by its founding axioms, and the proofs extending from those axioms.

Like a game, mathematics has a set of rules called 'axioms' that define that game. Break those rules, and you are no longer playing that game. You are playing a different game, with different rules. Mathematics is literally bound by these founding axioms.

Logic is also a closed functional system, just like mathematics. A theory of science can be formalized into logic as well to gain it's power of prediction. This is much more rare. Physics tend to formalize into mathematics.