Question for evolutionists

Into the Night said:
Okay. You want to undefine the word. You are the one using it. Define 'mutation'. Until you do, I'll consider it a meaningless buzzword from you.
Click to expand...

So if you cannot/will not define your understanding of a word/term we're both using in an argument, I am attempting to undefine the word?

Pffffffffffffffffffffft.
 
Into the Night said:
The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth by a series of random unspecified events. That means life originated from non-biological materials, dude. Dead matter.
Click to expand...

Would you care to attempt to tie that to evolution and Darwin? Thanks in advance. Please work in a treatment on circulatory systems.
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one ever learned more about the inner workings of any god, they merely became more delusional as they delved ever more deeply into self-perpetuational positive feedback loop group think.
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. That's what socialism does. End of digression. If you want to talk about this, take it to another thread.
Click to expand...

Socialism subsidizes our Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class and bails them out from their own transgressions, it is only off limits for the unsubstantial people in america.
 
Into the Night said:
The Theory of Natural Selection 'selects' by need. Selecting a particular variance and letting the others die off is NOT random variance. It is SELECTED variance. Nothing survives but the variance because the variance is what is 'needed'.

It is not random. It is stacking the deck!
Click to expand...

No. Natural selection has nothing to do with "need", "need" is an anthropomorphic concept, like the concept of a male dominator god with the whole wide world in his hands, in his hands, in his hands ....
 
Last edited:
Fentoine Lum said:
Definitely an open system, already provided the zealot with a link on that he ignored. Had to.
Click to expand...

LOLOL.. You'd think at some point they would check the facts instead of getting their butts whipped.


English naturalist 1809–1882

Charles Darwin was the founder of modern evolutionary thought, and the developer, along with Alfred Russel Wallace, of the theory that natural selection is a principle driving force in evolution.

Darwin is generally recognized as the single greatest thinker in the history of biology, whose contributions provided the basis for understanding the immense diversity that characterizes the natural world.


Darwin was born February 12, 1809, into a wealthy English family. A lifelong interest in natural history led him to embark, at age twenty-two, on a five-year voyage to South America aboard the HMS Beagle as the ship's naturalist. Darwin collected a wealth of specimens and made observations of both living species and fossils he encountered. Darwin was particularly struck by similarities he observed between the species found on the Galapagos Islands off the western coast of South America, and species of the mainland.

He also noted differences and similarities among species found on the numerous islands of the Galapagos. The evidence suggested each species had not been independently formed by the Creator, but rather had diverged from a smaller group of common ancestors.



Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/Co-Dn/Darwin-Charles.html#ixzz5aRZrLIrs
 
kudzu said:
LOLOL.. You'd think at some point they would check the facts instead of getting their butts whipped.


English naturalist 1809–1882

Charles Darwin was the founder of modern evolutionary thought, and the developer, along with Alfred Russel Wallace, of the theory that natural selection is a principle driving force in evolution.

Darwin is generally recognized as the single greatest thinker in the history of biology, whose contributions provided the basis for understanding the immense diversity that characterizes the natural world.


Darwin was born February 12, 1809, into a wealthy English family. A lifelong interest in natural history led him to embark, at age twenty-two, on a five-year voyage to South America aboard the HMS Beagle as the ship's naturalist. Darwin collected a wealth of specimens and made observations of both living species and fossils he encountered. Darwin was particularly struck by similarities he observed between the species found on the Galapagos Islands off the western coast of South America, and species of the mainland.

He also noted differences and similarities among species found on the numerous islands of the Galapagos. The evidence suggested each species had not been independently formed by the Creator, but rather had diverged from a smaller group of common ancestors.



Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/Co-Dn/Darwin-Charles.html#ixzz5aRZrLIrs
Click to expand...

Sounds scary, look away!!!!!
 
Ralph said:
Luck in BULIDING A HOUSE (truth) void of a foundation for it to stand on. :laugh: And to claim that evolution and its tenants does not depend upon the false premise of abiogenesis is somewhat of a blatant lie according to your own peers.

You see there is actually no DEBATE about FACTS.....as evolution has never been proven a fact of science....if it has present your experiment as verified by the Scientific Process. What you are engaging is a debate between views or OPINIONS....no facts concerning faith, science or superstition. Looking at the same evidence (actual scientific evidence) there are two conflicting opinions. The only method of coming to the truth is through the application of prima facie evidence based upon reason and logic.

Both positions require FAITH (your faith is the false premise that you can construct a truth void of a firm foundation of a basic tenant.....in order to evolve, LIFE FIRST MUST APPEAR....an act you dismiss because you are basically saying, "HOW THE HELL DO I KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN?"....that is your own stated position....life does not require a birth....natural or supernatural...it JUST IS ;) now if that is not FAITH BASED what is?

Why do you not want to debate the basic tenants of naturalism/evolution? That's easy.....you can't defend those tenants. Tenants such as the BIG BANG which states that the universe, space, time etc., was created from an energy source that must have been eternal.....an impossibility considering the Universe can be measured expanding and exhausting energy and will at some point in the future DIE. How can something that is eternal die? Your basic tenant of naturalism denies the science of the law of conservation of energy. You lose on the debate, simple (thus you attempt to ignore this foundation of sand)

Conclusion on point number one Creation of the known Universe: You as a naturalist/evolutionist cannot explain the origins of the this reality in a scientific manner with your only conclusion....everything come from nothing or how the universe started as some infinitesimal point of energy....source incomprehensible. But....in order to promote the building of your false premise house of truth....you must accept some BS theory as truth. Now that is FAITH BASED not FACT BASED.

Now consider point number 2 and how you attempted to flippantly dismiss the fact that LIFE FIRST REQUIRES A BIRTH/CREATION before it can evolve....in fact according to your own theory....pre/life must have evolved to the point of it having the capacity to morph dead matter into biological life.

Has science ever recorded LIFE evolving from dead matter? Its never been observed in the entire history of mankind.....if it happened before why are the animals not changing today? If man came from monkey's why are there still monkey's on earth.....are these the one's too stupid to evolve and relegated to ridding the short bus?


As far as Abiogenesis not being of some import to the theory of evolution, that's not what Charles Darwin had to say about DARWINIAN EVOLUTION and MACROEVOLUTION....he stated very clearly that his theory had Molecules evolving into MEN. Your position? Since science has not proven that LIFE cannot come dead matter....lets skip it until science proves it can...because the house I am building on sand is beginning to look good....besides who looks at foundation. But the fact is.....Science has proven that Life can come only from existing life....ask Louis Pasteur.


Next. Find us an example of one type of biological life changing into another type of biological lifeform (in a macro manner...….a dog into a horse, a fish into a bird....a monkey into a man). What you will do is find some lame experiment and begin talking about the necessary science (that has been confirmed ) concerning MIRCO-EVOLUTION (which is confirmed in scriptures). If there was no such thing as mirco-evolution ….the built in capacity of any life form to adapt to its surroundings (within the same species) as predetermined by its DNA markers (not mutations which take away from viable life...not add to it) Mankind would have ceased to exist the first time he came into contract with the common cold virus.


Go ahead.....show us a scientifically verified example of MACROEVOLUTION....I.E., ONE LIFE FORM CHANGING INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIFE FORM. Proceed.




Finally: This is YOUR POSITION. YOU SAY YOU DO NOT REQUIRE THE BIG BANG OR ABIOGENESIS to believe in evolution. THEN YOU ARE BASICALLY saying the you accept CREATIONISM as the only plausible answer because SCIENCE OR NATURE dont have an answer.



Next.
Click to expand...

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................


The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.

The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.

More simply put, the theory can be described as "descent with modification," said Briana Pobiner, an anthropologist and educator at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who specializes in the study of human origins.

The theory is sometimes described as "survival of the fittest," but that can be misleading, Pobiner said. Here, "fitness" refers not to an organism's strength or athletic ability, but rather the ability to survive and reproduce.

For example, a study on human evolution on 1,900 students, published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in October 2017, found that many people may have trouble finding a mate because of rapidly changing social technological advances that are evolving faster than humans. "Nearly 1 in 2 individuals faces considerable difficulties in the domain of mating," said lead study author Menelaos Apostolou, an associate professor of social sciences at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus. "In most cases, these difficulties are not due to something wrong or broken, but due to people living in an environment which is very different from the environment they evolved to function in." [If You Suck at Dating, It's Not You — It's Evolution]

Origin of whales

In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.
Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal. Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.

The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution's most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.

Natural selection

To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.

Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.
Darwin also described a form of natural selection that depends on an organism's success at attracting a mate, a process known as sexual selection. The colorful plumage of peacocks and the antlers of male deer are both examples of traits that evolved under this type of selection.

But Darwin wasn't the first or only scientist to develop a theory of evolution. The French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck came up with the idea that an organism could pass on traits to its offspring, though he was wrong about some of the details. Around the same time as Darwin, British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Modern understanding

Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, Pobiner said. "He observed the pattern of evolution, but he didn't really know about the mechanism." That came later, with the discovery of how genes encode different biological or behavioral traits, and how genes are passed down from parents to offspring. The incorporation of genetics and Darwin's theory is known as "modern evolutionary synthesis."
The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations. "Mutations are basically the raw material on which evolution acts," Pobiner said.

Mutations can be caused by random errors in DNA replication or repair, or by chemical or radiation damage. Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral, but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism. If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population.
In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random," Pobiner said.

But natural selection isn't the only mechanism by which organisms evolve, she said. For example, genes can be transferred from one population to another when organisms migrate or immigrate, a process known as gene flow. And the frequency of certain genes can also change at random, which is called genetic drift.

A wealth of evidence

Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

The critical piece of evidence came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means "swimming-walking whale." Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming, but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal.

When it swam, the ancient creature moved like an otter, pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its spine and tail.

Modern whales propel themselves through the water with powerful beats of their horizontal tail flukes, but Ambulocetus still had a whip-like tail and had to use its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water.

In recent years, more and more of these transitional species, or "missing links," have been discovered, lending further support to Darwin's theory, Richmond said.
Fossil "links" have also been found to support human evolution. In early 2018, a fossilized jaw and teeth found that are estimated to be up to 194,000 years old, making them at least 50,000 years older than modern human fossils previously found outside Africa. This finding provides another clue to how humans have evolved.

Controversy

Despite the wealth of evidence from the fossil record, genetics and other fields of science, some people still question its validity. Some politicians and religious leaders denounce the theory of evolution, invoking a higher being as a designer to explain the complex world of living things, especially humans.

School boards debate whether the theory of evolution should be taught alongside other ideas, such as intelligent design or creationism.

Mainstream scientists see no controversy. "A lot of people have deep religious beliefs and also accept evolution," Pobiner said, adding, "there can be real reconciliation."

Evolution is well supported by many examples of changes in various species leading to the diversity of life seen today. "If someone could really demonstrate a better explanation than evolution and natural selection, [that person] would be the new Darwin," Richmond said.
Click to expand...

https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top