"Mutations" and "Natural Selection"

[doc benway]

How can anyone be ABSOLUTLY sure, about a theory that is still being developed, and regularly has revisions and changes?

...

I want to see evolution declared a Fact, to shut up all the stupid religions and stupid cults like Falun and its epoch times.

...

 

 

.....

 

I will repeat though, evolution is a fact.

....

 

 

As usual, Cool reply

 

I guess I myself am just highly uncomfortable with absolutes.

I feel great about "Evolution is most likely fact" and "evolution seems to be nearly Totally proven" Which is 'far far far far far squared' ahead of any arguments to the counter.

 

 

From the viewpoint of what has happened evolution can be regarded as fact, the evidence that organisms have evolved is so completely overwhelming that it can be regarded as fact , while how the actual process of evolution works in its precise details is still open to some debate, intelligent design believers like to fill the gaps in the science as evidence of god so they play the age old game of "god of gaps" but every year the gaps get smaller and smaller with each scientific advancement.

 

In science, a theory is much more powerful than a fact. A fact is a single, observable event. A theory is a coherent explanation that has the power to predict future events which is exactly what evolutionary theory does. Science will never declare evolution a fact as it is much more important as a theory.

 

The counter arguments made by creationists (even when they hide behind pseudo-science like ID) are not legitimate theories. They have no rational explanations for explaining or predicting events. They have no predictive power. They have no experimental basis. They are all about making an observation, claiming it cannot be explained by existing theory, and then making a completely gratuitous assertion that is untestable to explain it. Michael Behe himself (the God of ID) has admitted under oath in the Dover trial that by his definition of a scientific theory, Astrology much be considered a science. This is what happens when the rigorous protocols of the scientific method are relaxed as is advocated by Immortal4life in his desire for "progressive science."

 

Is that what we are looking for? A return to Astrology and Witchcraft? I believe that is exactly what the Creationists and those that hide behind ID want because those "progressive sciences" help to support and legitimize a return of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, to the throne of humanity which has been usurped by science and rational thought. They would be right in their argument that science has not solved all of humanity's problems. Rational thought has not abolished crime, inhumanity, and suffering. What they choose not to give equal time to, however, is that neither does religion. Religion in it's most pure form was in total power during the darkest days of humanity (Middle Ages, Inquisition, Holy Wars) and it will never be any different. If anything, religion is even more corrupt and has deviated further from it's core since then so how could it be any better today?

 

Humanity's suffering and failure to defeat inhumanity will never be corrected by religion, government, or even science. It is an internal struggle that manifests itself as an external problem. It is quite simply a result of the illusion that we are separate individuals. True religion can lead us in the right direction, that is - if each of us embarks on a personal, internal examination of ourselves until we reach the truth. Not what Immortal4life and his ilk want - that is, a conversion of everyone to their belief system. If each of us has true faith - NOT belief, then there is real hope. Belief is the fervent hope and desire that an unobservable, unprovable, and untestable idea is truth. Faith is when we have the confidence and courage that if we completely let go and rid ourselves of ALL beliefs, that which remains and we experience personally is truth. Not some religious vision fueled by years of conditioning and indoctrination, but simply and purely what each of us is at our core as we observe it personally. When we work long and hard enough to strip away the layers of the onion and see the truth at the core of ourselves, there is an understanding of love and that is the only thing that can stand up to our inhumanity.

 

Sorry to preach but this subject is very close to my heart.

I love you all - even you, Immortal4life. But you especially have a very long way to go to understand the message your savior was trying to impart. It's been twisted and corrupted by the institution that claims to protect it. You may consider reading or listening to the beautiful works of Anthony Demello - a Jesuit priest and psychologist who was truly enlightened and has the ability to help people see real truth in Christian scripture, if they have the courage to open their eyes and hearts.

[Jetsun]

Nice addition to the discussion Jetsun. And I agree, science does not have all the answers yet. It may never have all the answers. I would think that this should not play any role when considering what is known. I don't have a problem with folks filling the gaps with their belief system. But as I said, to try to negate the facts that already exist is, in my opinion, an error.

 

My best friend in real life is a non-denominational Christian. He has no problem with making science compatible with his religion. And he still believes in all the icons of the Christian religion. Yes, he even believes in miracles.

 

The problem with filling in the gaps is that it stops enquiry and in turn progress which is why many scientists are vehemently against intelligent design as it could have a regressive influence. Some scientists may go a bit too far in their opposition but given the history of how such regressive religious thinking has blocked progress I understand where they are coming from.

[Marblehead]

The problem with filling in the gaps is that it stops enquiry and in turn progress which is why many scientists are vehemently against intelligent design as it could have a regressive influence. Some scientists may go a bit too far in their opposition but given the history of how such regressive religious thinking has blocked progress I understand where they are coming from.

 

Yep. I personally agree with you. But I understand that there are those who need to do this for whatever the reason. Some people just don't want their world shaken up with new knowledge and especially knowledge that contradicts their religious beliefs.

 

And I agree, institutionalized religion has many times restricted societies from gaining new knowledge and making a better life for themselves. This should never again be allowed.

[Immortal4life]

Inherently each scientist will have their own bias which is why the scientific method involves the peer review process to get through before their work gets published, perhaps you are suggesting that in general there is this tunnel vision towards evolution in all nearly all mainstream science but the fact is that the whole scientific process is designed to remove you and your own opinions from the equation and just deal with the evidence at hand.

 

There is no doubt that is the ideal and goal, but the question is does it really eliminate all bias, or does it create it's own new set of biases?

 

You can get bias in interpretation but Scientists love to disprove old theories as it makes them famous and rich so there is nothing rooted within the method which creates a bias towards evolutionary theory, so maybe you should examine your own bias and tunnel thinking around this issue.

 

I don't buy into this idea that scientists are like these mavericks always trying to prove everything wrong and get garaunteed riches lol. Usually what they do, is latch onto someone's previous work and try to add one little original new thing to it, if they even bother attempting to do that much.

 

If you mean to suggest that people believe in science too much so it has become a sort of religion that is true with some people, but that is because the old religions have failed and people need a way to try to understand and make sense of the world so they turn to science to provide answers in some areas where it is not qualified to answer, so there is a sort of vacuum in many peoples lives but the answer isn't old religious thinking as that has failed and is no longer relevant for most people.

 

What is science not "qualified" to answer? The truth is, in some areas, both religion and science are failing.

[Immortal4life]

True what you have said. I have never suggested that we (science) know everything about evolution. But I suggest that there is enough proof to support the statement of the fact.

 

I will repeat though, evolution is a fact.

 

Many years ago Carl Sagan stated "Evolution is a fact." No one has proven him wrong. I have no reason to doubt the truth in what he said.

 

Here's the thing about this....

 

No one denies that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and throughout that time, the lifeforms that appeared on Earth indeed changed over that time. Some went extinct, and other new ones came along. Everyone can agree things changed on this planet over time.

 

However, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time". Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species". Today, over a hundred years later, no genetic mechanism has been found that truly adequately explains how one kind of species can turn into another kind of species. One species becoming another has never been observed in a Laboratory either.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Okay, so all of this sounds interesting, EXCEPT, it means that X-Men are not possible.

 

And if your theory cannot explain the existence of X-Men, well, you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

FACT: X-Men are mutants

 

FACT: Mutants have mutations

 

Therefore: X-Men have mutations.

 

If you do not have mutations, you do not have X-Men, and that is just not possible.

 

Explain to me how X-Men exist, if not for mutations, THEN I'll believe you.

[Seth Ananda]

Lol at X-Men

 

I am not a scientist, although fond of it, so what about Bruce liptons work with lactose cells that demonstrate one life form transforming into another?

[i was reluctant to bring him up as he is also a new ager, but Does his experiment still stand?]

It made time magazine? Or does that not constitute enough of a transformation for you Immortal?

 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=H8G5mEymkNoC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Bruce+Liptons+lactose+cell&source=bl&ots=DdRFQS-Doa&sig=7obl46JzyjRFuQEeyMVks1K0jY4&hl=en&ei=de2sTYu4IoKmvgOypI3bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[ralis]

Immortal,

 

Read this.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Edited April 19, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Lol at X-Men

 

I am not a scientist, although fond of it, so what about Bruce liptons work with lactose cells that demonstrate one life form transforming into another?

[i was reluctant to bring him up as he is also a new ager, but Does his experiment still stand?]

It made time magazine? Or does that not constitute enough of a transformation for you Immortal?

 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=H8G5mEymkNoC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Bruce+Liptons+lactose+cell&source=bl&ots=DdRFQS-Doa&sig=7obl46JzyjRFuQEeyMVks1K0jY4&hl=en&ei=de2sTYu4IoKmvgOypI3bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

From what I read so far, that is a very interesting book.

 

But I wouldn't call that true speciation. It is adaptation. It's in the same vain as all the things we have heard before, "peppered" moths, nylon eating bacteria that are still bacteria even though they adapted to eat nylon, drug resistant bacteria, genetic drift, and all these types of things.

 

So it comes back to the same hole that has been there for years, that it's never been shown that there is any kind of genetic mechanism that would allow for evolution to progress to the point that it allegedly is supposed to have. A mutation is not a new gene, it is an altered copy of the same genes it came from.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

From what I read so far, that is a very interesting book.

 

But I wouldn't call that true speciation. It is adaptation. It's in the same vain as all the things we have heard before, "peppered" moths, nylon eating bacteria, drug resistant bacteria, genetic drift, and all these types of things.

 

Have you read any books on evolution? Taken college courses in science? Adaptation is part of the process in the evolution of new species. Evolution takes into account millions of years in any given process.

Edited April 19, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Immortal,

 

Read this.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Yeah throughout time scientists have claimed many adaptations as examples of speciation. Or as some people would explain it, examples of Micro-evolution as being evidence of Macro-evolution.

 

We know that breeding and genetic drift can cause adaptation, but not that it can cause one animal to become another. The fact is, that adaptation can happen, but a new species requires so much completely new genetic information, and completely re-arranged, that mutation cannot account for a bacteria becoming a man as evolutionists claim happened.

 

Anti-biotic resistant bacteria-

 

There are no observed instances of speciation-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcJ6cEy2W0E

Edited April 19, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

Evolution takes into account millions of years in any given process.

 

This is called making the goal posts so wide as to not be able to miss.

 

It's basically saying that, well in a million years anything can happen!

 

But the fact remains, AIDS resistance plus millions of years can't make a lemur or monkey like creature into a man, nor can it make a bacteria evolve into a man.

[ralis]

Yeah throughout times scientists have claimed many adaptations as examples of speciation. Or as some people would explain it, examples of Micro-evolution as being evidence of Macro-evolution.

 

We know that breeding and genetic drift can cause adaptation, but not that it can cause one animal to become another. The fact is, that adaptation can happen, but a new species requires so much new genetic informatio, and completely re-arranged, that mutation cannot account for a bacteria becoming a man as eovlutionists claim happened.

 

Anti-biotic resistant bacteria-

 

There are no observed instances of speciation-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcJ6cEy2W0E

 

 

No one has ever claimed that bacteria made the evolutionary leap from bacterium to Homo sapiens. You keep harping on this yet show no evidence. Except, your fundamentalist, creationist propaganda.

[ralis]

This is called making the goal posts so wide as to not be able to miss.

 

It's basically saying that, well in a million years anything can happen!

 

But the fact remains, AIDS resistance plus millions of years can't make a lemur or monkey like creature into a man, nor can it make a bacteria evolve into a man.

 

You posit a false assumption and your assumptions are not facts! The fossil record is tied to the geological record and that is where the time frames are obtained from. No researcher makes arbitrary assumptions as you do. Further, you know nothing about the scientific method and are only interested in causing trouble!

[Immortal4life]

Evolutionary theory states that organisms more primitive than bacteria evolved over a very long period of time into man.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Evolutionary theory states that organisms more primitive than bacteria evolved over a very long period of time into man.

 

State facts and references please! As opposed to what you have been fed by fundamentalists. People like you would put this world back into the "dark ages."

Edited April 19, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

That's basic common knowledge that evolution theory claims your ancestors were organisms more primitive than bacteria. I don't need to reference that!

 

However, you can check the sweet videos in the OP, it's all in there.

[Marblehead]

In science, a theory is much more powerful than a fact. A fact is a single, observable event. A theory is a coherent explanation that has the power to predict future events which is exactly what evolutionary theory does. Science will never declare evolution a fact as it is much more important as a theory.

 

Great post Steve!

 

I will speak only to this paragraph that I have quoted.

 

I think there is much validity in what you said. I would, however, suggest that those things in life that we have declared as facts can be just as useful if we view the universe as a set of processes (the Laws of Physics).

 

But I think we need to view the processes that cause facts to be so rather than just the fact itself because any additional or missing varialble will result in a different factual event. (Don't know if I said that well.)

 

I guess that what I am pointing at is that we should not view a fact as some form of god or divinity but rather view it as a singular event that 'had' to happen because of all the causes that contributed to what happened.

 

An example to help with what I am trying to say:

 

Our sun (a star not much different from all other stars in the universe) has a specific life span. One day it will run out of fuel. One day every star in the universe will run out of fuel. But while some are being destroyed others are being created. This is a process that creates the facts. The fact of every star will be a little different because of many variables. But the process indures.

 

The fact of evolution will be different because of the forces of mutations, natural selection, environments, etc, etc, etc. But the process endures. The results will vary, therefore the facts will vary.

 

And let us not forget that evolution can lead to the extinction of many species just as it has in the past.

[Marblehead]

Here's the thing about this....

 

No one denies that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and throughout that time, the lifeforms that appeared on Earth indeed changed over that time. Some went extinct, and other new ones came along. Everyone can agree things changed on this planet over time.

 

However, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time". Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species". Today, over a hundred years later, no genetic mechanism has been found that truly adequately explains how one kind of species can turn into another kind of species. One species becoming another has never been observed in a Laboratory either.

 

Okay. We are getting close. Hehehe.

 

To your last paragraph:

 

I do not consider Darwin to be a god or to have been anyone with supernatural powers. He was an excellent observer. He wrote down what he observed. He suggested an idea from what he observed - "The Origin of Species". Most of what he wrote down has been proven to be true again and again. Some of what he wrote down has been disproven but this is mostly because of the advances in technology that allows more correct observations.

 

Yes, there have been experiments in labs that prove evolution and the creation of new species. The fruit fly is one example. By changing variables a new species has evolved and this new species is unable to mate with the original species. And this process has been observed with birds and fish in different parts of the world in the wild.

 

So I must state that your last two sentences are not true. You only believe them to be true because you do not accept the facts.

 

Now, please remember, I am not trying to disprove your belief in a creating force (God). That's not my intention at all. All I am asking is that you accept the truth of what is currently known and I, in turn, will admit to all that we do not yet know.

[Marblehead]

 

Explain to me how X-Men exist, if not for mutations, THEN I'll believe you.

 

Hehehe. Nope. Even though I do not believe in X-Men (and Women) I cannot prove that they do not exist and therefore I cannot prove that mutations do not occur.

[Marblehead]

... plus millions of years can't make a lemur or monkey like creature into a man, nor can it make a bacteria evolve into a man.

 

Just watched a program concerning this. The hypothesis that man evolved from the lemur has been discounted.

 

There was an evolutionary split that sent the lemur and other apes on different paths. Man is of the same line as the greater apes, not the lemur, and not of the monkey either. Both these are different evolutionary lines from the greater apes.

[Marblehead]

Evolutionary theory states that organisms more primitive than bacteria evolved over a very long period of time into man.

 

This is a valid theory. The only reason one would discount it would be that they believe in creationism and refuse to accept the processes of nature and the universe. (Did a God create the processes? I don't know. But I do know the processes exist.)

[ralis]

That's basic common knowledge that evolution theory claims your ancestors were organisms more primitive than bacteria. I don't need to reference that!

 

However, you can check the sweet videos in the OP, it's all in there.

 

The reason your arguments are not based in fact, is that all life evolved from DNA. DNA are the building blocks of bacterium, primitive life forms, humans, etc. The myriad combinations of DNA are what is responsible for the diverse lifeforms that have evolved over time on this planet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Edited April 19, 2011 by ralis

[Mandrake]

I see that Immortal4 likes to use the words "macroevolution" and "microevolution". What's problematic is that the creationist/ID proponents still haven't dared to define them in genetic terms.

 

Modern evolutionary synthesis boils down to genes; Evolution is defined in genetic terms to begin with.

 

 

Mandrake

 

 

PS. The definition of speciation is also quite clear, and we have multiple examples of that occuring. DS.