Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: kcgads

and who invented the concept of chemisty... Where does it reside if not in the minds of men?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kcgads

and who invented the concept of chemisty... Where does it reside if not in the minds of men?

Chemistry and it's laws are there whether humans are there to think about it or not. Just because we are able to figure some of it out has no bearing on whether it happens or not.

originally posted by: purplemer
The process we call evolution has occured over billions of years. Yet again I request that someone can demonstrate and repeat this process. Yes we know species can mutate i am a gardener and can see the diversity of change that can happen year to year.

I knew you were going to move the goalposts the second I answered your request and posted the papers which you didn't even read.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection and this process is demonstrated constantly. You don't have to watch all 3 billion years of evolution to observe it or to see the effects of it. I already posted the peer reviewed papers you asked for and now you are moving the goal posts and just dismissing it all blindly. You are changing the definition of evolution to fit your argument. Sorry, you can't redefine scientific terminology when it suits you. Evolution as a process, is beyond confirmed.

Yes we can modify species show the me the mechanisms that create an eye for example. Not a simple lab experiment with small deviations of change..

Okay, then explain to me why mutations stop accumulating past a certain point. Why do you think that mutations stop? Please explain the mechanism that prevents numerous small changes from adding up and leading to bigger changes? LMAO at your attempt to redefine what counts as a peer reviewed science paper. There is no separate mechanism for the eye. It evolved via incremental changes and the accumulation of mutations and traits over time. All of this stuff has already been discussed to death here. Try reading about evolution instead of getting your info from creationist websites. There's a start.

and who invented the concept of chemisty... Where does it reside if not in the minds of men?

You can't be serious....

a reply to: Barcs

Hello not trying to move the goal posts maybe i never explained myself.
I am well aware that life is related that wel can follow gentic trait trans species. Life changes and adapts thats not in dispute what i do dispute is the mechanism by which it adapts and changes. Yes I am sure that gentic mutation may play a role but i certainly do not see it as the primary force that defines life.
Yes the eye has evolved independently it is known
as convergance and yes small changes can add up to make bigger changes but considering that most mutations have a negative effect then the net result would to move away from order.

and yes chemisty exists in the minds on men. It is a concept like science itself which is simply a philosophy tool that allows us to define a model of reality. If thats something you cant see I suggest you do some reading to understand the limts of what you are trying to express.

happy days

purp

originally posted by: purplemer
Yes I am sure that gentic mutation may play a role but i certainly do not see it as the primary force that defines life.

That's fine if you feel that way, but according to all of the scientific research, genetic mutations play a pretty important role in evolution, and it's been demonstrated in a lab how they lead to new species and clearly demonstrate the main concept of evolution, descent with modification. Now if you want to question some of the causes of the mutations, it seems there is still room for a primary force (or controller) of evolution. Now IMO, I don't think that is very likely because of how random the mutations are with each new generation, but it's certainly not out of the question.

most mutations have a negative effect

This is incorrect. Most mutations are neutral.

It is a concept like science itself which is simply a philosophy tool that allows us to define a model of reality. If thats something you cant see I suggest you do some reading to understand the limts of what you are trying to express.

Science is a method of learning how things work and applying that knowledge to our lives. You asked for peer reviewed papers before, so you should know already that philosophy only plays a minor role in science. Facts and results speak louder than educated guesses. Scientific theories are based on facts gathered using this method, just like evolution, gravity, etc. Obviously we don't know everything about them, but we do know those things are both tangible and measurable.

a reply to: Barcs

We will evolve to be better functioning within our cultures but we wont weed out or improve much due to our usage of culture. Not only the fittest survive, therefor no significant change will be realized in population make-up. Sure there are allot of preferences within cultures. Which favor curtain phenotypes or social status. In The Netherlands we don't have any noteworthy natural disasters.

a reply to: Ghost147

Firstly, intelligence and biological behavior are not the same thing.

I don't think I said intelligence is a behavior, but the two are certainly connected. You hide behind these vague terms like "biological behavior" - well what do you mean by biological behavior? What does google bring up? Is it instinct? Responses to stimuli? What?

Is natural selection an outcome? A cause? A process? What? Is an observable trait considered "selected" if it exists? How do we determine this either way? Depending on who you ask you will get different answers. Some equate it to environment. NS can only "act on" a trait that is already there. So it can't cause anything. But yet NS is positive, it's negative, it happens on all levels. It even happens with galaxies now. How did the polar bear get it's "white" (its not white btw) coat? "Because it was selected for its camo effect with its surroundings so it can sneak up on prey", so the story goes...

If something is genetically augmenting something, and really is controlling the genetic coding of an organism, then that is no longer evolution.

Then what is it? When an organism alters it's own genetic material and that of other organisms - what is that? Hint: It's not abiogenesis. Forget the fact that humans do it. Humans are organisms like everything else. Pretend you are in a lab looking into a microscope at a colony of organisms. You notice that these organisms are capable of genetically altering their own DNA and that of other organisms, and that these modifications have a lasting effect on future generations. What is that if it's not evolution?

One is intentional, one is natural. Evolution is described as a natural phenomena, so why would an external source that is manipulating how an organism receives it's genes still considered Biological Evolution?

I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed.

My logic is flawed? How is something that is intentional not natural? The genetic mechanisms are not that different really. What does it matter that an organism does it intentionally? Oh wait, I know...

You are falling victim to this false dichotomy of artificial vs natural. There is no such thing as artificial. Lift the veil, it's all natural, baby.

I never said creation of a new species, we do that all the time with selective breeding. I'm saying starting up life from scratch using no genes from existing organisms. That is in fact Abiogenesis.

In fact? Willing to submit this as a hypothesis then?

And ya, you did say it:

If we were to create a new species, an actual, biological species that is every bit alive like any other organism out there, then that is just abiogenises, not evolution.

You're reading my concept incorrectly.

No no, friend, I read it correctly and pointed out your error. YOU articulated your concept incorrectly. Own it.

And by the way "Artificial intelligence" does not equate to a new species. A "species" infers biological properties. "intelligence" does not biological properties, therefor it also does not equate to a new species.

It's tough digesting your sentence structure. But have a look at this. Its Juan Enriquez' take on the next species of human. he calls it HomoEvolutis. You might find it interesting and relevant to this discussion. I do: www.ted.com...

You're terminology in every aspect of this conversation is all incorrect.

Says the guy who stated that the creation of a new species by an organism is abiogenesis.

a reply to: TheunT

I get what you're saying, but the word "fit" doesn't just mean physically fit. It could mean more intelligent, more common sense, craftiness with the hands, ability to survive an ELE or even just understanding the stock market (In the US at least). It could also be a trait that we haven't seen yet that helps improve changes of survival during an ELE (ie radiation resistance or ability to process air with more dust in it). Saying that we won't improve much is just a guess in the dark, because you never know when the next natural selection event will happen.

Right now we don't experience much natural selection aside from sexual, but genetic mutations are still happening with each passing generation. If a comet or asteroid strikes the earth tomorrow it could reshape the planet and the human race completely. Perhaps a certain group of humans will have a mutation that helps them survive this event, while the other 90% dies out. After that, the world would slowly get repopulated by the new type of humans. Humans are not removed from evolution in the least, they just have more control over the environment. They don't control it completely, however. We haven't witnessed any big ELE type events since we have become a scientific developed society, but it could happen at a moments notice. The mutation rate is pretty high for humans, so there are millions of folks out there with various mutations that they might not even know about, but could put them over the top when/if crap hits the fan.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ghost147
and you are so sure why..?

I tell you what go and get me some falsifible scientfic evidence to prove your point. See its not there. If you had a good understaning of science you would know that the theory of evolutuion falls outward of the remit of science.
We have never observed in lab condtions the theory of evolution. We have not been able to repeat the process. Its a story that fits our cultural beliefs it fits the values that we have as a species. We live within the paradigm of capilitlsm that is why we look outward on the world and see it with the same eyes.. Survival of the fitest. Problem is nature does not work that way the more we look the more we see it coperates..

Honestly, the only people that don't accept evolution (as being both a fact and a theory) are people who are uneducated, or people who are unwilling to accept information. Creationists and the religious fit in to both these categories all too often.

There are plenty of things that can prove Evolution to be false, the issue is that we haven't see anything that has.

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

~ a static fossil record;
~ true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
~ a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
~ observations of organisms being created.

These instances are from the book The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900, but they are far from the only examples of falsification. What is extremely ironic is that the people who don't accept evolution, often follow an actual unfalsifiable ideology, yet have an issue with evolution because they believe that the theory of Evolution is unfalsifiable.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes ofc easy to be big with words.. SImple process, put your money where your mouth is... Go and repeat it.

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

~ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
~ Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
~ Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
~ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
~ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
~ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
~ Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
~ Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
~ The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
~ Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
~ The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
~ When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
~ The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
~ Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
~ Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
~ Speciation has been observed.
~ The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. www.talkorigins.org...

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. www.talkorigins.org...

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. www.talkorigins.org...

Do I really need to go on? Or are you just going to continue to pretend this text is invisible?

Just catching up on the thread...

reads like in a few people's cases, evolution also had problems with them.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ghost147

I think you are missing the point in regards to abiogenesis. It occurs is when life springs out of nothing.. Now making a new creature in a lab is not springing life out of nothing it is creating life out of life. The scientist creating it is a living being too.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. When I stated that in my original comment, I made sure to say "If we were to create something in a lab that doesn't derive from any other species, and is just built from matter in some way, and it functions exactly like any known life form on the planet, then that is indeed abiogenesis, not evolution."

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Barcs

The process we call evolution has occured over billions of years. Yet again I request that someone can demonstrate and repeat this process. Yes we know species can mutate i am a gardener and can see the diversity of change that can happen year to year.

Yes we can modify species show the me the mechanisms that create an eye for example. Not a simple lab experiment with small deviations of change..

We don't need to view every single organism that has ever existed in order to prove the theory correct. How can you possibly be this dim witted? Oh, I know, because you completely ignore any information that doesn't abide by your ideology.

We have already explained this point at least 10 times in this very thread. Do yourself a favor and stop being willfully ignorant.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: kcgads

and who invented the concept of chemisty... Where does it reside if not in the minds of men?

Oh my god, you cannot be serious? Are you really doubting the existence of chemistry now? You must be insane. If you cannot accept that even chemistry exists, I have no idea how you function in this world mentally. Sorry for all these personal attacks, but come on.... You're rejecting the existence of chemistry now? This must just be a troll joke that I'm not understanding.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't think I said intelligence is a behavior, but the two are certainly connected. You hide behind these vague terms like "biological behavior" - well what do you mean by biological behavior? What does google bring up? Is it instinct? Responses to stimuli? What?

On page 11 of this thread you said this, exactly: "Yes- evolution is driven by behavior. So it can be argued that it is intelligently driven. Not so blind, really. "

If that doesn't imply Intelligence is shown within behavior, then you better start writing in a manner that isn't so easy to misinterpret.

I like how you suggested to Google the term, when if you did you would see what I am talking about. Essentially it is all aspects of behavior driven by the neurological makeup of the organism. Intelligence can reside within the neurological makeup, but it is not the entirety of neurological makeup.

Your claim that Evolution is "Intelligently Driven" is an extremely irresponsible way of putting it. You are either claiming that a divine being is controlling how Genetic Drift flows, or you are placing your own made-up words in plae of Natural Selection, Or you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Is natural selection an outcome? A cause? A process? What? Is an observable trait considered "selected" if it exists? How do we determine this either way? Depending on who you ask you will get different answers. Some equate it to environment. NS can only "act on" a trait that is already there. So it can't cause anything. But yet NS is positive, it's negative, it happens on all levels. It even happens with galaxies now. How did the polar bear get it's "white" (its not white btw) coat? "Because it was selected for its camo effect with its surroundings so it can sneak up on prey", so the story goes...

Natural selection is a mechanism of Evolution. "Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. "

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. (also, Natural selection doesn't apply to galaxies the same way it applies to Evolution. No idea where you came up with that concept...)

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Then what is it?

Are you here to just waste time? Could you give us some sort of reason behind these nonsensical comments? You act as if everyone's responses are rhetorically leading to a specific answer but never even attempt to bring up that answer.

If an organism alters it's own genetic coding, preventing new mutations from occuring, then Evolution has simply stopped at that individual. If that individual still reproduces with variation, then Evolution will start up again once that individual breeds.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147 When an organism alters it's own genetic material and that of other organisms - what is that? Hint: It's not abiogenesis.

I already told you what it is, it's genetic augmentation. That's it... I am fully aware that is no abiogenesis, and I was never arguing that it was.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Pretend you are in a lab looking into a microscope at a colony of organisms. You notice that these organisms are capable of genetically altering their own DNA and that of other organisms, and that these modifications have a lasting effect on future generations. What is that if it's not evolution?

Plenty of organisms (especially virus'), alter the DNA of it's host. It's a very common event to occur. That is still Evolution. However, when an organism prevents another one from any mutations at all (in it's conception) then that is no longer Evolution. It's just genetic augmentation. To my knowledge, this has never occurred in this exact example.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
My logic is flawed? How is something that is intentional not natural? The genetic mechanisms are not that different really. What does it matter that an organism does it intentionally? Oh wait, I know...

Do you really not understand what I'm trying to say? Everything you've quoted of mine you've been twisting ever so slightly to imply that I'm meaning something else. You are not reading what I've written in an accurate way.

If a human intentionally manipulates the genetic coding of an organism, this is not a natural process. Is that really that difficult to understand?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You are falling victim to this false dichotomy of artificial vs natural. There is no such thing as artificial. Lift the veil, it's all natural, baby.

I realize that everything comes from nature. What I was referring to is the natural process of things. If you artificially remove somethings genetic coding, and artificially replace it with some other coding, then that natural process is gone. Notice how "artificial", in this case, is a process, not thing.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
In fact? Willing to submit this as a hypothesis then?

Again, you are reading my posts incorrectly. I said that If we were to create a new species from scratch, meaning no borrowed genetic material from another species, that would be Abiogenesis. Yes, we did create a new species, yet it is still Abiogenesis.

You stated that we create new species all the time, and that does not equal Abiogenesis. Which is correct, however, you were referring to instances when we did use biological material from other lifeforms.

It is not the fact that we created a new species that does or doesn't equal abiogenesis. It's the process on how we created that new species that makes it Abiogenesis or not.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
It's tough digesting your sentence structure. But have a look at this. Its Juan Enriquez' take on the next species of human. he calls it HomoEvolutis. You might find it interesting and relevant to this discussion. I do: www.ted.com...

Yes, sorry, I mistyped that response. Never the less, "artifical intelligence" refers to non biological intelligence, thus it is not a new species.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Says the guy who stated that the creation of a new species by an organism is abiogenesis.

I never stated that creating a new species by use of another organism is abiogenesis. I stated that creating a new species from scratch, using no other biological material from another organism is abiogenesis.

Please read more carefully and stop quote mining me.

originally posted by: pilgrimOmega
Just catching up on the thread...

reads like in a few people's cases, evolution also had problems with them.

Could you be more elaborate? I'd like to know more about your views on the subject.

a reply to: Ghost147

Great post, Ghost. Definitely starring this one. I never understood the "evolution cannot be falsified" argument. Every single fossil we pull out of the ground could falsify evolution. A modern creature found in ancient strata or an ancient creature found in modern strata would instantly falsify evolution. But out of the millions of fossils found, not a single one has been inconsistent in the strata in which it was found.

a reply to: Barcs

reat post, Ghost. Definitely starring this one. I never understood the "evolution cannot be falsified" argument. Every single fossil we pull out of the ground could falsify evolution

No pulling fossils out of the ground does falsify the mechanism of evolution nor does it explain it...

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

Yep, what actually matters is the scientific analysis performed after the fossils are extracted. They are generally studied for several years before any findings are released.

a reply to: purplemer

Go dig me up a rabbit fossil from the pre-Cambrian layer and congrats, you've falsified evolution.

a reply to: purplemer

Instead of just slandering things for no reason, how about you actually back up your claims? You clearly have this fascination for evidence, considering you demand we provide evidence for everything we state (which we do, you just ignore it), yet I don't see any evidence within your posts.

We have already explained to you how fossil records are one of the many reasons scientists who study Biological Evolution have come to the conclusions they have made. I don't actually see you combating those claims, instead you just consider them invisible and restate your initial slander without evidence of your own.

Stop being a stereotypical Creationist and start actually participating in this debate.

a reply to: Ghost147

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
On page 11 of this thread you said this, exactly: "Yes- evolution is driven by behavior. So it can be argued that it is intelligently driven. Not so blind, really.

If that doesn't imply Intelligence is shown within behavior, then you better start writing in a manner that isn't so easy to misinterpret.

Here it is put in another way: At the heart of evolution is organism behavior/interaction with environment (which includes other organisms). And at the heart of all behaviors/interactions is intelligence. Choices are made for the betterment, or at least the survival, of said organism(s). These are not blind and dumb behaviors, but purposeful ones. Why should there be anything here that would suggest some divine entity? Perhaps it is your knee jerk reaction to the word "intelligence" within the context of this discussion that seems to getting in the way of an open dialogue.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Your claim that Evolution is "Intelligently Driven" is an extremely irresponsible way of putting it. You are either claiming that a divine being is controlling how Genetic Drift flows, or you are placing your own made-up words in plae of Natural Selection, Or you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Extremely irresponsible"? I don't see what is so extreme about what I said in light of my explanation above. Hopefully I was able to clarify it better for you?

For my understanding: How did you go from my stating that evolution is being driven by behavior, to this meaning that some divine entity is controlling genetic drift? And what words/meanings have I made up for Natural Selection?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Natural selection is a mechanism of Evolution. "Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. "

Now that is an unnecessary word scramble, isn't it? All this really means is that in any population some will live and some will die, and those that happen to live are expected to reproduce and pass copies of their genes to their offspring. Eureka! Of course this happens! Can this be anymore self evident? (My signature captures my thoughts on this...)

What underlies the process of natural selection?

Genetic drift is just a stripped down version of natural selection, but without the story telling. Thereby making one mechanism random and the other one not.

Natural disasters aside, how does one determine between an event that is random and one that is not? How does one determine when a population is sufficiently large to damper the effect of drift? When we look at drift by means of the founder effect - how much of that is a result of behavior? ( e.g the Amish )

GD and NS are more like probability functions, or aspects of population dynamics. Assigning actual reasons to why certain traits exist (NS) relies on a lot of guess work. So then becomes the foundation of the evolutionary theory - probability and guesswork.

This is no way to deny evolution. Just to disagree with the prevailing view of how it happens.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
(also, Natural selection doesn't apply to galaxies the same way it applies to Evolution. No idea where you came up with that concept...)

From Lee Smolin. He applied the biological version of it to the universe
bigthink.com...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
If an organism alters it's own genetic coding, preventing new mutations from occuring, then Evolution has simply stopped at that individual. If that individual still reproduces with variation, then Evolution will start up again once that individual breeds.

Genetic engineering isn't necessarily preventing new mutations from occurring. It's an actual deliberate attempt to introduce new, beneficial traits into an organism.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
When an organism alters it's own genetic material and that of other organisms - what is that? Hint: It's not abiogenesis.

a reply to: Ghost147
I already told you what it is, it's genetic augmentation.

It's not an answer when you are using circular logic.

"Genetic augmentation" is not simply a prevention of new mutations as you keep stating. Not sure where you are getting that idea from.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
If a human intentionally manipulates the genetic coding of an organism, this is not a natural process. Is that really that difficult to understand?

This is the crux of the matter, so pay attention very closely. Humans are organisms. Everything a human does is just as natural as any other organism. There is no difference. You need to be able to understand this. Just because we humans decided to create this delineation that anything we produce is "artificial" doesn't make it so in the grand scheme of things.

If we discovered a spider genetically engineering a fly's DNA, would this be considered artificial? No, we would see this as a natural occurrence.

When termites can construct these

We say it's natural.

But when humans construct these

We say it's artificial.

Why is that?

Again, you are reading my posts incorrectly.

Sure I am.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Here it is put in another way: At the heart of evolution is organism behavior/interaction with environment (which includes other organisms). And at the heart of all behaviors/interactions is intelligence. Choices are made for the betterment, or at least the survival, of said organism(s). These are not blind and dumb behaviors, but purposeful ones. Why should there be anything here that would suggest some divine entity? Perhaps it is your knee jerk reaction to the word "intelligence" within the context of this discussion that seems to getting in the way of an open dialogue.

I'm sorry, but all behaviors and interactions are not the result of intelligence. Again, Intelligence can most certainly be a factor in specific cases, and specific organisms, but to say that ALL behaviors and interactions are the result of intelligence is incorrect.

Does a single celled organism group with other single celled organisms of the same species (or others) to achieve a larger goal mean they are acting that way due to intelligence? Of course not. It is simply genetic coding at work. It is instinctual to them to behave that way, and interact with the environment they are in the way they do. The same applies for any other organism. Intelligence does indeed account for specific scenarios, just not all scenarios.

As for your terminology of "intelligently driven" I assumed you were referring to divinity because I have never heard anyone use that term do describe the process of evolution; unless of course that individual was implying a divine intelligence. Your use of it caught me off guard because not only is it regularly used by creationists and Intelligent Design advocates, but it is also incorrect in what you were attempting to describe.

So I accept that you did not mean a divine intelligence, however, the way you are describing what you mean is still inaccurate to the concepts within Biological Evolution.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
"Extremely irresponsible"? I don't see what is so extreme about what I said in light of my explanation above. Hopefully I was able to clarify it better for you?

It was irresponsible because of it's use by individuals who commonly reject any form of scientific information (Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates), and also because the way you are using it is inaccurate to how the processes within Evolution function.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
For my understanding: How did you go from my stating that evolution is being driven by behavior, to this meaning that some divine entity is controlling genetic drift? And what words/meanings have I made up for Natural Selection?

I explained above to your first question. As to your second question, read the third plausible concept in the quote you've posted of mine.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Now that is an unnecessary word scramble, isn't it? All this really means is that in any population some will live and some will die, and those that happen to live are expected to reproduce and pass copies of their genes to their offspring. Eureka! Of course this happens! Can this be anymore self evident? (My signature captures my thoughts on this...)

How is it unnecessary? You asked a plethora of questions regarding Natural Selection, so I answered them.

Natural selection isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. It's not simply describing that "in any population some will live and some will die", Natural Selection describes how beneficial genes are selected for due to environmental conditions, predation, reproduction, and adaption.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
What underlies the process of natural selection?

Genetic drift is just a stripped down version of natural selection, but without the story telling. Thereby making one mechanism random and the other one not.

Again, your understanding of Biological Evolution and it's related terminologies are faulty (if not entirely incorrect). Genetic drift has nothing to do with how an organism keeps beneficial genes, it only describes that successive generations change in the frequency of a gene variant.

Natural Selection leads to further Genetic Drift.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Natural disasters aside, how does one determine between an event that is random and one that is not? How does one determine when a population is sufficiently large to damper the effect of drift? When we look at drift by means of the founder effect - how much of that is a result of behavior? ( e.g the Amish )

GD and NS are more like probability functions, or aspects of population dynamics. Assigning actual reasons to why certain traits exist (NS) relies on a lot of guess work. So then becomes the foundation of the evolutionary theory - probability and guesswork.

This is no way to deny evolution. Just to disagree with the prevailing view of how it happens.

Again, Natural Selection and Genetic Drift are not the same process. Their only relation is that they are both mechanisms within Evolution. There is no single "event" that allows an organism to have a change in allele. Selected mutations occur through a population, and furthermore through successive generations.

The reason why a specific mutation is selected for is absolutely guesswork, you are entirely correct. We can often find evidence to show why a specific gene is selected for, but absolute certainty is never the case. In fact, Absolute certainty doesn't exist in any branch of science. Science is merely a means for us to attempt to understand how specific naturally occurring phenomena function. We see evidence that leads to certain conclusions, but we can never be absolutely certain of anything. If you are looking for absolute certainty, I hear religions offer that, but not science. We are simply attempting to understand the universe around us the best we can.

I don't have to explain that Natural Selection isn't meant to explain the exact cause of a specific mutation. It is simply a mechanism within Evolution.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
From Lee Smolin. He applied the biological version of it to the universe
bigthink.com...

Actually, he applied cosmological natural selection. Essentially it is an identical mechanism, but one applies to Biology, where as the other applies to Cosmology. Just as Biological Evolution is separate from Cosmological Evolution. They are essentially the same thing, just on different topics.

Running out of room now, will continue in my next post