Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

Did you just seriously post a link to a video about scientists claiming to be skeptical about Darwinian evolution?

Its 2021.

Darwinian evolution went out with the starting handle.

Misread your comment. It's still mostly the same idea - the idea that all organisms come from a common ancestor through mutative changes to organisms. It's a theory that has never been shown to actually happen

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: cooperton


Thats exactly what evolutionists do. They assume evolution is true, and force all observable data to try to fit that narrative. Many are starting to realize it's nonsense though

scientists against evolution

Did you just seriously post a link to a video about scientists claiming to be skeptical about Darwinian evolution?

Its 2021.

Darwinian evolution went out with the starting handle.

"Darwinian evolution" became modern synthesis or MES after Julian Huxley published a more comprehensive analysis of evolution in the 1940s. Anyone who is still using that phrase can safely be described as being deliberately obtuse.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(20th_century)

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"Darwinian evolution" became modern synthesis or MES after Julian Huxley published a more comprehensive analysis of evolution in the 1940s. Anyone who is still using that phrase can safely be described as being deliberately obtuse.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(20th_century)

Doesn't matter what they call it, no population of organisms has been shown to be able to change into something distinctly different. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, etc. There have been countless generations of artificially selected organisms in a lab and they remain the same organism. No hint of changing into something distinctly new.

So you guys can believe evolution, but it's just your faith it's not science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"Darwinian evolution" became modern synthesis or MES after Julian Huxley published a more comprehensive analysis of evolution in the 1940s. Anyone who is still using that phrase can safely be described as being deliberately obtuse.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(20th_century)

Doesn't matter what they call it, no population of organisms has been shown to be able to change into something distinctly different. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, etc. There have been countless generations of artificially selected organisms in a lab and they remain the same organism. No hint of changing into something distinctly new.

So you guys can believe evolution, but it's just your faith it's not science.

Your opinion is based on a pathological rejection of science as a result of associating evolution with nihilism. But you can't just unfact the theory of evolution.

Evolution by natural selection was first demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are often produced than can possibly survive. This is followed by three observable facts about living organisms: (1) traits vary among individuals with respect to their morphology, physiology and behaviour (phenotypic variation), (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness) and (3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness). Thus, in successive generations members of a population are more likely to be replaced by the progenies of parents with favourable characteristics that have enabled them to survive and reproduce in their respective environments. In the early 20th century, other competing ideas of evolution such as mutationism and orthogenesis were refuted as the modern synthesis reconciled Darwinian evolution with classical genetics, which established adaptive evolution as being caused by natural selection acting on Mendelian genetic variation.

a reply to: cooperton

Your understanding of this topic is utterly naive, and I'm being generous with my terminology here.

Significant changes in an organism's body plan will not happen while looking at it in a test tube, regardless of how many generations you keep looking. You need to change something.

I know that I've told you this before but the fossil record, and to some extent the genetic record, shows that significant speciation happens after mass extinction events. Dramatic ecological changes in environment, habitat, diet, predators, etc. create the situation for large changes in organisms, including body plans.

Smaller changes can happen with less dramatic changes; voiding a land bridge by rising sea levels, for example, where the organisms 'trapped' in this limited environment will adapt through evolution to their new habitat.

I'm disappointed that you're too dense to understand and accept it. Extremist religions like yours do so much damage to what would otherwise be sensible and intelligent people. I'm so sorry you've taken this route Cooperton.

I'm too bored to carry on. Science progresses and will always march forwards. Most of your philosophies are over 5000 years old. Where is the progress in that? Best of luck.

a reply to: Phantom423
A science that is what at most a few thousand years old, maybe going back to ancient Greek and mesopatamian scholars. And thousands of years after that they thought they were wallowing in the mud, dark ages not withstanding.

So science? Modern science? Let just say is hundreds of years old. In the few hundreads of years we have really started to gather and catalog data? Aint even a drop in the freaking ocean. Not nowere near enouph to have concrete proof of one or the other.

And another thing science is? Its not a thing in itself. Its just a fancy way of saying observing and seeing and cataloging.

I am quite sure that the book you linked is nice and good and all. But come back at me with this question in a few thousand years. By then science may have a more definitive answer to the whole evolution vs god vs you name it...Thing.

So when you say science never said that anything happens because of randomness? That is just you expressing your believe and ignorance. Because science is trial and error. And the trial? Is still on going. And yes, at one point science and the textbooks did and still do say.

That life and biological life the process of it all, from DNA to RNA to everything else? Happened by chance in a primordial soup. Well, it just happens that primordial soup had all the right ingredients for all of us to be here. If there was just one thing or a few things off or different?

Then we would not be here. So? The question of evolution or some sort of devine plan? The answer to that is? Nobody knows what the funk there talking about, just a bunch of dumbasses quoting there favorite lines, and who don't want to admit that they just might not know.

If a billion of you decide to believe some peer previewed book or copy of some guys writing? Well that does not entail that it is or will be right. There is also the chance that we have a billion ideots thinking there right on some theory they all have.

And gee, were are all the believes and theories of the past? How come there not around now?

As far as I am concerned, evolution? or divine intervention or whatever you want to call it? Both are equally viable, and in fact not only that? But both may just be a mutual by-product of one or the other. Its a chicken and the egg kind of question?

Were the answer is? Once can not exist without the other. Either way. I am not asking you. Because I am pretty sure you dont know either.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I can (barely) deal with the notion that evolution is part of some plan. But to deny that living things change over time is pretty ridiculous. To claim that every species that lives now has always lived is absurd.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: cooperton


Thats exactly what evolutionists do. They assume evolution is true, and force all observable data to try to fit that narrative. Many are starting to realize it's nonsense though

scientists against evolution

Did you just seriously post a link to a video about scientists claiming to be skeptical about Darwinian evolution?

Its 2021.

Darwinian evolution went out with the starting handle.

Oh ya if its anything 2020 has shown us is that evolution does not necessarily exist. In fact for the most part, its been a steep devolution slope these past few years.

And there has been nothing but real life, up to date, 24/7 life-feed and constant, proof of that, all around us, day in and day out. The question on evolution being real or not is still anybody's guess. However? Devolution? Is a very real thing. The proof is all around us.

a reply to: Phage
Then you have a very tiny grasp on the vastness of thing indeed.

You want proof that things do not change? What have you been arousing with people on this site about for the past 10 years or more?

And how much of that has changed? Cant teach an old dog new trick right!

Besides its you who have made the claim that every species that lives now has always lived. And not me.

On that same question? All I would say is that given the time scales of the the known universe and the sheer amount of planets and galaxies and stuff out there? That yes. It would not be that improbable that all of it exists or may have existed at one point in a galaxy far far away.

And we just wouldn't know it.

Or #, they could exist next door over on the next habitable planetary system. And you and everybody else will never know. Because the chances are 100% that you will be long dead and dust before concrete proof can be had. I mean even traveling to the nearest possible habitable solar system is 4.3 lightyears away.

And even if it could be done today with our current tech, if we launch one today. It will not get there till we and all this civilization is dust. And that is a big big if. Chances are the human race wont be able to launch or fly or warp or anything of the sort in the next few thousand years.

In which case you and I and all us here would be long dead. Which makes all these stories we tell ourselfs or among popular believe, about how the universe works or evolution or god or the flying spaghetti monster?

So I am not asking you, or them. Simple because? To put it plain and simple? They, or you, or any of us, would not know.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Your understanding of this topic is utterly naive, and I'm being generous with my terminology here.

Your faith in the topic is utterly naive. In a lab I saw it demonstrated the consistency of gravity at a rate of 9.8 m/s2. This means it is scientific, or in other words, observable. Evolution is not scientific, it is based on assumptions... an example of evolution in the scientific record is entirely lacking.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I can (barely) deal with the notion that evolution is part of some plan. But to deny that living things change over time is pretty ridiculous.

Adaptation is undeniable. But it's never been shown that these adaptations can accumulate into a change of the essential organism. These adaptations have been shown to be quickly reversible, such as in the case of antibiotic resistance. This shows that these traits were already present in the organism as a means to adapt to various environmental stressors... they don't just conveniently mutate by random chance at the perfect time, and resort to normal after the stressor leaves. It's a very precise biofeedback mechanism. Such as the case with detox pump expression in antibiotic resistant bacteria

To claim that every species that lives now has always lived is absurd.

The quantum world is starting to be related to the biological world. There are many empirical findings regarding biological organisms which are simply unbelievable, yet they are observable and real.

a reply to: cooperton

they don't just conveniently mutate by random chance at the perfect time, and resort to normal after the stressor leaves. It's a very precise biofeedback mechanism

You continually make this randomness statement which is supposed to reflect what real scientists say and think. Yet, you haven't produced a single paper or textbook which confirms that statement.

You've made up so much crap that you can't tell the difference any more.

Name a single scientist who has made this claim about randomness - a real scientist, not one of your crackpot friends.

originally posted by: cooperton
...In a lab I saw it demonstrated the consistency of gravity at a rate of 9.8 m/s2. This means it is scientific, or in other words, observable...

Please enlighten me when was the last time you saw your god? No? Never? Then, even by your logic, your god is absurd and unproven. It's fiction.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Please enlighten me when was the last time you saw your god?

March of 2014 a few days before my birthday.

your god is absurd and unproven. It's fiction.

I also get biofeedback from my Dad daily. My intuition is prime. I get anything I ever ask for in due time (or am told why it's not something proper to ask for). I don't really want much.. I am mostly retired already and I'm not even 30. I spread the news of our Dad to as many people as I can because it is the only source of enduring reality in our current material plane. It's quite obnoxious that you are spreading the fallacious bad news that supposes we are illogical accidents. Like Solomon I asked for knowledge and was given it. This is why you guys hate me so much because I am exposing your perverse unintelligent mutant theory as absolute garbage.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You continually make this randomness statement which is supposed to reflect what real scientists say and think. Yet, you haven't produced a single paper or textbook which confirms that statement.

"mutations are random"

Pretty straight-forward.. mutations are random.

" mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. "

This article admits they are random, but says some mutations are more probable than others. Randomness is unavoidable in the theory.

You don't even know your own dogma. But if you personally don't think that mutations are random, what would you call them? intelligent?

a reply to: cooperton

Maybe you should read the article you posted:

Are Mutations Random?
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time.The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe you should read the article you posted:

I did. It said they are random but some are more probable than others (which technically makes them somewhat un-random). Both articles insists that there is a random element to evolutionary theory. So what do you suppose, mutations are random or guided?

a reply to: Phantom423
Pages ago in this thread I posted similar but I gave up at some point.


a reply to: cooperton
Have you ever heard of the term selection? You know, the circumstances that lead to determine what mutations would be useful and therefor benefiting survival or spread into the gene pool of certain individum.

When you have fish that can adapt easy to temperature changes, they will survive better than fish of the same species that can not, for example if the water warms up and doesn't cool down over a longer period of time, like generations. Mind you this is relative, generations can be minutes or decades.

This is selection and the mutation that might have led to a better adaption to warm water, wasn't random because it followed physical laws. It doesn't just sprung into existance it had a cause. It was there before, maybe visible or not. The mutation and cause were subject to physical laws and biological as well as chemical processes. We just call things random because we lack the oversight.

This is a very human treat, almost cynical, in lack of a better english vocabulary. We just can't admit plus it's also a protection mechanism that we aren't as smart and can explain everything right away. That's one of the founding pillars and reasons why religions have been that successful. If we can't explain the ball lightning, it may or not may be a demon from hell, UFO, /insert strange stuff here/.

Superstition etc.

Evolution can complement creationism, it doesn't exclude each other either. If you look closer to nature, and our forefathers had time for that since they needed to, you will find intriguing examples of creationism, at least for me. But then we are an intrinsic factor in this world. How can we know about higher dimensions and whatever is there to perceive?

Carl Sagan demonstrates this very good with his flatland and 3D land tale/explanation. What we call and perceive as randomness might have been produced or influenced by a dimension we can not perceive.

I am totally not convinced that there is true randomness at all. If so, where's the physical law for that? It just could be a side effect of different physical laws and then it wouldn't be random. Randomness is paradox if you think straight scientific and logic, at least for me.

cheers you two.

a reply to: cooperton

Your poor reading comprehension and lack of knowledge of basic molecular biology is showing. Read the papers again - and get a good molecular biology textbook.

a reply to: cooperton

Liar.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Have you ever heard of the term selection? You know, the circumstances that lead to determine what mutations would be useful and therefor benefiting survival or spread into the gene pool of certain individum.

According to the theory they are selecting randomly mutated genes. But when genes are selected for evolutionists assume it was randomly mutated. But very often they are adaptation variables already present in organisms. Like in antibiotic resistance the microbe is, in one example, turning up expression of a detoxification pump to allow higher antibiotic load.

It's not mutating anything, it is a predisposed potential within the genome. This is antithetical to evolution because there is no mechanism for how random mutation would be able to generate such detailed modulation.

Phantom doesn't understand what I'm saying though. Or at least she responds and avoids my point. The difficulty for evolution to accommodate observable microbiology is the interdependence of mostly all enzymes, co-factors, etc. Since these are interdependent, meaning they rely on eachother, they could not have come to be in a piece-by-piece evolutionary manner. Darwin himself saw this potential Achilles heel from the beginning.

This is one of the many, many reasons why evolution does not make sense anymore. The interdependence is present on every scale of an organism too. Molecules are interdependent, proteins, DNA, organelles, cells, tissues, and organs - they all are communicating and depend on other aspects of the organism to ensure proper fubctionability.

What came first, complex I, I, III, or IV of the electron transport chain? Because the electron transport chain doesn't work unless they're all present. These aren't rinky-dink proteins either, atp synthase (complex IV) resembles a turbine that generates energy similar to a hydrogen fuel cell. It is phenomenal engineering.

Natural selection of randomly mutated genes cannot create something so wonderfully interdependent.

You will see by phantom's lame response (often appealing to semantics, or appealing to authority) because she either doesn't know what im talking about, or secretly knows she's wrong but her dogma and pride won't allow her to concede. So she distracts and insults to avoid admitting evolution of interdependent parts is not possible

a reply to: cooperton
Proof positive that were all arguing semantics here, the science of semantics.

You say Pottato I say Potato. Besides it can happen that mutation happen to this level. It would just take a real, really, for realz, long long long time.

Gee! Science is so dramatic.

But ya! Phase IV. Its quite obvious that phase IV came first. And also came in second, then third, then last. It was literally racing against itself. And now? We got cellphones. Which would not function very well at all, with the touchscreen. If the human body were not mostly composed of?

Water.