Don't reply to Reniaa
My reply is more for other people who may see her drivel and not realize she's full of it. I know she won't respond, and if she does reply to this thread she'll avoid any "hard questions."
What do you know "without googling" about the reputed mechanisms for evolution?
by gubberningbody 66 Replies latest jw friends
-
drwtsn32
-
Caedes
I do not accept that those same processes can account for the delta in information content and the gross morphological differences we find between a virus and a violinist. (making violins may be easy, and making a human may be too, but a violinist?)
Why? Because the case has not been made.
I beg to differ.
The case was proven scientifically by Charles Darwin, Your own inability to understand the science does not change that fact.
No one can even imagine a path whereby a random or an even non-random walk could take one from a so-called low form of life, like an amoeba to an American
Well, that is completely incorrect isn't it? Or do I have to point out the glaringly obvious that millions of more scientifically minded people have no problem not only imagining but understanding the biological process that causes speciation (even species as far apart as humans and microorganisms)
What this leads me to conclude is that agnosticism is the only defensible position.
Sorry I'm unclear what belief in god has to do with evolution?
What I'd like to see is less time spent in defense of positions and more spent on doing real research. Of course research is expensive and no one has yet found a commercial use for manufacturing life from scratch.
What utter twaddle, I take it you have no actual experience of how scientific funding works?
If someone could actually engineer (not a computer simulation) a real, self-replicating entity, then studying this process could explain how this might have been accomplished. (Unfortunately using the natural mechanism of a mutagen in an organism hasn't helped in generating novelty of the useful sort yet. Perhaps a DIRECTED approach might be a better option.)
Natural selection has 'generated novelty' in the example I gave earlier.
Once that is done, it won't mean that's the only path for biogenesis, but it will provide a clearer view of what needs doing to get the life that we've got. Knowing that will allow one to know what minimal things would be necessary agencies (daemons) to engineer life into various forms.
Demons? what about fairies? Santa Claus? Perhaps no one gave you the memo but, science limits itself to the empirical.
-
Caedes
Don't reply to Reniaa, she's a ****.
Surely it is up to individuals who they choose to reply to? Reniaa may be trolling and will certainly fail to respond to reasoned argument that shows her to be incorrect on this topic (well that probably applies to everything she posts but that is hardly the point!) but surely we all have the right to decide for ourselves who we reply to.
-
TD
In any case, caedes, the difference is not biological, it's a philosophic view that starts out with a conclusionand reasons from there....
The theatrics that followed came much closer to differentiating between the 'General' and 'Special' theories of evolution than they did to differentiating between, 'Macro' and 'Micro' evolution.
Michael Denton gave a much more lucid explanation than 'Knowledge Man's' third statement on the differences between trivial changes and additions:
"The second theory, which is often called the "general theory", is far more radical. It makes the claim that the "special theory" applies universally and hence that the appearance of all the manifold diversity of life on Earth can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos Islands. This "general theory" is what most people think of when they refer to evolution theory.' (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p44)
This is an important distinction, but it is not the difference between, "Macro" and "Micro" evolution.
-
inkling
don't know the difference between what they know, what they think they know, what they actually know and what can be actually known and their reasons are generally ill-defined, theterms they use in their reasons are ill-defined, and their reasons for selecting to follow one path or another always have bias.
Projection much?
-
BurnTheShips
evolution is not 'just' a theory or a fact, its a engineering tool that is being used every day to create usefull things!
Indeed. The idea is so great it boggles the mind. It goes far beyond explaining speciation in things we call "alive"
My bias is that I'd LIKE to think there is a God or gods who care about me and my wants, needs and desires and is really going to make sure I get what I want.
This fuels my searching
GB. Evolution and these are not mutually exclusionary. As Caedes explains, there is no other known naturalistic mechanism that can explain what we observe. You can accept this and still retain your bias.
BTS
-
inkling
Evolutionists can blind you with information...
...and "evidence" and "logic" and "reality"... wait, what were we talking about again?
-
inkling
inkling got 50% with "Natural Selection"
The simple answer is random mutations and natural selection.I would like to point out that my first post included:
...the simple idea that ANY variation between specific members of a generation...
"Variation" includes "random mutations", although you are correct that I did not say that by name.
However, it is simplistic and inaccurate to say that "random mutations and natural selection"
is the most parsimonious way of stating the mechanism, because much of the variation that natural
selection works with is NOT from mutations. Much is also from genes being switched on and off,
and genes being shuffled due to the randomly 50/50 nature of gene contribution in sexual
reproduction.BTW, I've not googled anything.
Maybe you should try.
[inkling]
-
inkling
Demons? what about fairies? Santa Claus? Perhaps no one gave you the memo but, science limits itself to the empirical.
In his defence, I think his phrase -
....what minimal things would be necessary agencies (daemons) to engineer life into various forms.
is using the greek idea of "Daemons" in a metaphorical way.
From wiki:
"Daemons are characters in Greek mythology, some of whom handled tasks that the gods could not be bothered with"
-
reniaa
"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." - Public Library of Science/Medicine
With that having been said, we must now look at what an ERV does exactly. Basically, it distorts and deteriorates genetic information in germ cells and that distortion is propogated from generation to generation. The question then as it relates to evolution is, "How does an increase in the distortion and deterioration of DNA's genetic code amount to an improvement of that code?". Well, it seems that it would not improve anything at all but rather the opposite. So, the very thing that you say proves evolution actually is something which proves only the deterioration of genetic code and not the enhancement of it as would be required to prove an upwards evolutionary trend in complexity. In your example of a proof for evolution, you have actually made a move towards proving the opposite.