Biological Evolution- What is being debated

In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

  1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
  2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
  3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
  4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
  5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
  6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)

2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).

3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)

4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

 

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…

1,113 thoughts on “Biological Evolution- What is being debated

  1. Frankie: Wow, talk about desperation. No one has tried to discuss the OP here. It’s as if you are afraid of something.

    Why should I care what you desire? If we are not under any obligation to read your posts why should we be under any obligation to read and respond to the subject matter in your OP, in other words given your behaviour why would you deserve any courtesy at all?

  2. Alan to Mung-
    Alan Fox,

    Alan Fox: Do I take it that you are not skeptical about biological evolution, then?

    In the context of the OP that is an ambiguous question. YECs are not skeptical about biological evolution.

    Your comments here tend to be ambiguous, gnomic and laconic, so it’s hard to know whether you have an opinion.

    Nice projection. For us we know that you have an opinion we just cannot figure out what it is. And you make accusations that you never support

  3. Frankie:
    Alan to Mung-
    Alan Fox,

    In the context of the OP that is an ambiguous question. YECs are not skeptical about biological evolution.

    But mung is not YEC, as far as I can tell. And I’m pretty sure you are not his sock-puppet. Some of his comments manage to be witty.

    Nice projection. For us we know that you have an opinion we just cannot figure out what it is. And you make accusations that you never support.

    Well, I think I’ll let mung speak for himself. I suspect, on a good day, he’ll do a better job.

  4. Alan Fox: But mung is not YEC, as far as I can tell

    Umm, that is irrelevant to the point. Your question is ambiguous and meaningless especially given the thread it is in

    Well, I think I’ll let mung speak for himself.

    I bet he thinks that your comments here tend to be ambiguous, gnomic and laconic– I bet phoodoo concurs.

    I suspect, on a good day, he’ll do a better job.

    Like the job you did in responding to the OP. And the job Ogre did showing ID is anti-evolution by quote mining IDists saying that ID is against DARWINIAN evolution, even after it was explained that the adjective “Darwinian” refers to a specific definition of evolution and doesn’t encompass all definitions of evolution.

    Yes, I am sure Mung will do a better job at responding than you have, Alan.

  5. Frankie:
    YECs are not skeptical about biological evolution.

    Of course you YECs are. You claim there’s a magic barrier which prevents one “kind” from evolving into another “kind” but you can never say what this barrier is. It’s the whole basis of the YEC baraminology horseshit you keep championing. Even though canines and felines are both members of the order carnivora they could never share a common ancestor.

  6. This has to be a record- over 500 comments and not one addresses the OP. I wonder if DiEB figures that into his numbers for this site.

  7. Frankie:
    This has to be a record- over 500 comments and not one addresses the OP. I wonder if DiEB figures that into his numbers for this site.

    Not a record for FrankenJoe though – I’ve seen you go for months lying and claiming no one answered you when a dozen or more people poke holes in your ID bullshit you wouldn’t and couldn’t address. Just like this steaming turd you resurrected from a decade ago.

  8. Does adapa really believe its ignorant spewage is an argument? Really?

    Strange

    I have a challenge for those who want me banned:

    A debate on the merits of ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- see Coyne’s description

    For example my opponent will have to say how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of those blind and mindless processes and I will have to say how we determined vision systems were intelligently designed.

    <

    div style=”background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #373737; font-family: ‘Helvetica Neue’, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24.375px; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;”>
    If I lose or cannot support ID I will leave. If you lose or cannot support your position, you leave

    Only cowards would refuse, adapa

  9. Frankie:

    If I lose or cannot support ID I will leave.

    LOL! You haven’t been able to support ID for the last decade+. It’s the same repeated lies and IDiot slogans followed by running from every last question. Sorry FrankenJoe, your “challenge” is as big a joke as you are.

  10. Frankie:
    That is the cowardly response I predicted. Thank you

    Double LOL! Yeah FrankenJoe, the scientific community is deathly afraid of a morbidly obese toaster repairman who claims to have single handedly refuted 150+ years of positive evidence for evolution. This is the same YEC who thinks wavelength=frequency, ice isn’t made of water, and the the largest known number will be found someday. 😀

    Who wants you banned? The incredibly stupid things you say and the blustering fool way you say it are great entertainment!

  11. Put up or shut up, then. Think of the bragging rights you would have amongst the evoTARD minions. But alas, you knw that you don’t have a chance in hell of ever supporting evolutionism. You couldn’t even find any quote-mines to pilfer.

    You have proven my point- back to ignore you go- like a belligerent little troll

  12. I see that Cornelius has your sock under heavy moderation. What happened? Unable to post anything of substance? That’s sad as he is pretty lenient.

  13. 150+ years of positive evidence for evolution.

    Only a complete moron would try to equivocate in this thread.

    Is the OP too difficult for you to understand? 150+ years of research and the evidence for the evolution of the eye hasn’t changed since Darwin. 150+ years of research and evolutionists cannot unpack any of the alleged evolutionary steps at the genetic level. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is a useless heuristic.

    150+ years of bluffing and here we are. I wonder why the plaintiffs had to lie, misrepresent and bluff their way through the Kitzmiller trial. And why does the alleged evidence for macroevolution not include a mechanism?

  14. Frankie:
    Think of the bragging rights you would have amongst the evoTARD minions.

    Triple LOL! Bragging about outthinking a scientifically illiterate IDiot like you? Kinda like bragging about besting a garden slug in the 100 yard dash. 😀

  15. LoL! Only a complete moron would continue to equivocate in this thread. The paper adapa linked to does not support blind watchmaker evolution. Blind watchmaker evolution can’t even account for opsins and the paper didn’t support the claim that it could.

    Strange that even after evos are told what is being debated they are too stupid to grasp it. Willful ignorance is not a good place to argue from.

  16. From the paper:

    As gene locations are usually conserved among species, we
    can track opsin’s evolutionary events such as gene losses, gene duplications and function-altering amino acid substitutions, which can contribute to our understanding of the diversification of biological functions.

    1- Gene duplications- it isn’t enough to merely duplicate a gene and all is well. The new duplicate needs a binding site and it needs to be on an accessible part of the DNA coil. Evolutionism only has sheer dumb luck for that

    2- function-altering amino acid substitutions- Blind and mindless processes have to find the right loci to hit and there isn’t enough time on earth for such luck-

    Waiting for Two Mutations:

    For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral.

    adapa thinks that new binding sites and multiple just-so tuning mutations are no problem for blind watchmaker evolution. Yet evolutionists seem to disagree.

  17. Frankie:
    Only a complete moron would continue to equivocate in this thread.

    Which is why you continue to equivocate. Give it up FrankenJoe. You’ve been repeating the same IDiot drivel for over a decade and haven’t produced anything except peals of laughter from folks watching your clown escapades.

  18. It is moronic to say I am equivocating when the OP proves that adapa is equivocating. adapa loves it arguments from ignorance.

  19. And what’s this “barrier” nonsense adapa is blathering about? The argument is there isn’t any evidence to support the claim the anatomical and physiological changes required for the changing of body plans can be had via genetic changes. We already know that the genes that cause variation within a population and the genes that have any affect on body plans are different genes. So macroevolution is more than just an accumulation of micro-evolutionary events.

    So the barrier is, at a minimum, a scientific one and is based on the inability to scientifically test the concept.

  20. Frankie: We already know that the genes that cause variation within a population and the genes that have any affect on body plans are different genes. So macroevolution is more than just an accumulation of micro-evolutionary events.

    Hahahahahaha, OMFG, this guy is a fucking gold mine of retard comedy

  21. LoL! The joke is on dazz:

    Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    It looks like we have known that micro and macro involve different genes for decades.

  22. One of acartia’s socks just said that a molecular code turns water into ice at zero C. How else could that happen? by magic, he insists?

    The surreal event starts here with the question:

    Is H2O a code?

    Unbelievable. Say anything to show that nature produces codes

  23. Frankie: One of acartia’s socks just said that a molecular code turns water into ice at zero C.

    I thought 0 degrees Celsius was the melting point of ice. Are you telling me Acartia thinks it is the freezing point of water?

  24. dazz: Hahahahahaha, OMFG, this guy is a fucking gold mine of retard comedy

    The real humor is not when Chubs says something amazingly stupid, he does that all the time. The real comedy gold is watching him wriggle and squirm and do anything to not admit he was wrong. 😀

  25. Mung: I thought 0 degrees Celsius was the melting point of ice. Are you telling me Acartia thinks it is the freezing point of water?

    She thinks water and ice are the same thing. I actually caught a lot of flack for saying hail isn’t made up of water (because it is made up of ice).

  26. Frankie: One of acartia’s socks just said that a molecular code turns water into ice at zero C. How else could that happen? by magic, he insists?

    Joke: “One of acartia’s socks just said that a molecular code turns water into ice at zero C. How else could that happen? by magic, he insists?”

    Once again FrankenJoe lies to make a point. Please provide the quote where I claimed that the water molecule was a code. If you can’t, then we must all conclude that you are a liar.

  27. Frankie: actually caught a lot of flack for saying hail isn’t made up of water

    Comedy gold. Right up there with Frequency = Wavelength.

  28. The link to acartia’s sock claiming a molecular code turns water into ice can be found at the link I provided earlier. And the fact that acartia quote-mined me to try to score points demonstrates it lacks integrity. As if we needed more evidence or that.

    How many people know there is a difference between liquid water and ice, which is a solid? Or is it really just me and definitions and observations are meaningless?

  29. Mung:
    I bet Acartia thinks all water is H2O.

    It thinks all H2O is water. The different states mean nothing. It’s sad, really.

  30. “The molecule [H2O] is not a code. It doesn’t fit the definition.”

    Really? So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?

    From here

    followed by this whopper:

    Really? Why not? Why isn’t the arrangement of the atoms in a water molecule not a code? Why isn’t DNA a molecular code? They both act according to chemical “laws”.

    BZZZZZZZZZT Wrong! The genetic code does not act according to any laws. That is the whole point

  31. Frankie:
    Anyone can follow the link and see what acartia’s sock posted. So let’s cut to the chase- I am calling acartia a bullshit lying moron and a shit eating coward

    Any vaginas?

  32. Frankie:
    Anyone can follow the link and see what acartia’s sock posted. So let’s cut to the chase- I am calling acartia a bullshit lying moron and a shit eating coward

    I had 9:30 pm EST in the “when does Joe melt down” pool. Do I win?

  33. Frankie: It thinks all H2O is water. The different states mean nothing. It’s sad, really.

    ice
    īs/
    noun
    1.
    frozen water, a brittle, transparent crystalline solid.

  34. Neil Rickert:
    Moved some posts to guano (9:10 pm, Jan 24 local time).

    You had 9:10 in the pool. Since the melt down was at 9:38, I think I still win.

  35. Again- DNA is not the code. DNA is part of the genetic code. And all I do is correct people that say it isn’t a code- that’s being defensive of science.

    Water crystalizing isn’t a code. There isn’t a built-in molecular code telling liquid water to crystalize at zero C.

    Ya see, acartia, when you give someone two choices and one of them is bogus, it means you think the answer is obviously the other. Everyone can read and see your flow of comments. It all points to one of acartia’s socks just said that a molecular code turns water into ice at zero C.

    It isn’t one quote. It is the discussion- cumulative selection

  36. Acartia
    But, on a related note, it is very telling that FrankenJoe gets really defensive when anyone questions him on the idea of DNA being a code. Is there a part of him, deep down, that realizes that equating the DNA “code” with human made codes is questionable at best, intentionally misleading at worst?

    Pretty sure there’s no one on the planet who doesn’t know some porn posting ID-Creationists are compulsive liars. This is just the latest example. He’s been corrected dozens of times over his equivocation of the word “code”. Code can mean an intelligently created system using arbitrary symbols to convey meaning, as in the case of Morse code. It can also mean any physical process where the output can be mapped to the inputs as in the case of DNA. Note that the second definition doesn’t require the use of arbitrary symbols and doesn’t require intelligence.

  37. FrankenJoe: “Again- DNA is not the code. DNA is part of the genetic code. And all I do is correct people that say it isn’t a code- that’s being defensive of science.”

    Nobody is saying that it isn’t a “code”. But it is not a code in the same way that humans make codes.

    Water crystalizing isn’t a code.”

    Nobody has claimed that it is. Sheesh!

    Ya see, acartia, when you give someone two choices and one of them is bogus, it means you think the answer is obviously the other.”

    No it doesn’t. I asked you if H2O was a code. And followed it up by questioning your responses. How does that imply that I think it is? Have you never heard of the concept of “devil’s advocate”?

  38. Frankie: You missed one:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/biological-evolution-what-is-being-debated/comment-page-11/#comment-162670

    The asshole calls me a liar when the evidence proves my claim?

    Actually, I called you a liar because you claimed that I said something that I never said. That is a perfect example of a lie. And the person who spoke the lie, by definition, is a liar.

    But, if you are willing to state that I never said what you have claimed that I have said, I would be willing to bite my tongue and retract my claim. Then we can put all this behind us.

  39. Moved two more to guano (9:53 pm local time, Jan 24 2017).

    Local time here is Chicago time. I’m adding time info mainly because the software is sometimes telling me that this is a duplicate post. So a time stamp avoids that check.

  40. Frankie:
    Why do evoTARDs always attack in groups? Are you guys really that insecure? Does one loser supporting another loser really help?

    Is it my fault that you don’t know the difference between a solid and a liquid? Is it my fault that you are ignorant of codes? Is it my fault that your lack of understanding has the genetic code as a purely chemical process with “nucleotides that fit well (chemically) with a specific amino acid”? Really?

    No. but it is your fault when you lie about what someone says and then deny that it was a lie.

  41. Mung:
    I bet Acartia thinks all water is H2O.

    Acartia is a marine planktonic crustacean, so he knows a thing or two about water.

  42. No. but it is your fault when you lie about what someone says and then deny that it was a lie.

    I never did that so it is a lie to say that I did.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.