Good news - evolution now accepted by majority of Americans!

R

roscoe

Well-known member
Fine Figure of a Man said:
Click to expand...
Go to 27:45 for a key error. He conflates information content within a genome to information communicated in computer code or radio waves. This is incorrect. In those latter two cases they are intended to be read, and we can identify, explicitly, the source. Further, it is designed to carry maximum information content as efficiently as possible, and is designed with a specific target in mind. If you have ever listened to Morse code, and had it translated, you will see that there is no wasted information (hence Q-codes), and can be interpreted even with poor radio gear.

Genetic code is not like that. It is notoriously random - some genes are long, some short, and sometimes with genes firing off in concert with other genes from all over the genome (the genes for adjacent or interrelated anatomies are often on different chromosomes). Some genes are linked, some not, even though linkage (or not) might cause extinction of the species. It is remarkable inefficient - the vast majority of our genome does not code for anything because it is the result of inheritance of older genetic sequences that have been turned off (for example, we have the genetic code for tails, but they are not activated normally).

None of this is consistent with any kind of 'code-writer' that the guy on the left argues for.

Just to give you something to think about - why do humans have DNA shared with all known eukaryotes?~ 99% with chimps, ~92% with mice, ~60% with fruit flies, and ~18% with thale cress weeds? It is because we have common ancestors all along the way, and the DNA got carried forward. If someone were designing the code from scratch, there would be no need to have so much shared DNA, especially since most doesn't even code for anything. An efficient coder would scrap out all the unneeded code and also make it produce the anatomy much more cleanly. The only mechanism nature has is to turn on or off unneeded sequences (the start and stop codons) - hence the huge amount of useless genetic code dragged along.

Finally - the logic of saying that a pattern implies an intentional source is also wrong on a basic level. Lots of things in nature produce patterns without intentionality behind them. Fractals come to mind, as do ocean waves, but look also at the pulsar. We once thought it must be a radio signal from a distant galaxy. Alas, no, just a naturally flashing beacon in the sky.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
Fine Figure of a Man said:
Click to expand...

And here refuted:

Does Evolution Have a Thermodynamics Problem? | Skeptical Inquirer

Writing in a recent issue of the politically conservative magazine The American Spectator...
skepticalinquirer.org skepticalinquirer.org

You can find a random crank out there to support almost any idea. Citing Behe is not a strong move - his main idea (irreducible complexity) has long been refuted, and he was publicly humiliated during cross-examination in open court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

If you have read Sewell or Behe, and the refutations, and it is still not clear, let me know and I will endeavor to explain.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
theotherwaldo said:
-It's right up there with people that laugh at the Flat Earthers but are willing to debate the possibility of a Flat Universe... .
Click to expand...
This is a mischaracterization of what a 'flat Universe' is. No one is saying it only has 2 dimensions. It is a metaphor. In a 'flat' Universe, Euclidean geometry applies, and two parallel rays of light stay parallel, rather than curving around as in a closed Universe (space-time might be a torus, where you might go in one direction long enough to come out the other side of the Universe). Since we know that space-time can bend (as predicted by relativity theory), it is still a relatively open question. We don't know what it looks like at the edge of the Universe.
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
It's quite obvious to me that random evolution is a belief system just as much as intelligent creation is a belief system. Neither has been directly and empirically observed, nor has been duplicated by controlled experiment. The Creationists admit theirs is a belief system. I can't understand why the Evolutionists can't admit theirs is also.
 
theotherwaldo

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Yep.
The scientific cult faithful are just as irrational as are any of the other religious cults.
At least most of the other cults try to instill some sort of ethics and morals in their followers... .
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
It's quite obvious to me that random evolution is a belief system just as much as intelligent creation is a belief system. Neither has been directly and empirically observed, nor has been duplicated by controlled experiment. The Creationists admit theirs is a belief system. I can't understand why the Evolutionists can't admit theirs is also.
Click to expand...

This is just not true. Biologists have directly observed evolutionary change under selection pressure - look up Peter and Rosemary Gran's work in the Galapagos, among others. But even more than that, med school scientists literally create evolutionary change in fruit fly populations every day.

Understanding evolution means, literally, understanding every step in the process - genetic variation, differential reproduction, and reproduction of the newly-selected organisms. It is a very simple process that we understand very well, and even better now that we can sequence genomes.
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
theotherwaldo said:
Yep.
The scientific cult faithful are just as irrational as are any of the other religious cults.
At least most of the other cults try to instill some sort of ethics and morals in their followers... .
Click to expand...

Right - this is because science is not a cult. People who don't understand science may see it as such, but since it makes every piece of data, calculation, inference, and assumption explicit and transparent, it fits NONE of the characteristics of a cult.
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
Fine Figure of a Man said:
Because Evolutionists will not admit to believing anything that isn't proven even though they do. It often seems that evolutionists and atheists are among the most faithful and fervent believers of all.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, would be something that scientists believe that is not proven (or tested)? In particular, about evolution?
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
roscoe said:
...Biologists have directly observed evolutionary change under selection pressure - look up Peter and Rosemary Gran's work in the Galapagos, among others. ...
Click to expand...
No that's not true. What they observed is not an example of evolution or even natural selection. It was simply that certain species having physical characteristics that already were well-adapted to the unusual circumstances were more likely to survive. There was no evolution of one species to a more advanced species better adapted to the circumstances. This was simply one species already existing that did better at surviving. An example of species extinction, perhaps, but this example is no more a proof of evolution by natural selection than a guy who buys a pickup for his lawn-care business is more likely to succeed in business than the other guy that buys a Mustang and can't get his tools in the trunk.
 
Last edited:
R

roscoe

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
No that's not true. What they observed is not an example of evolution or even natural selection. It was simply that certain species having physical characteristics that already were well-adapted to the unusual circumstances were more likely to survive. There was no evolution of one species to a more advanced species better adapted to the circumstances. This was simply one species already existing that did better at surviving. An example of species extinction, perhaps, but this example is no more a proof of evolution by natural selection than a guy who buys a pickup for his lawn-care business is more likely to succeed in business than the other guy that buys a Mustang and can't get his tools in the trunk.
Click to expand...

No, the process that the Grants observed was genetic change in a population under selection pressure due to environmental change. That fits the textbook definition of evolution, which is simply change in genetic frequencies in a population over time. There are four causes of evolutionary change, and only one is natural selection (the other three are genetic drift, mutation, and genetic admixture). In one case the Grants observed, that resulted in a new species of finch.

You need to get out of your head the idea of a 'advanced species'. there is no such thing. Some animals are better adapted to their environments, but no biologist uses the term or concept 'advanced'. Since the environment is a moving target, what is better adapted changes over time.

With regard to the animals already being somewhat adapted, that is true. The whole concept of natural selection relies on population variation, with some individuals in the species having different characteristics (height, weight, fur density, color, etc.) than other members of that species. The ones with characteristics better adapted to their environments survive and reproduce more often than the others. Variation is increased in populations through genetic mutations.

BTW - we can see the results of the selection process when we look at dog breeds. That is the result of artificial selection on wolves and has resulted in some very unusual anatomies. Natural selection is not really different - just normally slower.
 
R

roscoe

Well-known member
Fine Figure of a Man said:
The beginning of life. Replicate it and I will be convinced.
Click to expand...
That is a silly response. We observe natural selection all the time. Your argument is like saying you don't believe in gravity or nuclear fusion because I can't replicate the Big Bang.

But . . . look up the Miller-Urey experiments. They got some pretty interesting results in that direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top