The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[davidm]

Neo-Darwinians are in Plato's cavern devising complex theories about the world supported by all they can see: shadows.

Nick has a follower!

The sure-fire, simple way to tell if an article about epigenetics is full of crap.

You're welcome!

[PauloL]

Don't have your own ideas? This is a forum.

Many forums have a posting guideline stating basically that "No clicks should be required to understand the post​".

Besides that, do you offer me a weblog on "random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" to rebut an article by Nature Neuroscience?

Give me a break.

[davidm]

Don't have your own ideas? This is a forum.

Many forums have a posting guideline stating basically that "No clicks should be required to understand the post​".

Besides that, do you offer me a weblog on "random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" to rebut an article by Nature Neuroscience?

Give me a break.

Actually, in my own words, and not with links, I have already rebutted several nonsensical things that you said, while attempting to clarify your misconceptions. For instance, you claimed that cells reproduce without errors. I pointed out, in my own words (not a link) that replications are shot through with errors: they are called mutations. You also seemed to imply that you thought modern cells emerged in their full complexity somehow in the deep dark past; and you chided science for being unable to explain how this could happen. I explained, in my own words and without a link, that scientists do not think think this; I also asked you whether you were aware of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the difference between them and the implications of this; you did not answer. You claimed that cells evolved; I corrected you, in my own words: populations evolve, not cells. I did all of this and more and you did not respond to any of it. No clicks were required to understand anything I wrote, I did not include any links at all. In fact my link to the discussion of epigenetics, which you fail to understand, was the first link I have placed in this thread! At all events, I am not aware that there is any rule here against linking to other sites. (The link is to the blog of an evolutionary biologist -- that you don't like the slogan he uses for his blog is completely irrelevant to anything.) The bottom line is you don't know what you are talking about and are desperate to find some way to change the subject. You're welcome.

[PauloL]

1. I said a primordial cell had to replicate without errors, and this is correct. I didn't say it had to be infallible.
2. I never said such a thing as modern cells were created like they are now, and couldn't do that. It's irrational.
3. I know the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. I'm sorry for your question and insistence on it.
3. Populations evolve, and cells do evolve, too. Are you saying that cells don't evolve????? Please...
4. I have already proposed Mods the creation of a posting guideline "No clicks should be required to understand the post​".
5. I'm not desperate and know what I'm talking about. That's your interpretation, and I'm sorry for your lack of clairvoyance.
6. By telling me arbitrarily that I don't understand epigenetics, you give me enough freedom to call you arrogant.
6. Let me know at once if I missed something.

[thedoc]

godless liberal

Wow! it looks like we have another idiot, (excuse me, a theist) to poke with a stick to watch him dance. Have fun guys.

[thedoc]

3. Populations evolve, and cells do evolve, too. Are you saying that cells don't evolve????? Please...

Cells do not evolve, they exist in the state they are created, but one cell can produce a cell that is slightly different from itself, that is evolution especially if the difference is an advantage to the new cell.

[PauloL]

I'm not a theist, sorry, especially for such a poor argumentation. That was too much of a hurry.

What shocked me was the first part "random biological ejaculations", and I should have stopped there to prevent some people to retain the second part only, even if that is ipsis verbis how the author describes his weblog. If you read the entire post, you'll learn that this weblog was offered as a link to rebut a peer-reviewed article made under scientific protocol and published by Nature Neuroscience. Really.

Well, you catched point 3 at least. If a cell that can produce a slightly different cell (your words) doesn't evolve, you have a suis generis concept of evolution. No surprise, but maybe David confused me with you when he said I defend that modern cells were created like they are now.

Evolution isn't just producing a slightly different cell (again, your words). At a time, cells incorporated other cells now called mitochondria, but I'm sure you'll call this something different.

Perhaps you'd like to comment my post on Mycobacterium tuberculosis. David failed that, except for the quiet philosophical argument "your stupid post about Mycobacterum tuberculosis". I'm sure you have a doctoral opinion.

[Walker]

Very well, great mind; what is the idea behind the principle?

Why, thank you, although many participants will tell you the compliment belies the situation.

It is not the God of Trading Regurgitations, that's for dang sure.

[uwot]

Very well, great mind; what is the idea behind the principle?

Why, thank you, although many participants will tell you the compliment belies the situation.

I don't think many will understand what you are on about.

It is not the God of Trading Regurgitations, that's for dang sure.

I dare say. So what is the idea?

[Walker]

You are arguing with a person that hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about.

When chewing roots evolves to this, can we say that such an evolutionary path had worth?

[uwot]

As I explained, it is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Thanks for that. Not really my field, but I'm happy to take your word for it. So at what point did the theory of evolution become a theory?

[Londoner]

You call wiping out all humans who did not have red hair evolution? Evolution is expected to explain the existence of red haired humans in the first instance, I think.

If it was the case that a disease had wiped out all humans who did not have red hair, such that thereafter all humans had red hair, that would be the explanation of why humans had red hair. However, if there is no selection, if humans with all hair colours can produce fertile offspring, then the natural variation in genes that determine hair colour would be preserved, and thus the diversity, will continue.

I do not understand your problem over this.

Evolution describes species? Again, evolution is expected to explain the existence of species in the first instance.

Yes, Evolution describes species. Darwin's book was 'On The Origin of Species by means of natural selection'.

Plainly we could also use the word 'evolution' to describe any chain of cause-and-effect, but that isn't what we understand by 'Theory of Evolution'.

If you object to Evolution - but also do not see how life could have arisen at all - we can discuss that, but it would be better if we do not confuse the two.

Of course Biology is by no means contradictory to Chemistry, but I can't say the same about the contradiction of Evolution to the origin of life. If everything evolves swiftly by selection, tell me how mineral matter evolved to the first cell apt to evolve.

There are explanations of how this might have occurred readily available on the internet which I'm sure you have also read. What is there in such explanations you find contrary to science?

The one thing explicable by science is the formation of the cell on the other hand, and evolution on the other. Darwinian evolutionism is a paranoid illusion in my opinion.

Something mistyped there? I can only keep asking, where exactly is the problem? Where is the mistake? If I wanted to dispute Climate Change (say) I might question data, point to statistical flaws, question the physics and so on. Then, we could see whether my objections were right or not. But in this discussion we never seem to reach that stage.

Let's take a step back. Do you consider that ultimately any explanation for the creation of life and evolution of species must be scientific? That even if the all present ideas are wrong, the right idea will be of the same kind, in that it will be materialistic? In other words, your criticism comes from within science.

Or do you think that any scientific explanation must be wrong - because science cannot possibly provide an answer to such questions? That they lie outside science?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are arguing with a person that hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about.

When chewing roots evolves to this, can we say that such an evolutionary path had worth?

Evolution is not a path. Natural Selection is trail-blazing. We can observe many who have cut their way into the briar patch, and cannot find their way forwards. Others have blazed a trail off the end of a cliff, whilst others have go their foot stuck in a hole.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.

Failure to understand that negative behaviours, and traits can even be preserved in the genome just so long as the host organism produces viable progeny: a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. Modern Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1); that this inference is invalid (in fact it's what philosophers call an 'intensional fallacy'); and that there is no way to repair the damage consonant with commitment to naturalism, which (Fodor and Palimanteri) take to be common ground.
The obsession with evolutionary theory to offer an explanation for every single aspect of life as if it have to have a positive outcome for selection is an embarrassment to the entire field.
Were this NOT the case I think more people would understand evolution and not think there is some kind of god in the mix.
Evolution is not a force that selects genes in any sense.

[PauloL]

.




Londoner

First of all, I believe in Evolution, of course. This doesn't mean that I accept Darwinism. I think you can infer that from my posts. Further, I'm sorry that Evolution started and finished in the XIX century as Darwin's ideas kept paradigmatic, if not, regrettably for science, dogmatic. Sometimes I imagine that Earth was created again randomly so that Darwin wouldn't be born again and I wonder what theory of Evolution we'd have in the XXI century.

That thing about red hair is quite circular indeed. Evolution is expected to explain how on earth there are people with hair in whatever color, and they keep telling me how one color, or all except one, or whatever, extincts.

That's the same if I ask someone how to build a computer and all they keep telling me is how to choose defective ones and throw them away.

The origin of species is not the description of species. That was done before by Linnaeus.

Yes, I've read about abiogenesis of course, but I don't know any widely accepted theory. A few very well formulated theories from the scientific point of view, like Oparin-Haldane's primordial soup, are far from widely accepted for they are based on unproven hypothesis and are far from explaining how the very first primordial cell appeared, the minimal one capable of evolution.

Your last question deserved my greatest attention, however I find it a little confusing. I can't devise one thing on earth that can't be explained scientifically if that's your question. We have quite much uncontroversial theories for everything. We know what's matter to the detail of particles much smaller than atoms. We can trace the origin of the universe to the very first instant and even have interesting theories about multiverses. We can dive deep into more than 10Km below sea level and can fly in total security at huge speed and airplanes have been tested that reach upwards of 3.500Km/h. We eradicated one disease and prevented and controlled lots of diseases. Sadly, I can't place Darwin here for its tautological and incomplete nature, something that fortunately isn't shared by sound scientific theories.

Perhaps you'd like to read/comment my post on Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a small assay on evolutionary illusion by natural selection. Same for a post on tautological argumentation and limited knowledge by a renowned neo-Darwinian, Futuyma.




.

.




Hobbes

Could you offer a reference for your intentional fallacy and Fodor and Palimanteri ideas?




.