The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Londoner]

I'm sorry, but that's again the same thing put in other words. You need a population with variation to show me that evolution results from variation.

All populations have variation. As I wrote, we can see that as a matter of fact. You can look at individuals, you can have your genome sequenced and my genome sequenced and observe that they will be different. You say I 'need a population with variation': All populations have variation.

(And, again as I wrote, we can see why this arises. With sexual reproduction you will not be a copy of either of your parents. When chromosomes separate errors sometimes occur and so on. We can observe these processes.)

You start with a population of multicolored hens. Then you let them reproduce and select red ones (a recessive trait lets assume, not even present phenotypically in starting population to make things more spectacular), generation after generation, so that in the end you have a hennery all red. You call this evolution? What's new here that wasn't present in the native population, except for a quantitative difference in the pool of genes?

Yes, that is evolution! Except that at some point the difference between the new hens and the original population becomes such that they can no longer interbreed. Then you have a new species. The same thing may happen again to each of these newly separate species, such that there will be further divisions. (Although, of course, most species go extinct).

The process is not of one thing turning into something different, but of splitting. All species, the ones alive now and the ones that have gone extinct, all have a common ancestor. That is why we humans share genes with plants and coral and fungi.

As I say, that is what is meant by evolution. Hopefully that has cleared up the main source of confusion.

After rereading this, it's funny that you even start with a population that is more complex than the final one, as by selecting out genes you simplified the genetic pool. This could be the opposite of evolution, but not worth discussing that.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'complex'. The number and size of genes can increase or decrease. It doesn't follow either that what strikes us as a more complex, or 'advanced' life form has more than a simpler one.

https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... 513-13093/

[PauloL]

As it is put by Darwin, you start with a variable population that can be subject to natural selection and drift. I think the earliest such population had to be primordial cells, but you say that simple replicators can do that. Can you explain?

[PauloL]

Doc, prey and predators appear late, too late, to explain natural selection. Before they appeared, natural selection had to be operating at the cellular and later at vegetable level. Once chemical reactions are need so that an organism forms are not purposeful, how do you explain a guiding force that changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

[PauloL]

.




I think that for a variable population to be there, you must have evolution before that. This looks like an infinite regression, but unlike knowledge there seems to be no cogito to stop here.

I don't see any evolution in the red hennery. Just selecting out. For selecting out you had to start with a much more variable population (I call this complexity accepting 2 things to be more complex than 1, but accept any other concept), so this must not be evolution.

Let me give you a radical example:

A powerful nuclear station starts leaking radioactive radiation throughout the whole planet, killing every possible living species, except one: cockroaches.

So you have variable population (biosphere as we know it) subject to a selecting force (radioactive radiation) and in the end you have the best fit population, the only one that could keep reproducing. You call this evolution?




.

[Londoner]

I think that for a variable population to be there, you must have evolution before that.

All that is needed to create a variable population is that the replication is not perfect, or for reproduction to be sexual so that offspring are not clones of their parents. Both are the case; we know this, we can observe this.

This looks like an infinite regression, but unlike knowledge there seems to be no cogito to stop here.

I do not understand that.

I don't see any evolution in the red hennery. Just selecting out. For selecting out you had to start with a much more variable population (I call this complexity accepting 2 things to be more complex than 1, but accept any other concept), so this must not be evolution.

But as I explained; I do not understand exactly what you mean by 'complexity' but the amount of 'things' (as you put it) is not fixed forever. The new species of red hens can increase in complexity, through the continuing process of variation. It isn't the case that the later a species is in the evolutionary tree the simpler it is.

Let me give you a radical example:

A powerful nuclear station starts leaking radioactive radiation throughout the whole planet, killing every possible living species, except one: cockroaches.

So you have variable population (biosphere as we know it) subject to a selecting force (radioactive radiation) and in the end you have the best fit population, the only one that could keep reproducing. You call this evolution?

If those cockroaches come under selective pressure then some cockroaches may (because they vary from other cockroaches) be able to exploit a niche not available to the rest of the cockroach population. Then, in certain circumstances, the species will diverge. And one day we may get a world populated by the same diversity we have now. And this has happened: we have had mass extinction events, where there has been a great decrease in diversity of life forms but eventually the diversity is re-established.

As I mentioned, every living thing, from fungi to humans, shares certain genes. Unless they had had a common ancestor, how could this be the case?

[Harbal]

This looks like an infinite regression, but unlike knowledge there seems to be no cogito to stop here.

I do not understand that.

And I wouldn't bother wasting any time trying to understand it. You'll not get anywhere with this guy, what you are saying doesn't suit his agenda, it's as simple as that.

[PauloL]

.




I accept a common ancestor. All empirical data show that. I also accept mitochondrial endosymbiosis by Eukaryotes. Thinking otherwise from empirical data is absurd. Life as we know it couldn't show up from magic arts.

But don't ask me to accept Darwin because what I see is a circular theory, nothing more. Darwin made a remarkable visionary hunch for his time. Unfortunately the religious connotation was such that his visionary hunch became dogmatic to the point that a theory on evolution is not apt for evolution itself. Anyone trying to challenge it so that evolution could be clarified scientifically is insulted at once. All scientifically theories can be challenged, except Darwin's, right the one most missing improvement.

All scientific theories have a Numenklatura protecting them, this is Kuhn's normal science. Look at last month's letter in Scientific American "A Cosmic Controversy" undersigned by such imminent scientist as Stephen Hawkins amongst others in reply to scientists proposing an alternative to inflationary cosmos.

Darwin's theory is however outside normal science, something Kuhn missed, in that its challenges, as you can see in this forum and in the literature, are dealt mainly by insults and ad hominem attacks.

In my case, a lot of people called me creationist and theist. They're wrong. I can be a religious person or not, and see no problem in disclosing that, but not as part of a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is expected to be neutral and the quality of argumentation must not depend on beliefs by the author. That's what I learned from Philosophy at school, and it's why I rely on Philosophy to these days. I remember from those times things like "Not a good argument, because it assumes they believe in God" and "Not a good argument, because it assumes they don't believe in God". But this is "official Philosophy" only. "Realphilosophie" is something different.

Look at this philosophical argument (I withheld author not to compromise them):

"And I wouldn't bother wasting any time trying to understand it. You'll not get anywhere with this guy, what you are saying doesn't suit his agenda, it's as simple as that."

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°)




.

[Londoner]

But don't ask me to accept Darwin because what I see is a circular theory, nothing more.

Well, I have done my best to answer you. I honestly cannot see why you think it is circular.

Anyone trying to challenge it so that evolution could be clarified scientifically is insulted at once.

I have never insulted you.

[PauloL]

.




Londoner, of course you never insulted me, I never said such a thing.

What I mean is that insults and ad hominem attacks abound here and elsewhere and it's enough that the theme be Darwin.




.

[Harbal]

Look at this philosophical argument (I withheld author not to compromise them):

"And I wouldn't bother wasting any time trying to understand it. You'll not get anywhere with this guy, what you are saying doesn't suit his agenda, it's as simple as that."

If you were as competent at philosophy as you are trying to give the impression of being, you would have correctly identified this as advice, not an argument.

I remember from those times things like "Not a good argument, because it assumes they believe in God" and "Not a good argument, because it assumes they don't believe in God".

Nevertheless, I would be surprised if the hand of God didn't pop up at some point on the circuitous road to the inevitable conclusion you are vainly trying to lead us to.

[Harbal]

I have never insulted you.

But I bet you've been tempted.

[thedoc]

Doc, prey and predators appear late, too late, to explain natural selection. Before they appeared, natural selection had to be operating at the cellular and later at vegetable level. Once chemical reactions are need so that an organism forms are not purposeful, how do you explain a guiding force that changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

Predator and prey appeared as soon as life started, the earliest organisms had to "eat" something and other living things were the best source of material. Life started by living organisms organizing from inorganic material but as soon as it started, one living organism started hunting and eating other living organisms, predator and prey.

[thedoc]

Breeding was the main post and this remains untouched by you.

"one-way street to change to have a better chance to reproduce"

I'm sure you don't mean such a thing, unless you can explain what's the guiding force that grants changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

Perhaps you would explain what you think is the difference between "breeding" and "reproduction"? Most of my posts have been directed at the concept of evolution based on reproductive success, how is that not breeding.

[thedoc]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/breeding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeding

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breeding

[thedoc]

Doc, prey and predators appear late, too late, to explain natural selection. Before they appeared, natural selection had to be operating at the cellular and later at vegetable level. Once chemical reactions are need so that an organism forms are not purposeful, how do you explain a guiding force that changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/predator

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predator

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/predator

Many of the definitions I found used the term organism along with animal.