@AkioTsukino The environment is constantly changing.
A defect in one environment is a defect only in light of, and because of, that environment. Change the environment, and the defect can become an advantage... for now.
Genes operate in several environment e.g. the ever-changing natural environment, and the ever-changing set of other genes with which they operate. They cannot know what those future environments will be.
Genes march backwards into the future... which is why evolution isn’t teleological.
@newjaninev2 Now I'm going to do a sort of word (or concept) association exercise I like to do to advance my thinking in any possible direction. Don't get upset if I say something which is wrong because I'm playing with possibilities, whether right or wrong. Sort of like Paul Atreides with future paths before him. A puzzle. Does this piece fit? No. Okay, set it aside . . . .
Random defects and advantages are defined by the outcome after the fact as we perceive them.
The environment is constantly changing. Can changes be varied in length of time. A dramatic change or more subtle, again, as we perceive them. It's not like clockwork.
A pathogen doesn't leap from animal to man in a short period of time. It would take a greater period. Say, 400,000 years as opposed to a trip to the wet market.
A new breed of dog can be manipulated in a short period of time. Are genetically modified foods accelerated evolution?
If humans created AI that for whatever reason decided light skinned people were useful or not useful and began either using them like we do cattle or destroying them like we do pests, would the rapid advantages to dark skin people be evolution?
Can the changes in the environment themselves be regarded as evolution? (I think it was you who, in this thread, bring up nature and natural selection. Hopefully I will get to that later.
Of course, genes can't "know" anything. Could you briefly elaborate on what you mean by "know"? No objection there, of course, just need clarification.
Teleological: relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
Excellent. Okay, I don't know if I've already mentioned this, but so far it is pretty much clarification of what I knew and excepted about evolution. No need to comment on that last statement.
@newjaninev2 Chuckles couldn’t give a straight answer to this one. And being Christian, you know he’ll never admit it [quote] So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. In all descriptions of Satan, have you ever seen him crawling on his belly ?[/quote] The snake in Eden was not Satan.
Evolution is the biological process by which organisms adapt to their environments over multiple generations. If part of a species' population has an allele that makes it more likely to survive to reproduction, then it will reproduce at a higher rate than the population as a whole until the allele in question dominates completely. New alleles form through mutation, and the process repeats itself over and over again.
@BlueVeins Thank you for your response. I've addressed adaptation in my response to @basilfawlty89 below if you're interested. As to your response specifically: Quote from below is from: https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Allele
[quote]An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence (a single base or a segment of bases) at a given genomic location. An individual inherits two alleles, one from each parent, for any given genomic location where such variation exists. If the two alleles are the same, the individual is homozygous for that allele.[/quote]
Allele: having two identical alleles of a particular gene or genes. "homozygous embryos" (Oxford)
[c=A69800]EDIT[/c]: I have to stop this and finish it (this post) tomorrow. In my research I'm having some difficulty with what exactly DNA is. I'll get back to this.
By the way. I think it should be made clear to you, that evolution is [u]NOT[/u] the study of how life began on earth. Evolution happens to living organisms, the origin of life is abiogenesis. Different science, and should not be confused with the other. There is evidence to support it, but it’s early yet, and they’ve only begun to collect the data. It will be a while before they get a handle on it. Evolution is very solid nonetheless.
@DocSavage [quote]You seem to believe that corrupted sponsors are tainting the actual science, destroying both it’s credibility and it’s value.[/quote]
[quote]You said earlier, that evolution “has it’s uses” but that pharmaceutical companies have corrupted the science.[/quote]
Well, yes I did, but those are two separate issues. I also pointed out that there are always scientists who have integrity, honor, discipline et cetera.
[quote]Not so. The science is good, that doesn’t stop someone from misinformation for their own purposes.[/quote]
Yes. Exactly. But the misinformation for their own purposes is bad science. In the guise of good science. I simply make the distinction. They are both science.
[quote]You need to separate facts from what you consider misuse.[/quote]
That's true with everything. You see, this is a HUGE part of the problem. Like I asked someone else in this thread. Do facts evolve?
@AkioTsukino You’re talking as if science were something palpable and separate from everything else.
Science is a methodology
“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” [i]Steven Novella[/i]
“Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.” [i]Richard Feynman[/i]
I realise you desperately need science to be something else, in the same way you need evolution to be something else, because then you can wheel out all your prepared arguments.
Sorry, can’t be done
Your arguments are based on straw-man fallacies
That’s why all you offer are vague allusions and disingenuous questions which have not a whit of academic curiosity behind them. Here’s an idea... ask a question, and then engage with the answer. Don’t run away from the answer. Engage. Explore the ramifications of the answer.
@AkioTsukino You are forgetting ( more likely ignoring ) the one thing which completely destroys your little conspiracy theory.
Understand that there are bad scientists. Incompetence, or deliberate frauds. Take your pick. There is no bad science. Science is judged on results. That is it’s biggest benefit. Repeatable, consistent, predictable results. Which is what makes your statements so ridiculous. Especially about evolution. Evolution is a natural process that has occurred over millions of years. What you see is the results. What do those results tell you ? That living organisms change over time. That’s it . They change and adapt to conditions in their environment. The process is biological, not corporate. It’s not something that is subject to your corporate corruption. It will continue, with or without us. It’s really that simple. Now to the subject of applied science. That too , despite your belief to the contrary, is not bad science either. Applied science is how the science is put to use. Corporations do indeed use the science. Some might even misuse it. It depends on what they want to achieve. Nuclear energy at mentioned before, can be used to make a bomb, or keep the lights burning at night in thousands of homes. Don’t blame the science. Corporations, use science to make products, or sell services. The science has to work, or it’s not going to be of any use to anyone. It has to provide results and give the public what it wants. So as long as they do, the science is “good” . You don’t trust, or like it ? Too bad. Unless you can come up with a practical alternative, no one will give up the convenience. So whatever corruption you have a moral problem with, people will over look, as long as they’re happy with what they get.
No, it isn’t best to keep it brief. Evolution should not be part of the religion section. It’s part of biology and other sciences. Want to really learn? Do the work. There are lots of great biology authors that are better than lay people. Most can be found on free digital formats. More than enough evidence exists and added constantly to determine that evolution is factual and no longer just a theory.
@AkioTsukino The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, passing tests and falsification. Not one person suggesting an alternative theory has tried to design an alternative model.
Truth can be tested and demands it. Tell me there's absolutely zero magic events. That nothing made up and exaggerated whatsoever. You can’t. The Bible reads exactly like mythology, full of it’s heroes and villains.
@BlueSkyKing [quote]The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, passing tests and falsification. Not one person suggesting an alternative theory has tried to design an alternative model.[/quote]
Here's the real question, sir. What exactly makes you think that I object to evolution?
Do me a favor, would you? Look up, in a dictionary, the words evidence, model, theory and truth. These are the things you are talking about. Read very carefully. Meditate on them. Take a minute.
I never intentionally memorize scripture. You know why? Because the mind, the brain if you like, fools us, in a way. Not only that, we fool ourselves independent of our own minds. I also very often look up the meanings of words I want to use even if I [b]think[/b] I know how to apply them. Even simple commonly used words.
[quote]Truth can be tested and demands it.[/quote]
Truth can be tested but the test demands to be tested more than the truth. That is where evolutionists screw it up.
[quote]Tell me there's absolutely zero magic events.[/quote]
Look that up too. It's an illusion. There is no magic in the Bible except for that. Illusion. God doesn't do magic. Magic practice was prohibited by pain of death in the Law of Moses. God doesn't know the future. The future doesn't exist. God can see how things will obviously play out or he makes them happen. Everything you think you know about the Bible is a lie. Because it brought fame and fortune to those who would create the lie. Same is now happening with science. For only about a hundred years, but that's a good start. It will soon catch up with religion at the pace it currently runs.
[quote]That nothing made up and exaggerated whatsoever. You can’t.[/quote]
Ah, but you see, I can. I have. A man once perpetuated a fraud. I can't remember how he did it, but he planted the "evidence" where he knew it would be found, in a dig or something, and it was "discovered" and made the headlines. What a stunning discovery on the ancestor of mankind! It was taught as evolution. Then there was the teeth and fragments of a jaw that did the same. I think they were from a pig and an ape. Missing link! For decades these frauds were taught as evolution. Where was the test? Some quotes. By an evolutionist.
"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place - and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of sect urging some new modification. . . . As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall."
You want to know how science really works? Watch the weatherman on your local news. He has the training. He has the science and the technology, and he still gets it wrong more often than not.
[quote]The Bible reads exactly like mythology, full of it’s heroes and villains.[/quote]
Then why is it so prevalent in the discussion of the science of evolution? Some more quotes.
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. . . . The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. . . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
@Pikachu [quote]I mean that's fine...but i think the term has been sufficiently clarified in this context an you've acknowledged that you understand the meaning in the context of evolution.[/quote]
Even if that were the case, and I don't think it necessarily is, obviously, but even if it were that doesn't mean I just accept it blindly. Let's say in the research or in another response from someone else I come across a discrepancy. I want to investigate that even if I have acknowledged and understand the meaning in context of evolution.
@AkioTsukino You don't have to accept it blindly. But you haven't raised any specific objection. Do you have any specific objection to the definition of adaptation in an evolutionarily context being a process which does not require conscious effort? If not then to what are you objecting and why do you keep bringing it up?
@Pikachu [quote]You don't have to accept it blindly.[/quote]
Alright then. Good.
[quote]Do you have any specific objection to the definition of adaptation in an evolutionarily context being a process which does not require conscious effort?[/quote]
Nope. Don't think so.
[quote]If not then to what are you objecting and why do you keep bringing it up?[/quote]
Like I said. The potential for linguistic abuse. Confusion.
@MalteseFalconPunch Microevolution is the process by which organisms change in small ways over time. Macroevolution refers to larger evolutionary changes that result in new species. Evolution is change. I'm vary [sic] weary? of people that don't specify what they mean by something.
I'm fairly certain that the evolution I was taught in school isn't the evolution of today, or of Darwin's day, or of Empedocles' day.
First what it is should be established, then how it works.
@AkioTsukino [quote]Microevolution is the process by which organisms change in small ways over time. Macroevolution refers to larger evolutionary changes that result in new species[/quote]
Time can be depicted as being seconds, minutes, or hours... it’s still just time.
‘Micro-‘ and ‘macro-‘ evolution are a distinction without a difference.
There’s just evolution.
[quote]Evolution is change. I'm vary [sic] weary? of people that don't specify what they mean by something [/quote]
Change that isn’t heritable cannot be evolutionary.
Alleles are heritable.
Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.
Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.
Is that specific enough for you?
[quote]I'm fairly certain that the evolution I was taught in school isn't the evolution of today, or of Darwin's day, or of Empedocles' day[/quote]
The [b]process[/b] of evolution was discussed by the Ancient Greeks, up through the 19th century... and continues today. What was missing was a [b]mechanism[/b]. That changed in 1859 when Darwin’s twenty years of work led to his understanding of Natural Selection.
Subsequent research and evidence, combined with genetics and the spectacular contributions of technology, have resulted in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
If it helps: https://study.com/academy/lesson/modern-evolutionary-synthesis-definition-formation.html
[quote] Well, yes I did, but those are two separate issues. I also pointed out that there are always scientists who have integrity, honor, discipline et cetera. [/quote]
Ok , let’s get this straight. “Evolution has it’s uses” So evolution works. Corporations use it because it works, they don’t substitute something else, they used what works, and got the results they promised. How are those two separate issues? To get the results they promised, they used the science , which when used , produced the results. How are these two separate issues? The science they continue to use, continues to produce the results they promised. It hasn’t changed that fact. How are those two separate issues ? If you have nothing to offer as a practical alternative, why should anyone give up what they are promised, when they get it ?
[quote] Like I asked someone else in this thread. Do facts evolve?[/quote]
No they don’t. Facts are what can be shown to be true. A non-fact is a claim that has yet to be proven. When you add or subtract data you change the results, but your no longer dealing with the same “fact” so of course the answer will not be the same. Science produces results, as long as the results are consistent, it’s good science. The only result you can get from evolution, is change. What that change will be, is , depends on the conditions. But the fact remains that it has, and will happen.
[quote] SemmelweisReflex · 51-55, M @BlueSkyKing First of all, smart asses who think that the Bible is mythology and fiction are a dime a dozen. I've seen that with my own eyes. What they need to do before they tell me about mythology and fiction is quite simple. They need to learn more about mythology and fiction.
I've debated college professors from Jerusalem who didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground because they were dumb enough to think that being a scholar on the subject would make them knowledgeable. All it did was fill their head with tradition. Dawkins is an idiot. All you have to do is listen to him talk about the Bible and religion to see that. People like you listen to him. What does that tell you?
Even Hitchens, who at least was sensible and intelligent and possessed a modicum of integrity did a book tour with Al Sharpton. What does that tell you about the state of affairs? People like Hitchens and Dawkins make money off God. Like Jim and Tammy Baker did. You can't find truth in books or in schools. You can't find it very often in people. Scholars or lay people. You can't find truth in truth. You have to look through a thing to see it.
If you want to learn about fish in the Amazon you go to the people who live on the Amazon. If there is a sensible ichthyologist that's what he does. I can get more from Wikipedia than I can from someone like Dawkins. And in at least some sense, I can get more from lay people than there. I wanted you to teach me evolution because I wanted to know why you believe in evolution. Not evolution itself.
I got what I came for. I didn't really have that answer coming into this. I didn't expect it. There was more to it than I suspected, at least. It's disappointing, as truth often is.
I've always wanted to say this . . . ahem . . . [/quote]
You would have saved us a Hell of a lot of time, if you just used your photo instead of an avatar.
@SW-User I understand. I agree. That is sort of what this is about. The hammering out of what is presumptuous and assumption. In careful small steps. I would be happy to hear any input you have to offer during the course of the thread.
@newjaninev2 [quote]You seem unaware of why the Theory is called the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection[/quote]
You could expand that by saying I always have a problem with what things are called. Or at least typically justifiable suspicion, so that will be a part of my learning.
[quote]Evolution is a process (and I have told you what that process involves).[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]Natural Selection is the mechanism that drives the process of Evolution.[/quote]
Well, see, there could be a problem. So, let's define, shall we? Where is the random selection in nature? Selection isn't selection at all in any common application I can see. It's more like natural turn of events. Or, nature for short. It's just natural. So my question becomes what is mechanism?
Mechanism: a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.
So natural selection is natural nature by nature. It's just nature. Correct? I realize everything has to be called something but why not call natural selection nature. Get rid of the middleman. The terms selection and evolution are unnecessary. Feel free to correct me.
[quote]Natural Selection is sex and death in a constantly changing environment[/quote]
Again. Sex and death are nature. Changing environment is nature.
@AkioTsukino [quote]Where is the random selection in nature?[/quote]
There is no [i]random[/i] selection in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolutionary selection works, though it is sadly a very common one. I will leave most of this response to @newjaninev2 but allow me to clarify the concept for you.
Consider the roll of the dice:
The 6 that turns up is random, as are all the other numbers. But you're not just rolling and rolling...you're keeping the sixes and rolling again until you get more sixes. The important part to remember is that evolution [i]is keeping all the 6s[/i] while the rest get left behind. The rolls (mutations) are random (kind of) but the [i]selection[/i] process is anything but.
If your desire to educate yourself about evolution is earnest, this is one of THE MOST important concepts you must understand. Do you understand it?
