Explain love, heroism and forgiveness if life is merely survival of the fittest?

[ForEverAfter]

I believe your understanding is the one lacking as you seemed to believe evolution and adaptation were one and the same.

Adaptation can exist without evolution, but evolution can't exist without adaptation.
I meant you can't separate them in the context. I didn't mean they were equal.

...

You did, however, find the time to childishly attempt to belittle me.

You "belittled" me first, for the record..

Maybe you can't due to years of endoctrination and letting others do your thinking on this topic,

and again...

I'm sure you'll continue to let others do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe.

You've been doing it since your old evolution thread, a month ago.

(Maybe you should allow some more qualified people to "do (some of) your thinking for you". To dismiss the broader international scientific community, and assume that you can answer the questions it takes people a lifetime to answer, is downright arrogant... What does the Bible say about humility again? Something like: God works in mysterious ways, and it's not your place to understand everything?)

You're the one that intiated this particular debate by asking me questions about the E Coli experiment to begin with, and then you don't take time to read a response post that applies in respect?

Like I said, it was naive to think I could get through to you in any way.
I should have learned my lesson by now. My bad.

 

[methamaniac]

...



You "belittled" me first, for the record.

Two wrongs make a right I guess..
apologies if you took sarcasm to heart
not best way to make a point
It honestly doesn't bother me like I said,
I was just making point you had time for that but not to answer points I made in post.

(Maybe you should allow some more qualified people to "do (some of) your thinking for you". To dismiss the broader international scientific community, and assume that you can answer the questions it takes people a lifetime to answer, is downright arrogant... What does the Bible say about humility again? Something like: God works in mysterious ways, and it's not your place to understand everything?)

I accept Lenski's findings on what is taking place and think it is a fine example of adaptation (which we already knew happens),
just not his hypothesis on how this supports macroevolution.
Trust me, I'm not alone in "scientific community".
The holes in the neo-darwinism are huge.
The conumdrums are fast.
I could sit there rest of night and point out the problems in current theory you believe have been " answered" if you would like.

Like I said, it was naive to think I could get through to you in any way.
I should have learned my lesson by now. My bad.

You haven't presented anything to get "through" to
me. I had already reasearched the Lenski experiment before I knew you existed.
I have gave a thorough explanation as to why I and other scientist believe this is not macroevolution.
(Nothing more I can do.)
I too am sorry--sorry you can't see the reasoning behind it.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Two wrongs make a right I guess..
apologies if you took sarcasm to heart
not best way to make a point
It honestly doesn't bother me like I said,
I was just making point you had time for that but not to answer points I made in post.

Your repeated comments about us ignorant people being brainwashed / blinded by popular science don't bother me.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy, that's all...

Let's not let this devolve into another schoolyard pissing match.
You've been attempting to debunk evolution for over a month.
I ran out of patience, I guess. I apologize.

...

If the changes documented by Lenski occurred over 59,000 generations and we assume (for the sake of argument) that the reproductive cycle of this particular strain of E Coli has remained relatively constant... What kind of changes do you think would have occurred over the course of recorded human history?

The study took place over 26 years.
Let's say that recorded history covers approximately 5500 years.
That is 12 million, 480 thousand, 769 generations... (plus change.)

If Lenski's experiment was - instead - conducted over the entire course of human history, would you expect to find significant enough changes to indicate evolution? (Based on the extrapolated results of Lenski's experiments...)

...

What evidence would you need to accept that evolution most likely occurs?
What - if anything - would make you swap sides, in this debate?

(Please limit it to possible evidence.)

 

[ForEverAfter]

I could sit there rest of night and point out the problems in current theory you believe have been " answered" if you would like.

Neither of us have the training or understanding to dissect complex scientific theories.
There are certain fields of study that you cannot grasp by applying common logic.

(I don't think that the questions / problems have been answered, for the record.
Science is, and always will be, a work in progress.)

 

[Journyman16]

^Is a new species just the 'same old thing' but with so many accrued adaptations as to have become essentially dissimilar? Don't forget the huge quantity of years for this process...

We don't know. There appear to be very distinct jumps between species.

Now that might be an accidental artefact of the fossils scarcity, but until we DO find those inter-species fossils, Evolution by random chance remains just an hypothesis. It's not actually a theory because nobody has yet come up with a way to properly falsify it and in Science, that's a requirement for a Theory.

In the meantime, adaptation seems quite evidence and we can even cause it in the lab. Viruses and bacteria adapt in a Red Queen race with their hosts and it's debatable if viruses are even alive. :D

Another factor entering recently that I don't think has been incorporated into the Evolution idea is Craig Venter's findings on his world cruise. He sampled the ocean for life every so often - I think it was 200 miles but not sure. He found something like 50,000 unique gene families and millions of new genes. There are more than double the number of unique gene families than genes used to make a human.

This changes the picture I think, because the current' Tree' idea relies on a limited number of original genes that change slightly to create new species and attributes. We might have to alter the picture to show a savannah of shrubs rather than a single tree.

And that opens the question about how life came about. It's hard enough putting together the path from one initial 'creation' of a living cell; imagine the furor that will come if they have to suppose the original cell was created thousands of times in many places? How then is it we cannot easily duplicate such a common event?

Venter also found a new Domain of life to add to bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes, so the journey is far from nearing a destination. Venter is also the guy responsible for creating the first synthetic life, a possibly VERY dangerous thing to happen given Human propensity for finding the worst results for things in the lab.

 

[ForEverAfter]

There appear to be very distinct jumps between species.

Now that might be an accidental artefact of the fossils scarcity

Yep.

Evolution by random chance remains just an hypothesis. It's not actually a theory because nobody has yet come up with a way to properly falsify it and in Science, that's a requirement for a Theory.

It was a hypothesis. It is - now - the most viable theory, according to 99.5% of scientists working today.
(Note: those who disagree are, more often than not, creationists.)

...

Is the Big Bang theory a theory?

 

[methamaniac]

Your repeated comments about us ignorant people being brainwashed / blinded by popular science don't bother me.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy, that's all...

Let's not let this devolve into another schoolyard pissing match.
You've been attempting to debunk evolution for over a month.
I ran out of patience, I guess. I apologize.

...

If the changes documented by Lenski occurred over 59,000 generations and we assume (for the sake of argument) that the reproductive cycle of this particular strain of E Coli has remained relatively constant... What kind of changes do you think would have occurred over the course of recorded human history?

The study took place over 26 years.
Let's say that recorded history covers approximately 5500 years.
That is 12 million, 480 thousand, 769 generations... (plus change.)

If Lenski's experiment was - instead - conducted over the entire course of human history, would you expect to find significant enough changes to indicate evolution? (Based on the extrapolated results of Lenski's experiments...)

...

What evidence would you need to accept evolution?

It's not that simple.
First, I wouldn't expect bacteria to ever evolve purely based on fact they have remained virtually unchanged since Devonian period and fossil evidence shows all the way back to the Precambrian era. (Im accepting timelines for argument sake)
Evolutionary statis for hundreds of millions of years doesn't make any sense to me since
mutations are random and mostly radiation driven.
Bacteria evolution gets even harder to accept for me due to the lighiting quick speed which bacteria reproduce. Can you visualize the number of generations there would be if you traced it back.
Extrapolate the numbers you just gave me and and apply your same line of reasoning to bacteria living a billion years ago.
Would you expect them to change or stay the same? Why haven't they changed? How do they absorb all these mutations?
Why do we have tens of thousands of fossils of other organisms that are as far as we can tell identical to their modern day counterpart?
It doesn't show new information.
Only same information or
loss of information (I.e loss of eyes, limbs, teeth etc.)
Organisms seem to be appparently de-evolvimg or doing their best to stay the same.

What would it take for me to accept evolution?
That's kinda like asking me what evidence would I need to believe I can grow wings.
Convincing evidence.
You may think I secretly know the theory of evolution is correct and just pretend not to know it is there, but th at is not the case.
Like I said I used to accept it based on what other people told me. Then I scratched the surface and was like, wow , the evidence for what they are claiming is extremely weak and often contradictory.
Everytime you scratch the surface of evolution there always seems to be a "which came first" conundrum. I honestly could list a hundred of the top of my head. Too many things have to appear at same time.
I want even get into the problem of origin of life.

Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe in intelligent design? Would you have to know this designer personally?
If we found a spaceship on the moon would we have to see who made it to know it was designed?

 

[methamaniac]

;

imagine the furor that will come if they have to suppose the original cell was created thousands of times in many places? How then is it we cannot easily duplicate such a common event?

this

 

[Journyman16]

here appear to be very distinct jumps between species.

Now that might be an accidental artefact of the fossils scarcity

Yep.

Or it may not. Blindly accepting a reason for something just because it fits what you already believe is not Science. In fact it is MORE likely there are no such links than, even after finding great beds of fossils, we still do not have the steps in between the various species.

Here's an example of such an attempt... Gotta love all those '?'s that indicate imagination instead of facts.

It was a hypothesis. It is - now - the most viable theory, according to 99.5% of scientists working today.
(Note: those who disagree are, more often than not, creationists.)

Oh? So they have found a way to falsify Evolution so it can become a Theory? I'd be interested in just how they propose to do that - any links?

I'm betting it is more like they have redrafted the requirements to make an hypothesis a theory so they can declare Evolution to be one. :D

Is the Big Bang theory a theory?

Irrelevant and more typically an approach found in the AGW camp where they try to equate people who doubt the accuracy of computer models of chaotic systems with those who don't believe millions of Jews died in World War 2.

But no, the Big Bang also is not a theory, for the same reason and recent findings suggest even if it was, it would be a failed theory. CMB evidence is not conclusive to the Big Bang. High and low Redshift objects physically linked is impossible under the Standard Model of Cosmology explanations for Redshift and yet we find them.

Even ONE such link is enough to put the whole Big Bang into the 'highly doubtful' category and there are much better models for the Universe which don't require a Big Bang, nor Inflation, Dark matter or Dark Energy - the last 3 were ALL invented because teh Big Bang model cannot produce the Universe we see around us.

 

[swilow]

^Gravitational lensing implies the existence of some form of mass causing the effect. That implied mass is called dark matter. What it actually is is anyone's guess but I've always felt it to be a bit too conveniently ambiguous.

This is a decent article on falsifying evolution- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution#What_would_falsify_evolution.3F

 

[Journyman16]

^Gravitational lensing implies the existence of some form of mass causing the effect. That implied mass is called dark matter. What it actually is is anyone's guess but I've always felt it to be a bit too conveniently ambiguous.

I've always been suspicious of those 3 forces or explanations. I was full-on into the journals at the time the ideas came up and while the dialogue has changed somewhat, the initial reasons were because BB didn't work, and it was quite clear they looked at the data they had and said, "What WOULD make the BB work?" and that then became (first) Inflation, and then Dark Matter.

But the one clear thing was they were not about to question the BB idea.

You may want to have a read of Dynamic Steady State Universe ideas

Some of those falsification ideas might be seen as able to falsify Evolution but the first one is already shown in science.

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

Epigenetics shows identical DNA can produce radically different results. (and yes, I know it isn't what is meant, but modern findings have to modify the old or it just ain't Science.

And epigenetics IS a valid mechanism that lets environment play a role in determining the adaptations. Grandmother research shows epigenetic changes can carry through not only to the next generation but to the one after that. So a change determined epigenetically may easily result in better breeding prospects for species' members with that gene expressed or masked.

Darwin's version is flawed. He said,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

- demanding someone prove a negative to invalidate the theory is a little rich, considering to this day we have yet to find evidence that there is ANY complex organism (I'm presuming his time used organ in this manner) HAS been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

As mentioned above, we have plenty of cases of adaptation, but so far, nothing conclusive of actual Evolution, just circumstantial evidence.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I really can't do this.
I'm sorry if that comes across as rude.
If you guys think this means I admit defeat, that's cool.

I asked you questions, and I feel compelled to respond. But it just goes on endlessly.
I don't want to get sucked into another pseudo-scientific discussion on the internet.
It's very time consuming and I find it extremely unsatisfying / frustrating.

...

I'll say two final things:

1. meth, it's very revealing that there is no evidence that would convince you of evolution. / I do believe in "intelligent" design, although I don't like the wording.
2. Journyman, do you believe that evolution is the best model (let's forget the word theory, for the sake of avoiding semantics) we have? / Do you believe in evolution?

 

[Ninae]

There's never any peace with you 3, is it?

 

[methamaniac]

I asked you questions, and I feel compelled to respond. But it just goes on endlessly.
I don't want to get sucked into another pseudo-scientific discussion on the internet.
It's very time consuming and I find it extremely unsatisfying / frustrating.

I understand (sincerely)

What makes it frustrating is the unknown.
Unknown to us all.
That and the fact trying to solve a myriad of chicken and egg scenarios begins to give ya a headache☺

1. meth, it's very revealing that there is no evidence that would convince you of evolution. / I do believe in "intelligent" design, although I don't like the wording.

I never said that. I said it would take convincing evidence.
It's not there for me. I'm unconvinced.
You are convinced. It leaves little if any room for you to be wrong.

On falsification.......
,
I find it funny that evolution doesn't have to make and hold to its predictions.
Predicting astronomical change over hundred milllions of years and zero change over hundreds of millions of years just shows the elasticity and infallibility of theory.

 

[ForEverAfter]

It leaves little if any room for you to be wrong.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd accept that evolution doesn't exist, if there was sufficient evidence to indicate some other explanation.
Or if there wasn't an abundant amount of evidence supporting the theory.

You're still avoiding telling us what evidence you would require.
For over a month, people have been providing you with evidence.
And you shoot it down, time after time.

Almost as if you're ready to shoot anything down...
(That's how it comes across.)

So, I'm asking you: what (hypothetically) wouldn't you shoot down?
Do you need to see something evolve into something else?
Is that possible? If not, are you being fair?

There's never any peace with you 3, is it?

meth and I agree on religion, sometimes, but not science.
(The stars aligned recently, according to him.)

As for Journyman: yeah, we disagree on everything.

 

[methamaniac]

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd accept that evolution doesn't exist, if there was sufficient evidence to indicate some other explanation.
Or if there wasn't an abundant amount of evidence supporting the theory.

In short, u need God to tell you otherwise

You're still avoiding telling us what evidence you would require.
For over a month, people have been providing you with evidence.
And you shoot it down, time after time.

Almost as if you're ready to shoot anything down...
(That's how it comes across.)

So, I'm asking you: what (hypothetically) wouldn't you shoot down?
Do you need to see something evolve into something else?
Is that possible? If not, are you being fair?

It's superman claim so its going to need superman evidence for me , srry.
New specific information added to the genome would do it for me. If it was conclusive.
If those bacteria could assimulate rat poison I would seriously reconsider changing my mind.
The theory hides behind time,
so its no fault time premits me from testing and observing it.

meth and I agree on religion, sometimes, but not science.
(The stars aligned recently, according to him.)

Saying we don't agree on science cause we don't agree on random mutations forming from non-living chemicals and hitting every mathematical impossible odd just right to form more and more complexity every step of the way from microbes to microbiologist.......
is a bit of a stretch.
I think we would probably agree on most of science.

 

[ForEverAfter]

In short, u need God to tell you otherwise

No, a scientist would do just fine.
Currently there are no competing theories and the evidence backs up evolution.
If there was a competing theory that incorporated the evidence, I'd consider it.

I think we would probably agree on most of science.

Yeah, probably...

(Although I don't believe in gravity. )

 

[swilow]

If those bacteria could assimulate rat poison I would seriously reconsider changing my mind.

But that would actually be what we would expect from intelligent design, not evolution.

 

[methamaniac]

If those bacteria could assimulate rat poison I would seriously reconsider changing my mind.

But that would actually be what we would expect from intelligent design, not evolution.

assimilate*
(I type with my thumbs and am a lazy proofreader?

How so?

 

[methamaniac]

No, a scientist would do just fine.
Currently there are no competing theories and the evidence backs up evolution.
If there was a competing theory that incorporated the evidence, I'd consider it.

What options you got except ID and randomness?

I think I know what you mean.
Actually there are some new theories out there.
Neo-darwinism is dying fast.

Yeah, probably...

(Although I don't believe in gravity. )

I question it myself