[Fred]

https://www.wikihow.com/Search-Google

wikihow.com

3 Ways to Search Google - wikiHow

This wikiHow teaches you the basics of searching the web using Google, the world's largest search engine. Once you learn how to do a basic web search, you can learn how to use special search parameters, tools, and filters to … Continue reading

[Levi]

Fred, what does a picture prove? I could do the same to you without knowing how you got your info.

Wow. I never thought I would have to deal with such people who call me underlearned, undersearched, and under them.

[Fred]

@Levi:”Fred, what does a picture prove? I could do the same to you without knowing how you got your info.

Wow. I never thought I would have to deal with such people who call me underlearned, undersearched, and under them.”

I didn’t call you anything, and I didn’t post a picture. My point is simply that there are answers available to all your questions, but you have to make the effort to search for the answers. Here’s even better help: a link to a website with a large archive of answers to creationist claims: https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html

talkorigins.org

Search the Talk.Origins Archive

Search form for the Talk.Origins Archive

[Levi]

<div>”I didn’t call you anything, and I didn’t post a picture. My point is
simply that there are answers available to all your questions, but you
have to make the effort to search for the answers. Here’s even better
help: a link to a website with a large archive of answers to creationist
claims: https://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html“</div><div>A rule of thumb. These types of articles and blogs are not
peer-reviewed (e.g., they’re not even reviewed by evolutionists
themselves) and are, therefore, immediately suspect by definition. A
blog or website can be done by anyone,
and they’re often written by critics of creation who also just happen
to be almost totally ignorant of the very evolutionary position they’re
trying to defend. In other words, much of what’s on anti-creation
websites and blogs would never pass the standards
evolutionary scientists have for themselves. By the way, there’s a website called True Origins that was designed to rebut your website, if you’re interested.
</div><div>

</div>

talkorigins.org

404 Not Found

404 Not Found

[Mammal]

Lol, as Fred suggested please do more research before you post straw man arguments. You try to argue something that you clearly know very little about; there is not a valid argument here.

[Levi]

Mammal, I got this from a Ph.D scientist who knows what he’s doing. Why are you making straw man arguments when you don’t know where I got them?

[Mammal]

Not sure what Ph.D he has but the person clearly does not know much about natural selection. Believe me.

[Levi]

Do you have a Ph.D, Mammal? What authority do you have on the subject?

[Fred]

What’s the name of this “Ph.D scientist who knows what he’s doing”?

[Levi]

Dr. Donald Batten.

Description from the book I got this from: Dr. Batten is an expert in the cultivation of tropical plants, specifically bean, lychee, guava, custard apple, and mango. No stranger to the world of science, Don has written extensively both in the secular and Christian world, with multiple articles in scientific journals and books. His work on environment adaptation, environmental physiology, and mineral nutrition with these important world crop plants makes him an excellent referee for a discussion on natural selection, for he had to deal with this concept constantly in his work.

[Mammal]

I see he is affiliated to Creation.com. Still, I am surprised that he would make such nonsensical statements about natural selection. He might have asserted things along the lines of the by now well known objections, which we regurlarly debate here and that have been refuted repeatedly. Which means the misunderstanding about natural selection per se was on your side, not his.

I have asked this before, but could you cite it. Just give us the link to the article he wrote so that we could at least see if you misunderstood, or if it was all his mistake.

Natural selection is widely covered in biology / evolution education material, very easy to find and check your facts.

[Levi]

“I see he is affiliated to Creation.com. Still, I am surprised that he would make such nonsensical statements about natural selection. He might have asserted things along the lines of the by now well known objections, which we regurlarly debate here and that have been refuted repeatedly. Which means the misunderstanding about natural selection per se was on your side, not his.

I have asked this before, but could you cite it. Just give us the link to the article he wrote so that we could at least see if you misunderstood, or if it was all his mistake.

Natural selection is widely covered in biology / evolution education material, very easy to find and check your facts.”

Don’t affiliate the synonyms “micro-evolution” and “adaptation” I gave to Natural Selection to him, if that’s what you mean.

I got this from a book, Evolution Achilles’ Heels, but if you want the article citations, here you are:

creation.com/sanford This summarizes the problems of Natural Selection to Evolution. Hope it helps.

[Mammal]

I read that publication earlier already, and I don’t quite see much of what you conveyed about natural selection. In a entirely different article he did make the claim that natural selection tends to lose information because well, helpful traits tend to make it further. It has been shown that redundant features may resurface, but okay, let me not be overly technical. “Losing” certain manifestations of traits and gaining others through other means that do make it further courtesy of natural selection is a pretty significant part of evolution. Which he underplays by saying it only brings about so-called micro-evolution. His claims that it cannot account for new species are unfounded, uninformed and unsubstantiated. Genetics paint a different picture, backed up by all sorts of other evidence. Once a group of organisms has substantially diverged from their ancestors so much that they no longer exchange genes, they effectively become a new species. Plenty of evidence.

[Levi]

“I read that publication earlier already, and I don’t quite see much of
what you conveyed about natural selection. In a entirely different
article he did make the claim that natural selection tends to lose
information because well, helpful traits tend to make it further. It has
been shown that redundant features may resurface, but okay, let me not
be overly technical.”

Alright. That’s fine.

“‘Losing’ certain manifestations of traits and
gaining others through other means that do make it further courtesy of
natural selection is a pretty significant part of evolution. Which he
underplays by saying it only brings about so-called micro-evolution. His
claims that it cannot account for new species are unfounded, uninformed
and unsubstantiated. Genetics paint a different picture, backed up by
all sorts of other evidence. Once a group of organisms has substantially
diverged from their ancestors so much that they no longer exchange
genes, they effectively become a new species. Plenty of evidence.”

But you need new information if you want a fish to become a frog. If NS only destroys or modifies existing information, how can it create new info needed for “Natural Darwinism”?

[Jabberwock]

1. Natural Selection does not create new information

That is a strawman, as no evolutionary biologist claims it does. New information is the result of mutations.

2. Natural Selection tends to delete information in some organisms (You will find it in other organisms as well)

To be exact, natural selection filters out the information that is less fit to the environment. That is perfectly compatible with evolution (and is its main mechanism).

3. Mutations are often too small for Natural Selection

That means ‘the increase of new information is too small for natural selection to work effectively’.

4. Mutations accumulate too fast for Natural Selection

But that means ‘the increase of new informatio is too high for natural selection to work effectively’, which clearly contradicts point 4. I am afraid you have to make up your mind…

5. Bad mutations cannot often be taken out.

But you have just claimed that NS deletes the bad information! Again, you have to make up your mind…

[Levi]

“1. Natural Selection does not create new information

That is a strawman, as no evolutionary biologist claims it does. New information is the result of mutations.”

Mutations often destroy, not help. And it doesn’t increase the size of a genome.

“2. Natural Selection tends to delete information in some organisms (You will find it in other organisms as well)

To be exact, natural selection filters out the information that is less fit to the environment. That is perfectly compatible with evolution (and is its main mechanism).”

It filters out information, but it doesn’t create. Doesn’t filtering destroy? If I filter water, I take out the germs.

“3. Mutations are often too small for Natural Selection

That means ‘the increase of new information is too small for natural selection to work effectively’.”

No. It means that Natural Selection can’t “notice” most of the mutations.

“4. Mutations accumulate too fast for Natural Selection

But that means ‘the increase of new informatio is too high for natural selection to work effectively’, which clearly contradicts point 4. I am afraid you have to make up your mind…”

Mutations don’t create. They destroy and harm.

“5. Bad mutations cannot often be taken out.

But you have just claimed that NS deletes the bad information! Again, you have to make up your mind…”

NS doesn’t delete bad information. It destroys good ones. Can you explain what you mean?

[Levi]

No response, Jabberwock? This reply wasn’t perfect, but I still want to see why you thought what you thought in your response. I’m actually itching to hear why you say that.

[lancia]

“Have you ever heard the word “Natural Selection?”

When a post begins with that question, what comes next is not likely to be good, for there are two words in the term “Natural Selection,” not one.

And what comes next is, indeed, not good, for immediately another “gem” appears.

“What is Natural Selection? Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism. But does it?”

“But does it?” That question doesn’t follow the preceding words in any logical way.

“But is it?” That question would follow the preceding words, at least grammatically.

Then immediately after that mistake we see another more biologically significant one. “Natural Selection has other names, such as microevolution and adaptation.” No, those other terms are not other names for natural selection. Natural selection can cause microevolution and adaptation. But natural selection is not microevolution or adaptation.

I’m afraid, in Levi, we have another Quantrill in our midst. Or maybe it’s the same Quantrill. As such, the entire post is not likely to make any sense biologically or otherwise. And, as expected, it does not.

[Levi]

“’Have you ever heard the word “Natural Selection?”

When a post begins with that question, what comes next is not likely to be good, for there are two words in the term “Natural Selection,” not one.”

Yes I have. I am a little confused what your point is here? What is it?

“‘What is Natural Selection? Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism. But does it?’

“But does it?” That question doesn’t follow the preceding words in any logical way.

“But is it?” That question would follow the preceding words, at least grammatically.”

That’s no argument lancia. Try again.

“Then immediately after that mistake we see another more biologically significant one. “Natural Selection has other names, such as microevolution and adaptation.” No, those other terms are not other names for natural selection. Natural selection can cause microevolution and adaptation. But natural selection is not microevolution or adaptation.”

Natural Selection helps adapt, so it’s adaptation. Microevolution is just variations within species or a kind. Isn’t that Natural Selection?

[lancia]

You said, “Natural Selection helps adapt, so it’s adaptation. Microevolution is just variations within species or a kind. Isn’t that Natural Selection?”

Natural selection helps organisms adapt. But natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation. (I’ll give you the respective definitions if you want me to.)

Natural selection is also not variations within species. It can lead to those variations, but it’s not variations within species.

[Levi]

“You said, “Natural Selection helps adapt, so it’s adaptation. Microevolution is just variations within species or a kind. Isn’t that Natural Selection?”

Natural selection helps organisms adapt. But natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation. (I’ll give you the respective definitions if you want me to.)

Natural selection is also not variations within species. It can lead to those variations, but it’s not variations within species.”

Alright, then. Natural Selection is a tinkerer, not a creator.

[lancia]

I said, “Natural selection helps organisms adapt. But natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation. (I’ll give you the respective definitions if you want me to.)

Natural selection is also not variations within species. It can lead to those variations, but it’s not variations within species.”

In response, you said, “Alright, then. Natural Selection is a tinkerer, not a creator.”

A creator is a person, i.e., “one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being” (Merriam-Webster). Natural selection is not a person. Thus, it is no surprise that natural selection is not a creator, strictly speaking. But, as an organism-environment interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others, natural selection largely determines what organisms survive and what their characteristics are. That is much more than a tinkerer.

Anyway, how you can reach the conclusion “Natural Selection is a tinkerer, not a creator” from what I said, i.e., (1) natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation and (2) natural selection is also not variations within species, is inexplicable.

[Levi]

“I said, ‘Natural selection helps organisms adapt. But natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation.’ (I’ll give you the respective definitions if you want me to.)

If you want.

“Natural selection is also not variations within species. It can lead to those variations, but it’s not variations within species.”

Natural Selection is not the variations (that’s silly), but it causes them. It’s adaptation also (remember Darwin’s finches? The big beaks survived and the small beaks didn’t because of “adaptation”.

“In response, you said, ‘Alright, then. Natural Selection is a tinkerer, not a creator.’

A creator is a person, i.e., “one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being” (Merriam-Webster). Natural selection is not a person. Thus, it is no surprise that natural selection is not a creator, strictly speaking. But, as an organism-environment interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others, natural selection largely determines what organisms survive and what their characteristics are. That is much more than a tinkerer.”

If you want help to know what I mean, here’s an example: You can breed a wolf into a chihuahua over time, but not a chihuahua into a wolf. In that case, Natural Selection destroyed information that couldn’t be recovered. Natural Selection can only work with what is already there. Again, my point on filtering. It can determine the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.

You also affirmed my point that Natural Selection cannot create. Therefore it fails as a mechanism for Evolution. Maybe one day there will be a better one.

“Anyway, how you can reach the conclusion “Natural Selection is a tinkerer, not a creator” from what I said, i.e., (1) natural selection, by definition, is not the same as adaptation and (2) natural selection is also not variations within species, is inexplicable”

Natural Selection can tinker with what is already there. Can you see my point yet? In the Darwin’s finches illustration, the beaks were already there. NS just made it bigger or smaller, or destroy information permanently like I can cut paper and it never be put together again.

[lancia]

You said, “Yes I have. I am a little confused what your point is here? What is it?”

My point–which I will admit is trivial, but nonetheless readily noticeable–is you said “natural selection” is a word.

But it’s not a word. It’s a term that consists of two words–“natural” and “selection”–not one word.

[Levi]

“You said, “Yes I have. I am a little confused what your point is here? What is it?”

My point–which I will admit is trivial, but nonetheless readily noticeable–is you said “natural selection” is a word.

But it’s not a word. It’s a term that consists of two words–“natural” and “selection”–not one word.”

Alright. That’s no point though. That’s not an argument, is it?

[lancia]

You said, “Yes I have. I am a little confused what your point is here? What is it?”

I said, “My point–which I will admit is trivial, but nonetheless readily noticeable–is you said ‘natural selection’ is a word.

But it’s not a word. It’s a term that consists of two words–’natural’ and ‘selection’–not one word.”

You said, “Alright. That’s no point though. That’s not an argument, is it?”

Of course it’s a point. It’s my point, after all. And it supports the implied argument that you think and write carelessly.

[Levi]

“You said, “Yes I have. I am a little confused what your point is here? What is it?”

I said, “My point–which I will admit is trivial, but nonetheless readily noticeable–is you said ‘natural selection’ is a word.

But it’s not a word. It’s a term that consists of two words–’natural’ and ‘selection’–not one word.”

You said, “Alright. That’s no point though. That’s not an argument, is it?”

Of course it’s a point. It’s my point, after all. And it supports the implied argument that you think and write carelessly.”

Nature is not very smart, is it now? Why would it create stuff?

I still don’t get your point. Are you attacking the synonyms I gave or just a word that you think is meaningless?

[lancia]

You said, “‘What is Natural Selection? Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism. But does it?’”

I said, “But does it?” That question doesn’t follow the preceding words in any logical way. Instead, the question “But is it?” should have been used. That question would logically follow the preceding words, at least grammatically.”

You said to that, “That’s no argument lancia. Try again.”

But the comment was not the argument. The argument was what I said before that comment. “And what comes next is, indeed, not good, for immediately another ‘gem’ appears.”

So, the comment supports and follows the argument–as raised in the first part of my message–that what comes next is not good.

Again, you said, “Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism.” So, the question centers on whether it (i.e., natural selection) is or is not evidence. Thus, the question should have been “But is it?”

[Levi]

“You said to that, ‘That’s no argument lancia. Try again.’

“But the comment was not the argument. The argument was what I said before that comment. “And what comes next is, indeed, not good, for immediately another ‘gem’ appears.”

So, the comment supports and follows the argument–as raised in the first part of my message–that what comes next is not good.

Again, you said, “Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism.” So, the question centers on whether it (i.e., natural selection) is or is not evidence. Thus, the question should have been “But is it?”

It isn’t. I pointed out the logical fallacy of trying to do such a thing, if you really read my description.

[lancia]

I said, “Again, you said, ‘Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism.’ So, the question centers on whether it (i.e., natural selection) is or is not evidence. Thus, the question should have been ‘But is it?’

To that you said, “It isn’t. I pointed out the logical fallacy of trying to do such a thing, if you really read my description.”

But for the issue I raise here, any logical fallacy you thought you pointed out is irrelevant.

What’s relevant for the issue I raise here is how poorly you expressed yourself when you asked the incorrect “But does it?” instead of the correct “But is it?”

[Levi]

I said, “Again, you said, ‘Some Evolutionists point to it as evidence for their theory of Neo-Darwinism.’ So, the question centers on whether it (i.e., natural selection) is or is not evidence. Thus, the question should have been ‘But is it?’

To that you said, “It isn’t. I pointed out the logical fallacy of trying to do such a thing, if you really read my description.”

But for the issue I raise here, any logical fallacy you thought you pointed out is irrelevant.

The logical fallacy is called Equivocation. Just as I can’t say “Because a cow can jump over a fence, with time and practice, it can jump over the moon” you can’t say “Because a fish can walk on land, with time and practice it will grow legs and lungs and become an amphibian.”

What’s relevant for the issue I raise here is how poorly you expressed yourself when you asked the incorrect “But does it?” instead of the correct “But is it?”

So? Grammar has nothing to do with reality. “But is Natural Selection a valid mechanism for Evolution?” Is that the question you want?

[lancia]

You said, “So? Grammar has nothing to do with reality.”

The issue with grammar is it’s really helpful for expressing yourself clearly here, so others can figure out what you are saying. That you continue to write poorly is not my problem. It’s yours. If you want an efficient and fruitful discussion, you should pay more attention to your writing. Knowing grammar would be a good start.

You said, “’But is Natural Selection a valid mechanism for Evolution?’ Is that the question you want?”

It’s not a matter of what question I want. In fact, I don’t really want any question from you because you’re not here to learn and you would thus hardly pay attention to the answer. Instead, you’re here under the mistaken impression that we want to hear an uninformed attack on how life almost certainly developed in this world.

Criticism of biological subdisciplines, such as evolution, just as in subdisciplines of any other scientific field, is warranted and welcomed, but not from the likes of you as you are now. You’re woefully lacking in basic knowledge of the principles and even the terminology of evolution, e.g., natural selection is not the same as adaptation and microevolution, as you somehow seem to think. In addition, you’re a careless thinker and writer, and you don’t seem to realize it, which is probably a result of your careless thinking.

[Levi]

“The issue with grammar is it’s really helpful for expressing yourself clearly here, so others can figure out what you are saying. That you continue to write poorly is not my problem. It’s yours. If you want an efficient and fruitful discussion, you should pay more attention to your writing. Knowing grammar would be a good start.”

How should I say things then?

“It’s not a matter of what question I want. In fact, I don’t really want any question from you because you’re not here to learn and you would thus hardly pay attention to the answer. Instead, you’re here under the mistaken impression that we want to hear an uninformed attack on how life almost certainly developed in this world.”

Excuse me? Can you dissect that last sentence? Are you in a position to say what my objective is?

“Criticism of biological subdisciplines, such as evolution, just as in subdisciplines of any other scientific field, is warranted and welcomed, but not from the likes of you as you are now. You’re woefully lacking in basic knowledge of the principles and even the terminology of evolution, e.g., natural selection is not the same as adaptation and microevolution, as you somehow seem to think. In addition, you’re a careless thinker and writer, and you don’t seem to realize it, which is probably a result of your careless thinking.”

Sorry, then. Can you define those three terms? Here’s why I said that:

Natural Selection: Basically helps creatures adapt to their environment.

Adaptation: Creatures adapting to their environment. (Okay, that’s different).

Micro-evolution: Evolution in the mini. Isn’t that NS?

[Fred]

@Mammal @Levi

Here’s a criticism of some of Batten’s claims: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

rationalwiki.org

101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe is an extensive list of arguments for young Earth creationism (YEC), compiled by Don Batten in June 2009 for Creation Ministries International (CMI).[1] The text below is the … Continue reading

[Levi]

Excuse me? I’m not talking about a young earth here, if I read the title correctly.

[Levi]

https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/why-evolution-isnt-perfect

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/the-limitations-of-natural-selection/

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-is-not-evolution/

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/selection-not-perfection/

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/darwin-selection-in-nature/

https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fish/natural-selection-in-guppies/

https://www.icr.org/article/creation-podcast-episode-18\

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/the-bad-gene/

If anyone is attacking the names I’m giving, check this out:

https://www.icr.org/article/language-evolution

science.org.au

Why evolution isn't perfect

Misconceptions about natural selection

[Mammal]

I just selected your first link and read it and wondered why you decided to cite it. I think it is pretty good..

https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/why-evolution-isnt-perfect

science.org.au

Why evolution isn't perfect

Misconceptions about natural selection

[Mammal]

This is also very educational, but it has to be read with the rest of the presentation. Well done!

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/selection-not-perfection/

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[Levi]

So you approved of those articles?

[Mammal]

Those two, yes. I haven’t read the others.

[Levi]

If you have time, you can check them out.

[Mammal]

In addition to the first link the Berkeley articles will all be correct, the others not. I don’t even need to read them. I was surprised that you cited so many truths about evolution inbetween your creationist nonsense.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[lancia]

Yes, Levi clearly does not seem to realize that the giraffe example and other examples referenced actually strongly support, not undermine, evolution.

[Levi]

Like how? Not microbes to the microbiologist.

[lancia]

“Like how?”

Read the giraffe example from the first-linked article that you, yourself, posted above!

If you don’t see why that example supports evolution and not creationism or intelligent design, then nothing I can say will likely help.

[Levi]

“If you don’t see why that example supports evolution and not creationism or intelligent design, then nothing I can say will likely help.”

It supports NS, but why does it support evolution? Can you prove that to me?

[lancia]

Yes, just as I thought and said, “If you don’t see why that example supports evolution and not creationism or intelligent design, then nothing I can say will likely help.”

[Levi]

It doesn’t support ID? Why? Why couldn’t God have given NS as a way for adapting for his creatures?

[lancia]

You said, “It doesn’t support ID? Why? Why couldn’t God have given NS as a way for adapting for his creatures?”

In asking why natural selection doesn’t support ID, as you have above, you are indeed asking this question from an intelligent-design perspective.

God could not have used natural selection as a way for His creatures to adapt because that’s not how intelligent design is purported to work, as advocated by biologically trained supporters of intelligent design.

These intelligent design advocates see irreducible complexity as a pivotal mechanism in intelligent design. That is, a biological system that is intelligently designed cannot be put together gradually from smaller units, as it would be by natural selection, and still function properly to accomplish the function for which it was designed. Michael Behe, as one such advocate of intelligent design, has argued against the possibility of putting an irreducibly complex biological structure or mechanism together in pieces, as would be done by natural selection, instead of all at once. That’s why, after all, the structure or mechanism is called irreducibly complex!

So, the short answer is, God, as an intelligent designer, could not have given natural selection as a way for his creatures to adapt because natural selection is incompatible with intelligent design.

However, I have suggested here that God could have used evolution by natural selection as a self-sustaining way for organisms to adapt to an ever-changing environment without constant intervention. Indeed, I wrote a long post describing that idea in detail in these pages a few years ago.

It’s not that God, as an omnipotent being, could not intervene whenever necessary. It’s that such intervention is not as elegant and worthy of awe as is a self-sustaining system in the midst of a constantly changing environment. Having life arise and flourish this way is the epitome of elegance.

[Levi]

lancia:

“You said, “It doesn’t support ID? Why? Why couldn’t God have given NS as a way for adapting for his creatures?” “

Good.

<div>”These intelligent design advocates see irreducible complexity as a pivotal mechanism in intelligent design. That is, a biological system that is intelligently designed cannot be put together gradually from smaller units, as it would be by natural selection, and still function properly to accomplish the function for which it was designed.”</div><div>

NS does not put together things, does it? Where did you get that from?

</div>

“However, I have suggested here that God could have used evolution by natural selection as a self-sustaining way for organisms to adapt to an ever-changing environment without constant intervention. Indeed, I wrote a long post describing that idea in detail in these pages a few years ago.”

Nice.

[lancia]

You said, “NS does not put together things, does it? Where did you get that from?”

Where did you get that NS does not put things together?

Anyway, I got that natural selection puts things together from many years of thinking about, reading about, and actually researching nature.

In other words, I got it by putting in the work.

Do you know why only female wasps and bees sting? It’s because the structure used by these insects to sting evolved by natural selection from the structure these insects use to lay eggs, namely ovipositors. Since only females lay eggs and thus only females have ovipositors, only females have the derived structure from ovipositors, namely stingers.

Natural selection puts together many things this way, i.e., by successively modifying already existing structures.

[Levi]

lancia

“Where did you get that NS does not put things together?”

NS is, to my understanding, mutations to help animals adapt to surroundings. Mutations is a change in the DNA from what’s already there, it doesn’t put more DNA together or whatever you meant there.

“Do you know why only female wasps and bees sting? It’s because the structure used by these insects to sting evolved by natural selection from the structure these insects use to lay eggs, namely ovipositors. Since only females lay eggs and thus only females have ovipositors, only females have the derived structure from ovipositors, namely stingers.”

You have no proof for the statement in bold, do you? You just made an assumption to prove the assumption that NS works!

“Natural selection puts together many things this way, i.e., by successively modifying already existing structures.”

That’s exactly what I meant. It can modify structures, not build them.

[lancia]

You said, “NS is, to my understanding, mutations to help animals adapt to surroundings. Mutations is a change in the DNA from what’s already there, it doesn’t put more DNA together or whatever you meant there.”

You need to study up before you go on endlessly criticizing evolution. You are woefully lacking in the fundamentals of genetics, to say nothing of evolution.

Natural selection is not the same as mutations. Natural selection acts on phenotypic changes caused by mutations. If you want a precise definition of natural selection, here it is. Natural selection is an interaction between organisms and the environment, an interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others.

That’s how natural selection builds things. It’s the environment interacting with phenotypes (i.e., characteristics of organisms) produced by genes, including mutations, to produce fitter organisms.

If a weed has genes for faster or earlier flowering and seed production, it will do better in an environment of regular mowing. But if it has genes for slower or later flowering and seed production, it will do better in an environment of only occasional mowing. Thus, if one collected that same weed species from lawns regularly mowed and from meadows rarely mowed, one would find very different forms of that weed species in the two habitats. The lawn habitat would have quick-flowering, short-stemmed, small-leafed plants while the meadow habitat would have slower-flowering, long-stemmed, large-leafed plants. The two contrasting plant forms may look so different that they almost seem like members of different species. But they are not.

[Levi]

<div>lancia</div><div>

“You need to study up before you go on endlessly criticizing evolution. You are woefully lacking in the fundamentals of genetics, to say nothing of evolution.”

</div>

That’s an observation. Now back it up. Show me that it is true.

“Natural selection is not the same as mutations. Natural selection acts on phenotypic changes caused by mutations. If you want a precise definition of natural selection, here it is. Natural selection is an interaction between organisms and the environment, an interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others.”

Alright, then, I must go with the definition for the sake of argument. So organism interact with the environment, an some reproduce more because they have adapted best to the environment, if I have it correctly. That’s good. But organisms can’t become other organisms; we don’t observe that. NS has limits. Just as how high I can jump has limits and how much I grow and mature has limits; so does NS. That’s what has been observed. Now it is your turn. Why do you believe NS can go on endless and without limits?

“If a weed has genes for faster or earlier flowering and seed production, it will do better in an environment of regular mowing. But if it has genes for slower or later flowering and seed production, it will do better in an environment of only occasional mowing…The two contrasting plant forms may look so different that they almost
seem like members of different species. But they are not.”

God has done great work in putting that kind of adapting software (if I can call it that) in weeds. However, weeds are still weeds. Tigers and domestic cats are still cats, even though they are wildly differing. Wolves and chihuahuas are still dogs; even though they differ in many respects.

Do you see my point now?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Levi. Reason: To make sure lancia knows the reply is for her

[lancia]

You said, “NS is, to my understanding, mutations to help animals adapt to surroundings. Mutations is a change in the DNA from what’s already there, it doesn’t put more DNA together or whatever you meant there.”

To that I said, “You need to study up before you go on endlessly criticizing evolution. You are woefully lacking in the fundamentals of genetics, to say nothing of evolution.

To that, you said, “That’s an observation. Now back it up. Show me that it is true.”

Do you ever read to understand?

I did back it up, as anyone but apparently you can see. As can be seem above, I showed that mutation and natural selection are not the same, despite your saying they are the same, i.e., “NS is, to my understanding, mutations to help animals adapt to surroundings.”

As I said in the post in question, “Natural selection is not the same as mutations. Natural selection acts on phenotypic changes caused by mutations. If you want a precise definition of natural selection, here it is. Natural selection is an interaction between organisms and the environment, an interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others.“

You are so stubbornly attached to creationist misinformation that you can’t seem to see you’re wrong even when the undeniable facts showing you are wrong are pointed out to you.

[Levi]

lancia

“I did back it up, as anyone but apparently you can see. As can be seem above, I showed that mutation and natural selection are not the same, despite your saying they are the same, i.e., “NS is, to my understanding, mutations to help animals adapt to surroundings.”

Sorry. Alright, but my description reflected what you said. I showed NS couldn’t get rid of everything because they come so fast and usually are too small to recognize. What is NS? A change in frequency of alleles? That is good, but not enough to create anything at all. Humans have orphan genes; genes that no other organism has. So NS needs a way of creating new alleles or DNA. Where am I lacking?

“As I said in the post in question, “Natural selection is not the same as mutations. Natural selection acts on phenotypic changes caused by mutations. If you want a precise definition of natural selection, here it is. Natural selection is an interaction between organisms and the environment, an interaction that leads to some organisms reproducing more than do others.“

That creates DNA?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Levi.

[lancia]

You said, “I showed NS couldn’t get rid of everything because they come so fast and usually are too small to recognize.”

Of course natural selection cannot get rid of EVERYTHING! I never said it could, and I don’t know of any biologically knowledgeable person who says or would say it could.

There is a condition, known by any average undergraduate student in biology or genetics, called the recessive condition. The recessive condition unambiguously shows that natural selection cannot get rid of everything. The recessive condition applies to alleles that are not expressed in diploid organisms unless both alleles are in the same recessive state. That is, the recessive condition, e.g., blue eyes in humans, is not expressed in offspring unless the recessive allele b is contributed by each parent to the zygote, thus producing the eye-color genotype bb in an offspring. The dominant allele in humans codes for brown eyes. So, the other two possible genotypes, Bb and BB, each code for brown eyes.

Now, even though there is no reason to suspect this to be true, let’s assume, for illustrative purposes only, that natural selection acts against blue eyes. Natural selection could not get rid of the allele for blue eyes unless it is expressed. So, it could not get rid of the allele for blue eyes if all carriers of the b allele did not express blue eyes, as would be the case if all carriers had the genotype Bb. Now it would be unusual for all carriers of b to be Bb, but it is possible if the b allele were very rare. As the recessive allele became more abundant, the probability would rise that some of the b alleles would by chance end up in the homozygous recessive genotype bb, and then natural selection could act on it because blue eyes would be expressed.

You said, “What is NS? A change in frequency of alleles? That is good, but not enough to create anything at all.”

Natural selection is not a change in frequency of alleles. It may cause such a change, but it is not the change itself. You really do have an issue with reading and understanding what others have written.

You said, “Humans have orphan genes; genes that no other organism has. So NS needs a way of creating new alleles or DNA. Where am I lacking?”

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. Nobody but you said or implied natural selection creates alleles or DNA! Mutations create new genes or DNA. Then, if and when the new genetic material is expressed, it can be acted upon by natural selection.

[Levi]

lancia

“Of course natural selection cannot get rid of EVERYTHING! I never said it could, and I don’t know of any biologically knowledgeable person who says or would say it could.”

So NS lacks in that case. It cannot create. It is busy destroying bad mutations. Can that create?

“Natural selection is not a change in frequency of alleles. It may cause such a change, but it is not the change itself. You really do have an issue with reading and understanding what others have written.”

What is NS then?! What were you referring to when you said that?

If NS only selects, then it cannot create. I can select from items at a store or from cases I want to deal with, but I can’t create them. NS can only account for the survival of the fittest…not the arrival of the fittest.

“I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. Nobody but you said or implied natural selection creates alleles or DNA! Mutations create new genes or DNA. Then, if and when the new genetic material is expressed, it can be acted upon by natural selection.”

Alright then. I am addressing both. Mutations cannot make anything helpful. Mutations do not make anything at all. Natural Selection lacks when trying to get rid of the bad mutations. Therefore, we are all headed to extinction and no new organism can be created.

Maybe, actually, I am addressing microevolution (mutations + Natural Selection), why we have the variants in each species.

Lancia, please give me grace. I am still learning.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Levi.

[lancia]

I said, “Of course natural selection cannot get rid of EVERYTHING! I never said it could, and I don’t know of any biologically knowledgeable person who says or would say it could.”

You said, “So NS lacks in that case. It cannot create. It is busy destroying bad mutations. Can that create?”

Of course destruction can create! The Grand Canyon was created by the Colorado River’s destruction of the substratum by erosion. A sculptor creates a work of art by removing and thus destroying material in whatever medium being worked on. Likewise, natural selection can create a tiny eye in zooplankters where there was a large eye, making the zooplankter less visible and thus less vulnerable to predation. It does so through the predation by visually oriented fish preying (i.e., destroying) the more conspicuous zooplankters with larger eyes, leaving only zooplankters with genes for smaller eyes.

I said, “Natural selection is not a change in frequency of alleles. It may cause such a change, but it is not the change itself. You really do have an issue with reading and understanding what others have written.”

You said, “What is NS then?”

I clearly defined natural selection for you and now you ask what natural selection is! Read back a couple of posts and you will see it clearly defined. As I said, you have trouble reading and understanding what others have written.

You said, “If NS only selects, then it cannot create” and “NS can only account for the survival of the fittest…not the arrival of the fittest.”

Of course, natural selection does not result in the “arrival ” of the fittest. Nobody who knows biology has said that it did. But that’s not a problem for evolution. With the help of mutation, which does provide new material randomly arriving, natural selection can create. Thus, arrival is not a problem for natural selection when a process like mutation exists.

You said, “Mutations cannot make anything helpful. Mutations do not make anything at all. Natural Selection lacks when trying to get rid of the bad mutations. Therefore, we are all headed to extinction and no new organism can be created.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Mutations are random. But among the random will inevitably be the helpful. Natural selection exposes and multiplies the helpful by the power of reproduction of the helpful at the expense of the unhelpful.

This exchange is quite bizarre. Only in those who strangely seem to think evolution reduces the probability of God’s existence to zero is there such ignorant resistance to evolution.

Evolution does not reduce the probability of God’s existence to zero. Some evolutionary biologists believe that evolution is God’s way of seeing that organisms adapt to a constantly changing environment without His constant intervention. The elegance of this scenario is exquisite. That should give you some comfort, given that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  lancia.

[Levi]

<div>lancia</div><div>

“Of course destruction can create! The Grand Canyon was created by the Colorado River’s destruction of the substratum by erosion. A sculptor creates a work of art by removing and thus destroying material in whatever medium being worked on. Likewise, natural selection can create a tiny eye in zooplankters where there was a large eye, making the zooplankter less visible and thus less vulnerable to predation. It does so through the predation by visually oriented fish preying (i.e., destroying) the more conspicuous zooplankters with larger eyes, leaving only zooplankters with genes for smaller eyes.”

</div>

You did a great job giving examples, Lancia. Thanks for the input, but there was no creating here. The Grand Canyon was destroyed to create the sight; there was no new “traits” that would give rise to molecules turning into men. Same for the zooplankton. The eye was already there; but it was reduced by NS acting on existing information. So where did the eye come from, lancia?

“I clearly defined natural selection for you and now you ask what natural selection is! Read back a couple of posts and you will see it clearly defined. As I said, you have trouble reading and understanding what others have written.”

One article says: “Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.” Is that what you think?

“Of course, natural selection does not result in the “arrival ” of the fittest. Nobody who knows biology has said that it did. But that’s not a problem for evolution. With the help of mutation, which does provide new material randomly arriving, natural selection can create. Thus, arrival is not a problem for natural selection when a process like mutation exists.”

Did plants come before animals? If they did, where did the eye come from? The stomach? Any mammal needs that for survival. So I think NS would have to figure that out somehow, right?

“Wrong, wrong, wrong! Mutations are random. But among the random will inevitably be the helpful. Natural selection exposes and multiplies the helpful by the power of reproduction of the helpful at the expense of the unhelpful.”

Your third sentence: Can you prove that, please? Remember, even beneficial mutations can be too small for NS to select for, either. It can only get the significant ones, right?

“This exchange is quite bizarre. Only in those who strangely seem to think evolution reduces the probability of God’s existence to zero is there such ignorant resistance to evolution.”

It doesn’t reduce the probability of the existence of a “god”. However, it is imcompatable with the account in Genesis. It would put death before sin; even though it is clear sin came before death. You can look at what Jesus and Paul and Moses said; that’s your proof. So that is why I cannot accept Evolution and “Yahweh”, the God I believe in.

“Evolution does not reduce the probability of God’s existence to zero. Some evolutionary biologists believe that evolution is God’s way of seeing that organisms adapt to a constantly changing environment without His constant intervention. The elegance of this scenario is exquisite. That should give you some comfort, given that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.”

I’m so sorry; I don’t put science over scripture. I won’t use science to interpret scripture. I will use scripture to interpret science. It is the opposite for you; you wear different “glasses” when looking at Evolution. You put science over religious texts; that’s fine, but it isn’t a proven method as mine is.

So you believe the evidence is “overwhelming”? Can you give me a list of the top five arguments for Evolution (besides “NS”, which isn’t really evidence; but we can debate that)? I would interested to see what you have there.

[lancia]

You said, “Thanks for the input, but there was no creating here. The Grand Canyon was destroyed to create the sight;”

But if no creating occurred here through destruction, why did you say the Grand Canyon was destroyed to create? Of course things can be created by the destruction of other things.

You said, “Same for the zooplankton. The eye was already there; but it was reduced by NS acting on existing information.”

So what? There was creation of a different structure, a small eye, from a bigger one. In other examples, there is a stinger that evolved from an ovipositor.

You said, “‘One article says: ‘Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.’ Is that what you think?”

No, I defined it for you in an above message. Can’t you even look it up? What you gave above is not even a definition. It’s a vague description of what natural selection can do.

You said, “Did plants come before animals? If they did, where did the eye come from? The stomach? Any mammal needs that for survival. So I think NS would have to figure that out somehow, right?”

Natural selection doesn’t figure anything out. It’s not a sentient being!

You said, “Remember, even beneficial mutations can be too small for NS to select for, either. It can only get the significant ones, right?”

I explained to you the case of recessive alleles that are hidden from natural selection in diploid organisms if they are in the heterozygous genotype, in which the only the dominant allele is expressed. That could be construed as a mutation that is “too small” for natural selection to act on. But in haploid organisms–meaning they carry only one set of chromosomes, not two as in diploid organisms–the recessive condition is irrelevant because there is no other allele present. Here there is only one allele at the gene locus. That some mutations have an effect that is so small that natural selection cannot act on them is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant. As long as there are beneficial genes that are expressed, natural selection will have the genetic and phenotypic variation to act on. And we know that is the case often enough, as the list of evolution examples I gave at the end of this post shows.

You said, “However, [evolution] is incompatable with the account in Genesis. It would put death before sin; even though it is clear sin came before death.”

That is not clear at all. It is impossible for death not to have preceded sin because of ecological interactions that would have to have occurred in the Garden of Eden even before Adam and Eve sinned. For example, among the animals in the Garden of Eden, according to the Bible, were various plant-eaters. Among them were cattle. Cattle have complex stomachs with many chambers that house mutualistic unicellular organisms that produce enzymes to break down cellulose and other plant components. When the cattle defecate, some of these unicellular organisms are included in the feces and thus leave the cow and die, since they can live only in the host. The death of those microorganisms would have been almost immediate in the garden, well before any sinning. In addition, cattle kill many plants as they graze and browse, pulling up some plants including the roots in the process. Another common cause of death that would be inevitable in the garden would be from competition among plants for water, nutrients, and mostly light. Taller plants inevitably shade shorter ones, or their roots rob competitors of needed inorganic nutrients. Finally, herbivores would die from competition for food from other herbivores of the same or of other species, especially if their natural predators are not there to reduce population sizes and thus to reduce competition.

You said, “Can you give me a list of the top five arguments for Evolution.”

I’ll do you one better. I’ll give you a list of examples of evolution that one can observe directly.

1. Bacteria exposed to a novel and sometimes even a toxic carbon source will eventually evolve to metabolize that source as an energy supply.

2. Insecticides commonly used in crop plants will lose their effectiveness against insects.

3. Antibiotics commonly used to treat bacterial diseases will lose their effectiveness.

4. Zooplankton living in temporary ponds without fish will be more heavily pigmented than will those living in nearby permanent ponds with fish.

5. Two closely related species in an area of geographic overlap will have a greater difference in their mating behaviors than they will have when living in an area of geographic non-overlap.

6. Two closely related species in an area of geographic overlap will have a greater difference in their foods and feeding than they will have in an area of geographic non-overlap.

7. Weekly mowing of lawns will produce weeds having a genetic basis to produce seeds more quickly compared to the same weed species living in nearby areas that are not mowed or that are mowed less frequently.

8. If laboratory colonies of flour beetles are seeded with the first eggs laid by the previous colony, the genetically based age at which females begin to lay eggs will progressively decline over time.

[Levi]

lancia

“But if no creating occurred here through destruction, why did you say the Grand Canyon was destroyed to create? Of course things can be created by the destruction of other things.”

Again, where did the canyon come from? Where did the wing? Where did the eye? NS can select for what is already there, but it fails as a mechanism for evolution. It cannot create the mind. It cannot create legs.

“So what? There was creation of a different structure, a small eye, from a bigger one. In other examples, there is a stinger that evolved from an ovipositor.”

Where was the creation? Nothing was created. Something must have been destroyed to make the eye smaller. Please spare me from repeating myself, if possible.

“You said, “‘One article says: ‘Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.’ Is that what you think?”

No, I defined it for you in an above message. Can’t you even look it up? What you gave above is not even a definition. It’s a vague description of what natural selection can do.”

I did look it up. Mammal told me to. If it is possible, Lancia, please just define it here and now and let this nonsense be over with.

“Natural selection doesn’t figure anything out. It’s not a sentient being!”

So it is not what evolutionist think it to be? The mechanism for molecules-to-man?

You said, “Remember, even beneficial mutations can be too small for NS to select for, either. It can only get the significant ones, right?”

“That some mutations have an effect that is so small that natural selection cannot act on them is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant. As long as there are beneficial genes that are expressed, natural selection will have the genetic and phenotypic variation to act on. And we know that is the case often enough, as the list of evolution examples I gave at the end of this post shows.”

When there are many bad mutations, there can be no improvement. If they keep accumulating, where is the organism? Can you help me here?

“That is not clear at all. It is impossible for death not to have preceded sin because of ecological interactions that would have to have occurred in the Garden of Eden even before Adam and Eve sinned. For example, among the animals in the Garden of Eden, according to the Bible, were various plant-eaters. Among them were cattle.”

Animal death, I meant. Even humans could eat fruit. Sorry, but please try again.

For the points, #2 and #3 are combined, since they are basically the same.

<div>”1. Bacteria exposed to a novel and sometimes even a toxic carbon source will eventually evolve to metabolize that source as an energy supply.”</div><div>

I’ve heard this argument before in a movie. The bacteria stay bacteria, right? Aren’t they still bacteria?

“2. Insecticides commonly used in crop plants will lose their effectiveness against insects and antibiotics commonly used to treat bacterial diseases will lose their effectiveness.”

Again, insects stay insects, bacteria stay bacteria. They may be able to “adapt” to fight back the attacks, but they don’t change in their basic structure that makes them insects or bacteria.
</div><div>

“4. Zooplankton living in temporary ponds without fish will be more heavily pigmented than will those living in nearby permanent ponds with fish.”

That’s an argument? Color change?

</div>

“5. Two closely related species in an area of geographic overlap will have a greater difference in their mating behaviors than they will have when living in an area of geographic non-overlap.”

But they are the same: They are still cows, they are still giraffes, they are still flies.

“6. Two closely related species in an area of geographic overlap will have a greater difference in their foods and feeding than they will have in an area of geographic non-overlap.”

So?

“7. Weekly mowing of lawns will produce weeds having a genetic basis to produce seeds more quickly compared to the same weed species living in nearby areas that are not mowed or that are mowed less frequently.”

Wow. Weeds can grow seeds faster. I like that fact. Thanks for sharing. I also like the fact that they still stay weeds.

‘8. If laboratory colonies of flour beetles are seeded with the first eggs laid by the previous colony, the genetically based age at which females begin to lay eggs will progressively decline over time.”

But they are still flour beetles.

All these evidences are about one thing: Change, mutations, NS, etc. (If that is correct).

Are there any more that aren’t about change?

[lancia]

You said, “If it is possible, Lancia, please just define it here and now and let this nonsense be over with.”

Natural selection is an interaction between an organism and the environment, an interaction that results in some organisms reproducing more than do others.

You said, “When there are many bad mutations, there can be no improvement. If they keep accumulating, where is the organism? Can you help me here?”

Yes, if the mutations are bad, they are removed from the population by failure of carriers of the bad mutations to survive and thus reproduce. That’s a critical part of natural selection.

You said, “Animal death”

Why only animal death? Death is death, no matter what living creature died.

But anyway, I did cover animal death. Do you not know what an herbivore is? I referred to death of herbivores through competition for food, since there were no predators to reduce population size of herbivores, competition would result in herbivore death because of limited food resources.

You said, “All these evidences are about one thing: Change, mutations, NS, etc. (If that is correct).”

Yes, but so what? These are all examples of adaptations, which are, thus, examples of evolution. Most importantly, they are examples that can be observed directly, as I said, for all of you skeptics to see.

[Levi]

lancia

“Natural selection is an interaction between an organism and the environment, an interaction that results in some organisms reproducing more than do others.”

So how would you argue off of that definition?

You said, “When there are many bad mutations, there can be no improvement. If they keep accumulating, where is the organism? Can you help me here?”

“Yes, if the mutations are bad, they are removed from the population by failure of carriers of the bad mutations to survive and thus reproduce. That’s a critical part of natural selection.”

Good point. However, some are so small that NS doesn’t recognize it and it gets past into the next generation. Humans have many mutations throughout generations, yet most of them don’t die. Where am I lacking?

You said, “Animal death”

“Why only animal death? Death is death, no matter what living creature died.”

Plants do not have mind or soul. They were created as food. Guess what? Animals aren’t. That’s why none of them die in Genesis until after the fall.

“But anyway, I did cover animal death. Do you not know what an herbivore is? I referred to death of herbivores through competition for food, since there were no predators to reduce population size of herbivores, competition would result in herbivore death because of limited food resources.”

Limited sources in the Garden of Eden? God can continue to produce, since it is his earth and he is in interaction with it at the time. When we sinned, we were separated from God.

“You said, ‘All these evidences are about one thing: Change, mutations, NS, etc. (If that is correct).’

Yes, but so what? These are all examples of adaptations, which are, thus, examples of evolution. Most importantly, they are examples that can be observed directly, as I said, for all of you skeptics to see.”

But you don’t need to exhaust me with examples. I got the point already. I don’t need more.

So Evolution is adaptations from molecules to man? I seem to get that from your post.

You also seem to ignore my critique of your “evidence”. Why did you do that?

[lancia]

You said, “So how would you argue off of that definition?”

Argue what? You need to be more specific if you want an answer.

You said, “Limited sources in the Garden of Eden? God can continue to produce, since it is his earth and he is in interaction with it at the time.”

You cannot explain your way out of this dilemma. If God continued to produce food resources so there were no limited food resources, then the populations of herbivores would continue to grow exponentially, especially given that there were no predators to kill them and thus there was nothing in the environment to keep exponential growth from being constantly realized by these herbivores. The result would soon be so many herbivores covering the entire world that there would be no room for anything else, including food resources!

You said, “You also seem to ignore my critique of your “evidence”. Why did you do that?”

You are so misinformed about biology, as demonstrated above by the above Garden of Eden problem, that it is hard even to figure out what your “critique” is, let alone answer it.

[Levi]

lancia

“You said, ‘So how would you argue off of that definition?’

Argue what? You need to be more specific if you want an answer.”

Argue…your point. You kept pointing out that I was arguing against the wrong definition. Now argue that NS is evidence for evolution that way.

“You cannot explain your way out of this dilemma. If God continued to produce food resources so there were no limited food resources, then the populations of herbivores would continue to grow exponentially, especially given that there were no predators to kill them and thus there was nothing in the environment to keep exponential growth from being constantly realized by these herbivores. The result would soon be so many herbivores covering the entire world that there would be no room for anything else, including food resources!”

How would I know? It never happened. How would you know, “god” lancia? I do not know God. I could ask him later.

“You are so misinformed about biology, as demonstrated above by the above Garden of Eden problem, that it is hard even to figure out what your “critique” is, let alone answer it.”

I just tried to give an answer, lancia. Now it’s your turn. Why does weeds turning into better weeds demonstrate weeds turning into bees?

[lancia]

You said. “Why does weeds turning into better weeds demonstrate weeds turning into bees?”

Weeds turning into anything else has absolutely nothing to do with the Garden of Eden issue–that death did not appear until the fall.

Just as in other discussions, you keep jumping to questions irrelevant to the issue at hand when you cannot deal with the issue at hand, which here is that without factors limiting the survival and reproduction of herbivores, such as predation and competition, herbivore populations would increase exponentially. growing beyond any number that the environmental resources, like space, could sustain. Thus, under those conditions, herbivore populations, or any other populations, would eventually crash because they would exhaust their resources.

At least this part of the Garden of Eden story is incoherent.

[Levi]

lancia

“You said. “Why does weeds turning into better weeds demonstrate weeds turning into bees?”

Weeds turning into anything else has absolutely nothing to do with the Garden of Eden issue–that death did not appear until the fall.”

We were talking about that, I think. Can you please answer me or is that the answer I get?

“Just as in other discussions, you keep jumping to questions irrelevant to the issue at hand when you cannot deal with the issue at hand, which here is that without factors limiting the survival and reproduction of herbivores, such as predation and competition, herbivore populations would increase exponentially. growing beyond any number that the environmental resources, like space, could sustain. Thus, under those conditions, herbivore populations, or any other populations, would eventually crash because they would exhaust their resources.”

I get your point. How would I know? I am not God. I wish I could answer you, Lancia, but God always has a plan and I guess I could ask him why later. Or: Maybe God saw the future, that they would sin, and didn’t worry about it. That may seem a horrible story, so we can talk about it.

[Levi]

“In addition to the first link the Berkeley articles will all be correct,
the others not. I don’t even need to read them. I was surprised that
you cited so many truths about evolution inbetween your creationist
nonsense.”

So would you, Mammal. Voice out all your secular articles and not consider the creationist ones, while I do both. Is that really unfair and bigoted?

[Mammal]

Well, you clearly have not read, or understood them either otherwise you would not have posted articles showing natural selection at work.

But apart from that, I have read quite a few creationist nonsense denying evolution over the years. I know the extent of their ignorance and denial based on their own brand of pseudo science. These have all been refuted (at the very least explained in context) over and over as evident from both BioLogos and that Wiki page Fred has cited here on the forum the other day. I no longer waste my time reading it.

[Levi]

I wasn’t proving NS. I was proving NS didn’t prove molecules to man evolution.

[Mammal]

The fundamentalist believer blinkers prevent you from seeing the bigger picture. Sad. Think about conception, ground zero of evolution.. Sperm molecules not fit cannot fertilize the egg for a single cell to evolve into a full man. Sigh.

[Levi]

Did evolution start at conception? What’s the point?

[Mammal]

The point is that this is where evolution “happens”, this is the defining point where only fit for reproduction molecules fertilize an egg, from which a fetus evolves to man.. molecule to man right there.. each generation a slight change from the previous.. such that it is a snapshot of evolution and natural selection from first molecules that formed cells able to reproduce to man. Big picture.

[Levi]

That’s an interesting point.

However, it requires material to be already there from the start, including alleles from each parent. So there is a cause for the molecule, nevertheless.

[Mammal]

But all matter can be broken down to the same fundamental building blocks, so there is no reason to think the molecules that make up sperm, and eggs and cells and such are any different. Best explanation then is that molecules and whatever their building blocks are, came first.

[Levi]

“But all matter can be broken down to the same fundamental building
blocks, so there is no reason to think the molecules that make up sperm,
and eggs and cells and such are any different. Best explanation then is
that molecules and whatever their building blocks are, came first.”

This, however, is an imperfect illustration. Where did the sperm come from? Where did the egg? And where in the world did the alleles come from? Nothing?

[Mammal]

The ability to produce sperm only comes later in life, so a child is not born with it. Instead a male fetus gets equipped to produce sperm molecules from his other molecules at a later stage. Likewise the ability to sexually reproduce between males and females also came later in evolutionary history.

My point was that the sperm and the egg and the cell formed from their merger are made up of molecules and all that evolve right in front of our eyes to a man. I referred to it as a snapshot of evolution, incl. the ground zero of evolution, the fitness to reproduce.

Furthermore, that given the fact that all molecules are made up of the same building blocks, their own origin must have occurred during the time that RNA and DNA and life emerged from all those microscopic molecular parts. Surely that makes the most sense.

An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence at a given genomic location that arise by mutation. This information gets passed on (through e.g. sexual reproduction).

[Levi]

<div>”My point was that the sperm and the egg and the cell formed from their merger are made up of molecules and all that evolve right in front of our eyes to a man. I referred to it as a snapshot of evolution, incl. the ground zero of evolution, the fitness to reproduce.”</div><div>

Goo to you (but not by way of the zoo). You still don’t have all the other lifeforms that are here in the world. Plus, the sperm and egg are designed to make a man, right?

</div>

“Furthermore, that given the fact that all molecules are made up of the same building blocks, their own origin must have occurred during the time that RNA and DNA and life emerged from all those microscopic molecular parts. Surely that makes the most sense.”

But in the right conditions. Sperm-egg to man happened inside something, not in a primordial soup or in a nature environment.

“An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence at a given genomic location that arise by mutation. This information gets passed on (through e.g. sexual reproduction).”

Mutation. Are they good mutations, Mammal?

[Mammal]

Oh for crying out loud.

Molecules to man..ticked the box.

All other species inbetween..yes, because of the DNA evidence extrapolated from simple parental DNA sequences to specie genomic data.

Mutations..good or not? Irrelevant. Natural selection is the filter. Dude, come on, don’t waste others time with basics.

[Levi]

“Molecules to man..ticked the box.”

So you won’t take my comment seriously about the conditions? About the design? About the humans who created it?

[Levi]

“Natural selection is the filter. Dude, come on, don’t waste others time with basics.”

As I said in the description above, NS can’t recognize most mutations. Most of those come quickly too.

[Mammal]

That is not how NS acts as the filter. You may wanna go back and actually read those Berkeley articles..

And it’s still molecules to man, notwithstanding.

[Levi]

I will look back at the articles, but do me this one thing: Address my critique of your molecules-to-man illustration. You still ignore what I said about the sperms and egg being created from something, that the formation of the baby is in the right conditions, not in a primordial soup, how they are created to make something, not our of random processes.

[Levi]

Is this what you mean by NS? : “Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.” -the articles.

[Mammal]

You have to read a little bit more than just that (as I originally advised you to do); there are a few more slides / pages. So just continue from that point.

As I already said sperm, the egg, the cell from which a fetus develops are all molecules. It is assumed the cell predated sperm and eggs, as I already explained. Bottom line is we witness man developing from molecules, which you denied. Saying this is a “designed” development is just you trying to get out of a tight spot. Micro organisms like bacteria and viruses are also just living molecules.

[Levi]

“Bottom line is we witness man developing from
molecules, which you denied.”

Not for the first time. Not by chance and nature figuring it out.

“Saying this is a “designed” development is
just you trying to get out of a tight spot.”

So you won’t take it seriously?

[Levi]

From the article:

“NS produces amazing adaptations.”

‘Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic.”

“Natural selection works by weeding less fit variants out of a population.”

“The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is
random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way:
genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more
likely to become common than variants that don’t.”

Is this the picture?

[Mammal]

I am not following what you trying to say in your first post. Man can develop from molecules, this we know. Your references to “first” and “random” I don’t get. You somehow try to interpret my view through your strawman / creationist glasses.. That’s not gonna work.

And yes, the quotes are the bare minimum about NS.

[Levi]

“I am not following what you trying to say in your first post. Man can develop from molecules, this we know.”

If those molecules are designed to make humans, right? Those are not just any molecules you’d think you would find on the primordial earth.

“Your references to “first” and “random” I don’t get. You somehow try to interpret my view through your strawman / creationist glasses.. That’s not gonna work.”

Where did I reference that?

“And yes, the quotes are the bare minimum about NS.”

Thank you for the encouragement.

[Mammal]

Nobody has ever claimed that molecules from primordial Earth developed straight into humans.

If there was encouragement, then read more about natural selection on Berkeley next time before you post something about it.

[Levi]

“Nobody has ever claimed that molecules from primordial Earth developed straight into humans.”

So why use the analogy you were using?

[Mammal]

I already explained it, twice, I think..

[Levi]

And twice you ignore me. Can you follow along please?

I got the point that sperm and egg are molecules, and they turn into humans, but remember that they are designed to make humans and are in a controlled environment, so it isn’t a good illustration. When will you listen? We’ve been going on over and over and no one can understand each other. Do you get my point? Or are you still enumerating yours?

[Mammal]

You’re again imposing your worldview on the argument by your reference to “design”. You’re original comment was unqualified, you questioned molecules to man. I countered that by referring to the bigger picture of evolution of which sperm/egg/cell molecules to man is a snapshot that we see happening.

I don’t see sperm/egg/cell as designed, I see it as molecules that acquired a particular function and arrangement through abiogenesis and subsequent biological evolution that brought about human sperm/eggs/cells.

So my analogy stands firm based on the evidence that we have that life evolved from molecules, to RNA/DNA to single cellular organisms, to cells that multiply and grow into lifeforms such as humans.

[Levi]

“You’re again imposing your worldview on the argument by your reference to “design”.”

Or just genetically so.

“You’re original comment was unqualified, you questioned molecules to man. I countered that by referring to the bigger picture of evolution of which sperm/egg/cell molecules to man is a snapshot that we see happening.

I don’t see sperm/egg/cell as designed, I see it as molecules that acquired a particular function and arrangement through abiogenesis and subsequent biological evolution that brought about human sperm/eggs/cells.”

Not helpful. Molecules with DNA already there combining to make a complex human does not capture abiogenesis. You would need to first create in a primordial environment DNA that functions, that has a flagellum and rotor, that is haploid, that has proteins, etc. There’s too much the illustration can’t explain, right?

[Mammal]

I really don’t understand what you were trying to say with your last post. DNA/RNA are molecules. And we are formed by the DNA sequences (chromosones) inherited from our ancestors, as were all organisms going back to the first DNA/RNA molecules.

[Levi]

I think I was questioning you about the origin of DNA/RNA molecules?

If we can’t get any further, do you mind telling me what you believe about the origin of life? Do you hold to the “RNA world” hypothesis or another theory?

[Mammal]

..

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Mammal.

[James]

1. Humans have not always existed.
2. Human existence had a cause.
3. The cause of human existence must have been non-human (from 1 and 2).
4. Living things do not come from other living things that are nothing like themselves in a single step.
5. Therefore, humans came into existence as a result of them coming from a non-human cause via a gradual process of change (entailed by 1, 2, 3 and 4 all being true).

So even if there was no direct empirical evidence for macroevolution, the mere possibility that it has occurred is logically entailed as a consequence of 1, 2, 3 and 4 being assumed true. 4 is the weakest premise of them all but warranted by the fact that it is the best explanation for why we never observe a defeater for it. It’s a bit odd that we would never see a defeater for 4 under circumstances where 4 isn’t true.

And “all observed evolutionary changes are small, therefore they could not have driven macro-evolution” is the logical equivalent of “All the steps we see Bob taking are short, therefore he cannot have been on a long walk!”

[jayceeii]

4 is where Behe and other ID are missing the Living God. Admitting God’s Hand, they still expect an act of special creation, not something far more difficult than a Magician’s imagination. But Behe does make a case that micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. The analogy of a long walk is false, because there may be a combination of natural evolution and God-driven evolution, the former saying nothing about the latter.

[Pater]

The Cambrian Explosion was a time when dozens of new body plans appear in the fossil record without evolutionary precursors. Thousands of new genes and thousands of new proteins. The mechanisms of mutation/natural selection simply didn’t have the time to produce this diversity, and there is no fossil evidence of gradual transitions.

Would that count as a defeated for your #4?

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

@Pater: “The mechanisms of mutation/natural selection simply didn’t have the time”

Non-sequitur. The “Cambrian Explosion” took place over millions of years. In general, you overstate the case. See:

https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-the-cambrian-explosion-pose-a-challenge-to-evolution

biologos.org

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

[Pater]

Fred you should have picked this one from the American Museum of Natural History:

“Evolution has no set schedule. Sometimes, new species or varieties arise in a matter of years or even days.”

Just imagine, whole new body plans by the dozens by next week.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

How about you defend your statement:

“The mechanisms of mutation/natural selection simply didn’t have the time”

That just seems silly.

[lancia]

You said, “Fred you should have picked this one from the American Museum of Natural History:

‘Evolution has no set schedule. Sometimes, new species or varieties arise in a matter of years or even days.’

Just imagine, whole new body plans by the dozens by next week.”

Did you miss that the museum is specifically referring to new species or varieties? It’s not referring to new families, new orders, new classes, or new phyla, i.e., the higher taxonomic groups in which new body plans are seen.

New species, and especially new varieties, would not be expected to have whole new body plans. The process that forms new species would not produce whole new body plans in such a short time as “a matter of years or even days.” A new species has a similar body plan to the ancestral species because the two have similar genetic compositions. The new and ancestral species are sometimes so similar in body plan and in other ways that they are often difficult to tell apart, for example, as in the cryptic mosquito species of the Anopheles crucians species complex. But these species in the species complex do not interbreed in nature, so they are indeed different species.

The most rapid process of speciation, which is seen mostly in plants, is speciation by polyploidy. It produces new species that have similar body plans, as would be expected since the process produces new species instantaneously from the same gene pool through an increase in the number of sets of chromosomes beyond the normal two sets.

[Sam (Agnostic)]

James proposed this argument to defend evolution:

1. Humans have not always existed.

2. Human existence had a cause.

3. The cause of human existence must have been non-human (from 1 and 2).

4. Living things do not come from other living things that are nothing like themselves in a single step.

5. Therefore, humans came into existence as a result of them coming from a non-human cause via a gradual process of change (entailed by 1, 2, 3, and 4 all being true).

I would like to object to premise 2 and 3. For premise 2, what exactly do you mean by “had a cause”? If you are discussing the meaning of human existence, I don’t think there is one, just like anything else that exists in this world. There is no inherent meaning in things, they simply exist as it is. If you are talking about something that existed before human existence thus leading humans to exist, then it contradicts Christianity as it is clearly stated in the bible that God created humans as what we are, there are no other causes for human existence. God created us, and here we are. Similarly, since premise 2 is invalid, premise 3 is wrong. There is no cause of human existence because we have not evolved from something else in the Christian worldview, we are created in God’s image and we haven’t changed the way we look after we were created by God. Obviously, it makes premise 3 wrong and there is nothing non-human being involved in human existence. However, those objections are based on the belief in Christianity, and there are many contradictions and problems with natural history and Christianity that remain unsolved. This argument would be fine with an epistemology or scientific view, based on our current knowledge of the world.

[James]

Hey Sam, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my comment. I really appreciate it.

James proposed this argument to defend evolution:

1. Humans have not always existed.

2. Human existence had a cause.

3. The cause of human existence must have been non-human (from 1 and 2).

4. Living things do not come from other living things that are nothing like themselves in a single step.

5. Therefore, humans came into existence as a result of them coming from a non-human cause via a gradual process of change (entailed by 1, 2, 3, and 4 all being true).

I would like to object to premise 2 and 3. For premise 2, what exactly do you mean by “had a cause”? If you are discussing the meaning of human existence, I don’t think there is one, just like anything else that exists in this world.

I’m not sure why you’ve raised the issue of meaning (we are talking about causation) but I appreciate this objection nonetheless and think it is equally a problem for the Kalam argument too. The universe needing a cause does not entail that it requires just one cause! So we could say that human existence is the result of a prior set of ontologically prior set of causal circumstances and that prior set of causal set of causal circumstances did not involve any humans.

If you are talking about something that existed before human existence thus leading humans to exist, then it contradicts Christianity as it is clearly stated in the bible that God created humans as what we are, there are no other causes for human existence.

There are many Christians who would disagree with this and who don’t take the Genesis account of creation literally. The Bible does not clearly stipulate how Genesis should be interpreted and this is a particular area of disagreement for Christians. In that sense, what I’m proposing does not contradict Christianity in the broad sense. I think there is clear evidence in the Bible that early Genesis is an ancient, polytheistic creation account, but that is another story.

In this argument, I’m not defending the Bible per se. I am showing that someone could reasonably arrive at the possibility of evolution, based on observation and even in the absence of other evidence in its support. I will defend Christians against the claim made by some other Christians that (from within a Christian context), it is obvious that early Genesis should be taken literally.

Similarly, since premise 2 is invalid, premise 3 is wrong.

A single premise cannot be invalid. It can only be true or false. A conditional premise can be a non-sequitur but premise 2 is not a conditional premise. Human existence having a cause does not preclude a set of causal circumstances involving many entities over a period of time.

There is no cause of human existence because we have not evolved from something else in the Christian worldview ..

Genesis 2 says that God formed man from the dust of the ground. For an observer, this would appear that dust was evolving into a human form (either quickly, or slowly) because God is invisible so we would only see the dust changing. It would look like slow or fast evolution. Evolution is simply a description of how matter is changing over time. So yes, Genesis does mention a change that could called “evolution” by an observer.

… we are created in God’s image and we haven’t changed the way we look after we were created by God. Obviously, it makes premise 3 wrong and there is nothing non-human being involved in human existence.

God is not a human. So if we were created by God, it still must be true that we were created by something non-human and this would mean that (3) is true. The conclusion of an argument is not false just because it does not follow from the prior premises. It doesn’t follow but could still be true.

[James]

So given Sam’s feedback we could have …

1. Humans have not always existed.

2. Human existence is the result of a set of causal circumstances.

3. The set of causal circumstances did not involve any humans (from 1 and 2).

4. Living things do not come from other living things that are nothing like themselves in a single step.

5. Therefore, humans came into existence as a result of them coming from a set of non human causal circumstances via a gradual process of change (entailed by 1, 2, 3, and 4 all being true).

1 – I don’t think anyone is disputing.
2 – If something begins to exist, it must be caused. Nobody thinks we are here for no reason at all. If we were, we are not even the product of evolution!
3 – Human existence cannot be the result of human activity because otherwise humans would have to pre-exist human existence in order to bring about humans, which is a contradiction.
4 – This is the weakest premise but inductively warranted and its assumed truth best explains our ability to reliably predict how future living things such as humans, will appear. For example, the next horse to come into existence will come from another pair of horses and the reason we can keep reliably predicting this is because living things cannot come from other living things, that are nothing like themselves, in a single step. In other words, our reliable predictions are not just the logical equivalent of us winning the lottery over and over again.

Nothing in 5 precludes the involvement of God, even if true. However, the gradual process of change does require some type of evolution.