-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Is evolution a fact?
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Thanks for re-opening. I couldn't care much less, but it does give me a chance to address a couple of points now that my commitment to the debate thread is fulfilled.
That's because you don't know what an argument from authority actually is. Argumentum ad verecundiam, to give it its proper Latin moniker, is a form of the genetic fallacy, in which a conclusion is drawn about an argument based purely on the source. Properly, though, an argumentum ad verecundiam is only committed when the authority in question is not a valid authority in the field. For example, if I said, 'Richard Dawkins says that stars burn hydrogen, so it must be true', that would be a fallacious argument from authority, because Richard isn't an astrophysicist. If, however, I said 'Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that stars don't burn hydrogen, so I'll take his word for it', that wouldn't be a fallacious argument from authority, because Tyson IS an astrophysicist, a genuine expert in the field, and therefore a valid authority.
When Dawkins talks about evolutionary theory, he's a bona fide expert in the field, so no verecundiam is committed.
Interestingly, you yourself have committed the root genetic fallacy above in your statement about Darwin and Dawkins.
That's an oxymoron. The conclusions are as much the science as any of the rest of it.
No it doesn't.
And this is as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice. Evolution could be blown out of the water, and it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that your fantasy is just that. In this case, your logical fallacy is the false dichotomy.
Bernhard.visscher said:
That's because you don't know what an argument from authority actually is. Argumentum ad verecundiam, to give it its proper Latin moniker, is a form of the genetic fallacy, in which a conclusion is drawn about an argument based purely on the source. Properly, though, an argumentum ad verecundiam is only committed when the authority in question is not a valid authority in the field. For example, if I said, 'Richard Dawkins says that stars burn hydrogen, so it must be true', that would be a fallacious argument from authority, because Richard isn't an astrophysicist. If, however, I said 'Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that stars don't burn hydrogen, so I'll take his word for it', that wouldn't be a fallacious argument from authority, because Tyson IS an astrophysicist, a genuine expert in the field, and therefore a valid authority.
When Dawkins talks about evolutionary theory, he's a bona fide expert in the field, so no verecundiam is committed.
Interestingly, you yourself have committed the root genetic fallacy above in your statement about Darwin and Dawkins.
That's an oxymoron. The conclusions are as much the science as any of the rest of it.
No it doesn't.
And this is as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice. Evolution could be blown out of the water, and it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that your fantasy is just that. In this case, your logical fallacy is the false dichotomy.
Steelmage99
New Member
Bernhard.visscher said:
:shock:
I thought that kind of thinking was a myth - a story to be trotted out when children asked; "Was does a false dichotomy look like?".
There is no rational discourse to be had with such a person. Good luck, Hackenslash.
Rumraket
Active Member
Did a living, breathing person with a brain actually just type this out?Bernhard.visscher said:
God existing as a premise? No, I cannot accept that. As a conclusion to a deductively valid and sound argument, yes I can accept that.Bernhard.visscher said:
There are god-concepts I would like to be true. For example, there are some truly horribly people in this world who get away with it. The late Kim Jong Il was such a person. I would like for there to be a Just god that could assure he still receives punishment for his crimes against the Korean people. Not eternal torture, but punishment nevertheless. I could get behind such a god, a truly just god.
As it happens, I just don't believe a god exists because I have seen no persuasive evidence for it. But there are, in fact, god-concepts I would like to be true. So that's that stupid argument of yours out the window.
SpecialFrog
New Member
Probably, but we can't prove it, we can only assign it a very high probability based on available evidence, which according to Bernhard is the same as having no evidence.Rumraket said:
Rhed said:
Inferno said:
From 10:09, the few laws included the following:
Monophyly (clade)
The problem with this “law” is how could you possibly falsify it? Nothing was ever observed or ever demonstrated. For example, if you cannot fit a subgenera into the same monophyletic tree, use convergent evolution (rescue device) to explain the similarities. Instead of the genus as monophyletic, mark the genus as polyphyletic.
See about the 12 subgenera of Appalachian crayfish:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046105
How do the clades par with the fossil record? Not so good for the higher primates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Norell+and+Novacek+1992+Comparing+Cladistic+and+Paleontologic+Evidence+for+Vertebrate+History&biw=1600&bih=767&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIg42a9cOJxwIVQhc-Ch2DSwAS#imgrc=3Hkk8Jtx8dmTIM%3A
When the clades and fossil records don’t match, just blame incompleteness (rescue device) of the fossil record and draw dotted lines for the ad-hoc ghost lineages to match the order.
It’s completely subjective, and cannot be falsified whatsoever.
Evo Devo
Evo Devo is another rescuing device in of itself to explain away contradicting data between molecular biology (DNA and proteins) and paleontology (Darwin’s Tree).
Consider eyes for a moment. Humans and other vertebrates have camera like eyes with a single lens. Arthropods see through compound eyes. Octopuses and squids, not related to humans, have the camera-like lens. But the octopuses and squids close relatives’ clams and scallops have three types of eyes: camera, compound, and mirror type.
Since the evidence doesn’t coincide with evolution, evo-devo to the rescue. Since all animals share the same genetic material, it came from one sophisticated common ancestor with all the tools necessary in building different eye types. Genes just waiting for millions of years to be developed, although should have been weeded out by the other law of evolution: natural selection. But, there is another ad-hoc explanation for that as well called conserved sequence. When laws are broken, just make another one; just as long it doesn’t falsify evolution.
Principle of Gradualism
It’s a law except when it isn’t. Again, another unobservable ad-hoc rescuing device called Punctuated Equilibrium does the job. It explains away the missing links in the fossil record.
Evolutionary Economics
Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:
“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”
Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm
Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#/media/File
akicetus_BW.jpgand evolve into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#/media/File:Kentriodon_BW.jpg
I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.
Punctuated Equilibrium
“Why don’t we see constant changes”? This was a rescuing device for the lack of gradual Darwinian evolution found in the fossil record. This lack of evidence is the actual evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is slow and gradual except when it isn’t.
Punctuated Equilibrium happens when natural selection isn’t.
“A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence. Punctuational effects occur at more than twice the rate in plants and fungi than in animals, but the proportion of total divergence attributable to punctuational change does not vary among these groups. Punctuational changes cause departures from a clock-like tempo of evolution, suggesting that they should be accounted for in deriving dates from phylogenies. Punctuational episodes of evolution may play a larger role in promoting evolutionary divergence than has previously been appreciated.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5796/119.abstract
“For some biologists, “punctuated equilibrium” is a radical idea. The term was coined in the 1970s to describe an uneven pace of evolution in the fossil record. But because it posits that evolution happens in bursts, punctuated equilibrium goes against the notion that evolution inches forward in tiny steps guided by natural selection. Now evolutionary biologists have shown that evolution in the genome also has fast and slow speeds, and that natural selection isn’t always governing genetic change.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2006/10/when-genes-evolve-staccato-rhythm
Since both the fossil record (ad-hoc incompleteness) and genes (ad hoc evo-devo) don’t match gradualism (ad hoc punctuated equilibrium), then force direct observations into evolution-only fables to make it appear factual.
Natural Selection
“How did animals know what they needed to evolve?”
Natural selection is a conservative process. (Edward Blyth and William Paley) It either maintains what exists or gets rid of it. It cannot generate new organs and new genetic information. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about natural selection.
Biodiversity
“Evolution says everything gets bigger and better”
Biodiversity is a huge variation of genes within its species. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about biodiversity.
Dollos Law of Irreversibility
“It’s not evolution; it’s de-evolution”.
It’s irreversible except when it is reversible.
Genetic study of house dust mites demonstrates reversible evolution:
"In evolutionary biology, Dollo's law states that evolution is unidirectional and irreversible. But this "law" is not universally accepted and is the topic of heated debate among biologists. Now a research team has used a large-scale genetic study of the lowly house dust mite to uncover an example of reversible evolution that appears to violate Dollo's law.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130308093424.htm
You might as well let AronRa know to update his “facts” and “laws” of evolution.
Evolution is a flexible term and can adapt to anything. It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, atavism, incompleteness, conserved trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, neo-lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified
If science was a newspaper, evolution would be the funnies!
Rhed: Apologies for taking this long to reply, it's a busy week.
First a quick word about laws, theories and facts.
A fact is a point of data that's not being disputed or cannot be disputed. For example, it is a fact that the DNA of humans and chimps is more similar than the DNA of humans and crayfish. It is also a fact that pencils (on earth, without zero-G simulation) drop when let go.
A law is something that describes a set of facts. Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe how planets act when orbiting a star. Darwin's laws explain how new species arise.
A theory is an explanation of all the relevant facts and theories. In almost all cases the current theory is partially correct and needs only slight adjustment to fit new facts. Sometimes a theory needs to be discarded completely.
To dispute a fact you would have to show that something doesn't actually occur: Pens float away, human DNA is more similar to ants, etc.
To dispute a law you would either have to show how particular facts are wrong or how new facts don't fit the relevant law.
To dispute a theory... well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
There are several mistakes here alone. As I explained, a law is merely an explanation of several facts. As such, "monophyly" is simply what we observe in nature.
Take the well-known example of "fish". What exactly is a "fish"? Is a fish everything that's in the menu under "seafood"? Then we'd have to count lobsters as fish (they're arthropods) and sharks as fish as well, even though the latter are clearly chordates.
Or do we count everything as fish as any "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits"? But then we'd have to count Dolphins as fish even though they're clearly mammals!
Not even creationists deny this: We had an old (Linnean) system of classification and that system failed us. It was based on superficial similarities, not on deep-seated ones.
I'll try to make this as clear as possible: The following is a comparison of 17 pairs of celebrities. Some of them look incredibly alike. They're not (closely) related however.
If you claim Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lawrence are sisters or something similar you'd be wrong. They look similar but they're actually paraphyletic.
On the other hand this is Jennifer Lawrence and her two brothers. They don't look alike at all but they're clearly very closely related. They (plus their parents) are monophyletic.
So here's the problem for cladistics: If we go by how animals look, we will obviously mistakenly categorize them. So we go by DNA: Which species have closely matching DNA? Which are outliers?
Scientists then have to test how well the old system (Linnean taxonomy) and the modern system (phylogenetic cladistics) fit. This is the purpose of the study you posted:
Their results are clear: The old model is bunk, the new one works and the distances are shown in the tables. Far from showing that evolution doesn't work it's another puzzle piece that fits.
Sadly I can't access the Norell paper, but I'm sure I'll get my hands on it in a few days. Interesting to note: He completely accepts evolution. Strange, isn't it? Could it maybe be that the creationists at evolutionnews were lying idiots?
So how could you show Monophyly to be wrong? Easy!
Either find an organism that doesn't fit into any category or that doesn't fit into any new category either. (CAVE: Aliens don't count for obvious reasons.)
Or find an organism that is at the same time a member of one group and of the other. Example: Crocoduck.
This just shows you don't understand what Evo-Devo is and I don't have the time to explain it to you. Here's a fairly good blog post explaining what it is.
By the by, eyes most likely evolved a few times over the course of time.
It is a law depending on how you measure time. If you say "gradual" is slow change over many many many years you would be right. If you say "gradual" is fast change over a short period and almost no change for many many many years you would also be right. By the way, the latter is punctuated equilibrium.
You don't have the first clue of how evolution works, do you? Humans certainly don't have the "genetic material" to evolve wings where did you get that idea? From bats or what? Nonsense, they clearly evolved wings inside the split of Scrotifera: Chiroptera with wings on the one hand, Fereuungulate without on the other hand.
The quote about whale evolution doesn't really make sense in this discussion. Are you agreeing that whales did evolve from land dwelling mammals? Because everything in that quote agrees with me.
But as explained, humans certainly don't have the "material" to develop wings. You simply don't understand evo-devo.
Now could we evolve wings? Not with feathers. Without them? More likely, but the chances are still abysmally small. What we could have is our arms growing skin... but to what purpose? We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances.
Now you're just getting silly: You're mixing up genes with evo-devo and everything is muddled together. You're quoting from a pop-science article when you could just go to the primary literature:
Eldredge and Gould: Punctuated Equilibria
This is the difference between pure Gradualism and pure Punctuated Equilibria. Not a big difference. Here's the thing: At first they thought the two were mutually exclusive. Today we know the two complement each other.
Guess what? That's how science works. PE is a rather minor addition to Evolution and doesn't deserve the hype it gets. This is just creationists overselling something to make a point.
EDIT: Computer failed, so I had to post before shutdown.
You do not understand how evolution works. There is considerable dispute among scientists and batty creationists about natural selection. In the hundreds of millions of years since our beginnings, natural selection helped shape what used to be arms to what are now wings in bats. That's definitely new genetic information and that's definitely new organs.
Also I'm not sure why you reference Blyth, but Paley was before Darwin's time, 54 years before the Origins. Also, Paley was an idiot who used incorrect arguments.
Aron's point was that creationists think that "evolution = everything gets bigger and better". This is untrue. Evolution = nature tries every path at once = everything gets more diverse over time. (Extinction events notwithstanding)
Dollow's "Law" is indeed the only one in dispute. Here's the problem: There are loose and tight interpretations of the law.
The loose one is directly contradicted by the above study and many, many others. No doubt about that.
The far tighter interpretation states that you can't go back the exact same path. Think of it this way: It's January 1st. You get up, brush your teeth, etc. etc. and then go back to sleep. Can you then rewind your day perfectly? I.e. get up again, un-brush your teeth (as it were) and lay back down? In exactly the same way as you did before, mind!
That's the much stronger interpretation of that law. That doesn't seem possible. In fact, it's a mathematical improbability so large it's nearly impossible.
Before I do that: Will you update your knowledge of how science in general and evolution in particular work?
Didn't I already explain that every single one of them (with the exception of lamarkism, which is incorrect) have been observed? I can give you examples for every single one of these.
Also, please learn the difference between science and an ad hoc argument. (Also ad hoc and ad hoc.)
Irony strikes! :lol: :lol: :lol:
First a quick word about laws, theories and facts.
A fact is a point of data that's not being disputed or cannot be disputed. For example, it is a fact that the DNA of humans and chimps is more similar than the DNA of humans and crayfish. It is also a fact that pencils (on earth, without zero-G simulation) drop when let go.
A law is something that describes a set of facts. Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe how planets act when orbiting a star. Darwin's laws explain how new species arise.
A theory is an explanation of all the relevant facts and theories. In almost all cases the current theory is partially correct and needs only slight adjustment to fit new facts. Sometimes a theory needs to be discarded completely.
To dispute a fact you would have to show that something doesn't actually occur: Pens float away, human DNA is more similar to ants, etc.
To dispute a law you would either have to show how particular facts are wrong or how new facts don't fit the relevant law.
To dispute a theory... well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
There are several mistakes here alone. As I explained, a law is merely an explanation of several facts. As such, "monophyly" is simply what we observe in nature.
Take the well-known example of "fish". What exactly is a "fish"? Is a fish everything that's in the menu under "seafood"? Then we'd have to count lobsters as fish (they're arthropods) and sharks as fish as well, even though the latter are clearly chordates.
Or do we count everything as fish as any "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits"? But then we'd have to count Dolphins as fish even though they're clearly mammals!
Not even creationists deny this: We had an old (Linnean) system of classification and that system failed us. It was based on superficial similarities, not on deep-seated ones.
I'll try to make this as clear as possible: The following is a comparison of 17 pairs of celebrities. Some of them look incredibly alike. They're not (closely) related however.
If you claim Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lawrence are sisters or something similar you'd be wrong. They look similar but they're actually paraphyletic.
On the other hand this is Jennifer Lawrence and her two brothers. They don't look alike at all but they're clearly very closely related. They (plus their parents) are monophyletic.
So here's the problem for cladistics: If we go by how animals look, we will obviously mistakenly categorize them. So we go by DNA: Which species have closely matching DNA? Which are outliers?
Scientists then have to test how well the old system (Linnean taxonomy) and the modern system (phylogenetic cladistics) fit. This is the purpose of the study you posted:
Abstract said:
Their results are clear: The old model is bunk, the new one works and the distances are shown in the tables. Far from showing that evolution doesn't work it's another puzzle piece that fits.
Sadly I can't access the Norell paper, but I'm sure I'll get my hands on it in a few days. Interesting to note: He completely accepts evolution. Strange, isn't it? Could it maybe be that the creationists at evolutionnews were lying idiots?
So how could you show Monophyly to be wrong? Easy!
Either find an organism that doesn't fit into any category or that doesn't fit into any new category either. (CAVE: Aliens don't count for obvious reasons.)
Or find an organism that is at the same time a member of one group and of the other. Example: Crocoduck.
This just shows you don't understand what Evo-Devo is and I don't have the time to explain it to you. Here's a fairly good blog post explaining what it is.
By the by, eyes most likely evolved a few times over the course of time.
It is a law depending on how you measure time. If you say "gradual" is slow change over many many many years you would be right. If you say "gradual" is fast change over a short period and almost no change for many many many years you would also be right. By the way, the latter is punctuated equilibrium.
You don't have the first clue of how evolution works, do you? Humans certainly don't have the "genetic material" to evolve wings where did you get that idea? From bats or what? Nonsense, they clearly evolved wings inside the split of Scrotifera: Chiroptera with wings on the one hand, Fereuungulate without on the other hand.
The quote about whale evolution doesn't really make sense in this discussion. Are you agreeing that whales did evolve from land dwelling mammals? Because everything in that quote agrees with me.
But as explained, humans certainly don't have the "material" to develop wings. You simply don't understand evo-devo.
Now could we evolve wings? Not with feathers. Without them? More likely, but the chances are still abysmally small. What we could have is our arms growing skin... but to what purpose? We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances.
Now you're just getting silly: You're mixing up genes with evo-devo and everything is muddled together. You're quoting from a pop-science article when you could just go to the primary literature:
Eldredge and Gould: Punctuated Equilibria
This is the difference between pure Gradualism and pure Punctuated Equilibria. Not a big difference. Here's the thing: At first they thought the two were mutually exclusive. Today we know the two complement each other.
Guess what? That's how science works. PE is a rather minor addition to Evolution and doesn't deserve the hype it gets. This is just creationists overselling something to make a point.
EDIT: Computer failed, so I had to post before shutdown.
You do not understand how evolution works. There is considerable dispute among scientists and batty creationists about natural selection. In the hundreds of millions of years since our beginnings, natural selection helped shape what used to be arms to what are now wings in bats. That's definitely new genetic information and that's definitely new organs.
Also I'm not sure why you reference Blyth, but Paley was before Darwin's time, 54 years before the Origins. Also, Paley was an idiot who used incorrect arguments.
Aron's point was that creationists think that "evolution = everything gets bigger and better". This is untrue. Evolution = nature tries every path at once = everything gets more diverse over time. (Extinction events notwithstanding)
Dollow's "Law" is indeed the only one in dispute. Here's the problem: There are loose and tight interpretations of the law.
The loose one is directly contradicted by the above study and many, many others. No doubt about that.
The far tighter interpretation states that you can't go back the exact same path. Think of it this way: It's January 1st. You get up, brush your teeth, etc. etc. and then go back to sleep. Can you then rewind your day perfectly? I.e. get up again, un-brush your teeth (as it were) and lay back down? In exactly the same way as you did before, mind!
That's the much stronger interpretation of that law. That doesn't seem possible. In fact, it's a mathematical improbability so large it's nearly impossible.
Before I do that: Will you update your knowledge of how science in general and evolution in particular work?
Didn't I already explain that every single one of them (with the exception of lamarkism, which is incorrect) have been observed? I can give you examples for every single one of these.
Also, please learn the difference between science and an ad hoc argument. (Also ad hoc and ad hoc.)
Irony strikes! :lol: :lol: :lol:
SpecialFrog
New Member
I can't believe people are still citing "punctuated equilibrium" as evidence against evolution. Gould himself rebutted most of the creationist misrepresentations of his work. A collection of some of these can be found here.
Rhed, if you have a quote from Gould that you think is meaningful that is not rebutted there please cite it.
Rhed, if you have a quote from Gould that you think is meaningful that is not rebutted there please cite it.
Rhed said:
Inferno said:
Not sure why you say that I don't know how evolution works? The original argument was about reindeer flying in the future, but it can also apply to humans as well. You don't agree with that because of the "laws" of evolution. I provided an example of how evolution works; that is, a rodent-like creature evolving into a humpback whale due to miraculous random mutations and natural selection. Hence a reindeer evolving wings and fly could happen by the same mechanisms. I will quote it again:
“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”
"Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable."
If a "land dwelling" animal could evolve into a "sea-dwelling" animal, then surely a reindeer could evolve some wings, regardless if the genetic material is there now or not. That is what random mutations is all about. And for the record, no I don't believe that whales were ever land-dwelling. For the same type of reasoning you have for why humans or reindeer wouldn't evolve wings:
We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances
Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.
Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Rhed said:
Here's a clue:
Looks an awful lot like you don't know how evolution works.
surreptitious57
New Member
It is Intelligent Design which is basically an alternative to Creationismtuxbox said:
Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?Rhed said:
Rhed said:
red said:
Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc. Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.
Oh, so you have changed your mind............Rhed said:
The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?Rhed said:
Perhaps your imagined designer wears the emperor's new clothes and only you are seeing them.
red said:
Not sure how using old building blocks debunks a designer. God in the Bible created life only once including the code in all life to reproduce and populate the earth naturally. We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.
Mother Nature, or naturalistic evolution, doesn't correct errors. Mother Nature does not conserve traits for just-in-case scenarios. Naturalistic evolution should create store-houses in the genome. It doesn't know why to evolve wings to fly, or flippers to swim, or eyes to see or ears to hear. These are all hallmarks of design; not random unguided mutations. Perhaps your imagined unguided random theory of evolution wears the emperor's new clothes.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Nature disagrees with your belief.
Kindest regards,
James
How yeast doubled its genome—by mating between speciesRhed said:
Nature disagrees with your belief.
Kindest regards,
James