Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Stripe]

Do you have any idea of what the theory of evolution is about? I mean a real idea- not what you've been fed by the Anti Evolution crowd.

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

It's only Darwinists who seem to have a problem with what evolution is. :idunno:

 

[Yorzhik]

Because humans, when they signal, want the message received to be the same as the message sent. That's not what happens in biology. There, it works better, if there is a small, but consistent rate of "error" that produces new mutations.

If that were true then we'd use it to improve every message sent.

Let's take Adam and Eve for example. They could have had, at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet today most human genes have dozens. All the rest evolved. No way to dodge that.

Every human today has dozens of alleles for each gene locus? Any two humans would only have 4 alleles per gene locus, wouldn't they?

Teleological language is frequently used in biology in order to make statements about the functions of organs, about physiological processes, and about the behavior and actions of species and individuals. Such language is characterized by the use of the words ‘function’, ‘purpose’, and ‘goal’, as well as by statements that something exists or is done ‘in order to’. Typical statements of this sort are ‘It is one of the functions of the kidneys to eliminate the end products of protein metabolism’, or ‘Birds migrate to warm climates in order to escape the low temperatures and food shortages of winter’. In spite of the long-standing misgivings of physical scientists, philosophers, and logicians, many biologists have continued to insist not only that such teleological statements are objective and free of metaphysical content, but also that they express something important which is lost when teleological language is eliminated from such statements. Recent reviews of the problem in the philosophical literature (Nagel, 1961; Beckner, 1969; Hull, 1973; to cite only a few of a large selection of such publications), concede the legitimacy of some teleological statements but still display considerable divergence of opinion as to the actual meaning of the word ‘teleological’ and the relations between teleology and causality.
Mayr E. (1974) Teleological and Teleonomic, a New Analysis. In: Cohen R.S., Wartofsky M.W. (eds) A Portrait of Twenty-five Years. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht

This quote proves my point just as much as the other.

Since you failed to document your assertion... well, you know...

If you want to ignore the evidence I presented from "The Edge of Evolution" and "Darwin Devolved" that's fine. Just don't say I didn't present evidence.

Under your defintion, the mousetrap would include a mouse as one of its parts.

Nope. For example, a finger would work. Or a piece of bark falling off a tree. Or oxidation of the metal or metal fatigue.

:darwinsm: You got it man.

 

[Stripe]

Every human today has dozens of alleles for each gene locus? Any two humans would only have 4 alleles per gene locus, wouldn't they?

His quote said genes, not individuals.

However, he also asserted the truth of his Darwinism by insisting that evolution is the only means by which alleles could change.

Actually, he defines evolution as "change." So really he's saying that there's no way to avoid the fact that alleles changed — a profoundly useless statement.

What he wants to say is that they changed by means of random mutations and natural selection, but the evidence shows that did not happen.

 

[Yorzhik]

His quote said genes, not individuals.

However, he also asserted the truth of his Darwinism by insisting that evolution is the only means by which alleles could change.

Actually, he defines evolution as "change." So really he's saying that there's no way to avoid the fact that alleles changed — a profoundly useless statement.

What he wants to say is that they changed by means of random mutations and natural selection, but the evidence shows that did not happen.

But for evolution to work by mutation and natural selection, only two individual parents will give the desired mutation from their four alleles. And then genetic drift has to separate that individual offspring or Haldane's dilemma will kick in and ruin everything.

 

[The Barbarian]

from
how does an evolutionist figure Apo-AIM is new to them
rather than something we all had and lost except them ?

Because we know the specific individual who first had the mutation. The mutation was traced to one man, Giovanni Pomarelli, He was born 1780 and passed it on to his offspring.

ApoA-1 Milano is a naturally occurring mutant of apo A1, found in a few families in Limone sul Garda, Italy, and, by genetic + church record family tree detective work, traced to a single individual, Giovanni Pomarelli, in the 18th century.[16] Described in 1980, it was the first known molecular abnormality of apolipoproteins.[17] Paradoxically, carriers of this mutation have very low HDL-C (HDL-Cholesterol) levels, but no increase in the risk of heart disease, often living to age 100 or older.
[url]https://www.revolvy.com/page/Apolipoprotein-A1?cr=1

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not that that evolution the only way alleles can change. It's that a change in allele frequency is evolution. Alleles don't change because of natural selection. The frequency of alleles changes because of natural selection. Even most creationists now recognize that.

 

[Stripe]

A change in allele frequency is evolution.

Nope.

It's just a theory.

The sooner you allow for the possibility that your ideas might be wrong, the sooner you can join a rational, scientific discussion.

It's a pity that Darwinists cannot abide such a thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Let's take Adam and Eve for example. They could have had, at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet today most human genes have dozens. All the rest evolved. No way to dodge that.

Every human today has dozens of alleles for each gene locus?

The human population has dozens of alleles for each gene locus. But the first two humans could only have had 4 total. So the human population went from (at most) 4 alleles for any particular gene locus to dozens of them. The rest evolved.

Any two humans would only have 4 alleles per gene locus, wouldn't they?

Yes, but humanity has evolved a large number of alleles since Adam and Eve. We continue to evolve new ones such as the Milano Mutation a few hundred years ago. Someone bothered to trace the gene back to the original mutation. There is a good number of other examples. Would you like me to look up some of them for you?

 

[Yorzhik]

Nope.

It's just a theory.

The sooner you allow for the possibility that your ideas might be wrong, the sooner you can join a rational, scientific discussion.

It's a pity that Darwinists cannot abide such a thing.

It's a pity I have to make up a name, Common Descentist, just to try and have a rational conversation with these people.

Are we done with Shannon?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's a pity I have to make up a name, Common Descentist, just to try and have a rational conversation with these people.

Are we done with Shannon?

I think you quoted the wrong person...

 

[The Barbarian]

It's Just a Theory
An explanation of Science for non-scientists
https://mypages.iit.edu/~nleep/theory/

 

[Stripe]

It's Just a TheoryAn explanation of Science for non-scientists

Classic Darwinist: Asserts his ideas as fact; pretends the other side is the one that said something incorrect.

The sooner you stop asserting your ideas as gospel, the sooner you can join a sensible discussion.

Open your theory up to be falsified. Who knows, you might find it being affirmed. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

It's a pity I have to make up a name, Common Descentist, just to try and have a rational conversation with these people.

I tend to go the other way. :banana:

I think you quoted the wrong person...

Nah. He got it right.

 

[Yorzhik]

I think you quoted the wrong person...

No, I didn't.

 

[Yorzhik]

I tend to go the other way. :banana:

That works too.

 

[Stripe]

That works too.

OK. Can we at least agree that Barbarian is a dishonest troll?

 

[Yorzhik]

OK. Can we at least agree that Barbarian is a dishonest troll?

He's either that or a debate AI.

 

[Right Divider]

He's either that or a debate AI.

Can't be AI. AI would be smarter.

 

[ok doser]

Can't be AI. AI would be smarter.

Maybe he's defective

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe he's defective

A few bits short of a byte.