Level of Proof for Evolution

Wait....so the proof of the direct link for the theory is the theory itself?

It seems SaQ is forced to repeat himself.

However, the builiding plans as you put it would seem to be a necessary step. I've seenn many ...pseudo explanatioins but nothing which establishes a predicted path of progression which could be analyzed and tinkered with. What I don't expect is a full explanation I think that's unreasoanble. The DNA code is far to long for man to have any luck with understanding how was assembled but ther has to be some example worth studying closely and getting a clearer understanding.

I have to admit such a outline would be convincing but it's unlikely that such a understand would come in our lifetime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lifeforms, even the "simple" ones, are complex systems.
To analyse complexity, we take things apart and examine the bits and pieces, see how they fit together, and so on. like a kid taking an alarm clock apart, to see why it "rings" or makes a ticking noise.

We barely understand something like a virus; in non-viral organisms there's a lot of structure and function, and interacting subsystems and cycles and control mechanisms. Ultimately, it's "just" chemistry, but chemistry with structure, and so control.
A reaction in a test-tube is "controlled" - just by having it in some container.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the question that science has us askiing is how to accurately determine between happenstance and design?

One is obviously more complex than the other, ergo the inference of design on extrememely intricate mechanisms. Infact are they're any examples of complex mechanism whos origin is known which show that mechanisms can be formed from happenstance with at least the same complexity as life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. The theory provides the direct link between adaptation and evolution. That's what you wanted, right?

The obviousness has been shown wrong, and the inference is invalid in any case.

There are at least three choices: happenstance, evolution, and design.

 

You're linking adaptation and evolution with the theory and offering that as emperical proof of theory's validity?

I'm sure you believe that's true.

Those are actually two choices.

 

No, I am informing you of the fact that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution specifically and firmly connects adaptation with evolution. The modern theory includes mechanism, etc.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "empirical proof of the theory's validity". Sounds like creationist gobblespeak.

The obviousness can be laid off on beholder's eye, but the invalidity of the inference is not a matter of belief: that complexity implies design is perhaps the most thoroughly refuted argument in science since God's perfection implied circular planetary orbits.

Those are actually three choices. I observe again that you do not understand evolutionary theory.

 

Are you sure because you said yes before. You said before that the "theory provides a direct relationship" as if the theory proves the theory....that would be a very well known fallacy called a circular argument.

I already know about the theory why state it as emperical evidence of a direct relation between adaptation and evolution and say the question I asked "made no sense?"

Well I'm in no control of how you interpret what you hear. But it is clear you don't understand what I mean by emperical proof of the theory's validity.

It means observation of the theortical phenomenon in it's total transformation of all forms of life. Or at least the morecomplex forms of life.

I myself...really don't care how you think I understand evolution, Iceaura, but your opinion is so noted. I also acknowledge what evolution is defined as in scientific circles it's still happenstance, coicidence accidental, un purposes. That's mostly because of the factors that you believe drive "evolution" I don't recognize as having the influence evolution requires... which is of course why I don't subscribe to the theory.

 

Design sure is a tricky one.
If we knew how Life got started, or what specific conditions "happened", to exist, then the happenstance (chance interaction), design, evolution thing might be an easier picture to see.

But there's ~0.5b years of eukaryote evolution, and ~3b years further back, the prokaryotes "arose" from somewhere. It's gotten a big start with complexity and so on, really we can only say we have a rough sketch so far. Some of the processes are well-characterised, and we understand them as "distinct" things; except no process is distinct, it's part of a bigger picture - much bigger.

Life designs itself, in a sense. Or it's complex and advanced enough to adapt readily and develop new methods for old "tools", or combine the toolkit in "new" ways. It keeps trying, you have to give it that.
Genetic modification via human "design" is here, so we're designers too, or tinkerers at least.

 

I see life as incredibly advance and biomechanical.
Evolution would have to fill in more of the gaps in what's not be observed,(whatever that is) in order for me to lend it credit for life. So far it's like connect the dots but the order of the dots aren't number...and that's assuming that this is a connect the dots puzzle and not pin the tail on the donkey...or some other puzzle.

 

If you understood the theory, you would not confuse it with happenstance.

You have no idea what factors I think - not "believe" - govern - not "drive" - evolution. Various are possible - the theory does not specify.

Your vocabulary betrays you. It's a very elegant and deeply explanatory theory, Darwinian is - the time you spend acquiring a basic comprehension of it you would not regret.

 

You only have to look in some medical reference to see Evolution in action. The study of infection and disease is the study of how micro-organisms evolve strategies and humans evolve immune responses.

The antibiotics and the pharmaceuticals are a "testament" of bacterial/human battle-zones (e.g. penicillin and the "streptococcus wars"), the roll-call of an ongoing "war", and an example of good old adaptation (actually quite a few examples).

There are organisms whose defense weapons we've adapted for our own use, is another kind of example, but that's due to our evolved "intelligence", which means our ability to adapt - use things. Our genes didn't evolve the weapons, it evolved the ability to use them (and find them).
Ancestral humans adapted rocks first of all along with fire, something no other species has done (a key adaptation for our genus). They did this to exploit other resources (meat and hides of animals)

 

You clearly have no knowledge of evolutionary theory, hence your ability to dismiss it so lightly.

You are using the so-called argument from design which was first used in Darwin's time , if I remember correctly, bt the Rev. William Paley. He argued that if one found a watch on a desert island, it would make no sense to assume other than it had a designer. Variations on this idea have been put forward from time to time , all of which have been soundly refuted.

Evolutionary theory does not claim that things come into existence ex nihilo; it argues that things develop in stages over time. A favourite of doorknockers is to ask how one can possibly explain the complexity of the eye without recourse to a designer.

Evolutionist do not claim that the eye appeared where there was none before. An animal without what we would call an eye, but with an ability to recognize the difference between light and dark, would have an an advantage. Over a few million years, by natural selection, the eye would develop in stages.

The fact that you regard life as complex is merely stating the obvious. The point is that it did not become so overnight.

 

Logic is not determined by confidence statements such as that.
And no...the theory dosen't specify much of anything.

Your vocabulary betrays you. It's a very elegant and deeply explanatory theory, Darwinian is - the time you spend acquiring a basic comprehension of it you would not regret.[/QUOTE]

yes it does, I should have been more clear and precise but what ever drives evolution it is certainly not plainly evident in the motivators that are proposed.

I'm quite familiar with the adaptive qualities of micro organisms it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. They seem to adapt as a part of a regular progression...rapidly and consistently in large changes.

 

The eye, having evolved many times over, has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span from when it first becomes a photo receptor.

 

Moderator note:

Ad homs will result in this thread being locked.

 

Thank you.
I'd prefer a discussion than debate, conversation and exchange of thought over personal attacks.
And since as long as I'm part of the discussioin Miles seems likely to continue his perjorative comments I will excercise the better part of valor to allow the thread to remain intact.
Maybe next time Iceaura, I enjoyed the exchange as it was.:wave:

 

OK, answer this:

Why does sex feel good? How does an evolutionist explain this???

To expand on that: Sex feels good for the simple purpose of reproduction. We should be realistic and acknowledge that nature has little interest in our personal pleasure. So i was just wondering how it worked out so well.

 

Thanks, I didn't know that.

 

Are you kidding ? You practically gave the answer yourself..
If it didn't feel good why would we have sex ?

 

We wouldn't do it if it didn't feel good and we would not be here to talk about it.