Denial of evolution

That you couldn't even get off to an accurate start, (even though I'm quite convinced you just did a copy/paste of some other halfwits work), doesn't really instill me with much desire to read the rest of your rambling. In future, if you must, make the errors three quarters of the way through.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see the theory of evolution as an attempt to explain what we see around us. It's a scientific endeavor. However many have made this science vs religion or religion vs science. What a waste of science! Should we hand the task of calculatiing "PI" to the last place? What a waste of scientific reasoning. Those who would use a super computer for such a useless end would also use science to disprove God.

It's true that there are Christians that believe in evolutions. It's the diversity that is life. Are they going to Hell for believing in evolution? That is absurd. That's a fear tactic. Sometimes religion is about fear. But it's supposed to be about hope not fear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain why there are all these finches on the Galapagos, that all look alike, but live in different habitats?
Evolution explains why all the animals look a bit different, but a lot of them look a lot the same, too. The idea is they had a common ancestor.
It also explains diseases, even why cancer "happens" (but we still don't understand how).
It explains a whole lot of, you know, "stuff".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Comment: there does seem to be some difficulty around (here too) with the idea of evolving lifeforms, what a species is, what advantage is, and how selection "occurs".

Some seem to have abstracted the idea of evolution from the idea of life; they appear to think that life is some kind of variable that changes (varies) because evolution "changes" or varies it. Evolution is some kind of transform operator...?

Evolution is a direction, people. Yes, that's right, evolution "goes" somewhere.
That somewhere is "more" diversity, more variation. But it's also the appearance of stability: a species that's adapted, or a "best fit", to the particular niche occupied.

No species, no matter how stable, is a permanent fixture: speciation is an evolutionary "dead-end", as far as variation and the ability to adapt goes. A species is eventually replaced, by the processes that are part of evolution. The advantage of genomic stability comes at the cost of adaptability. A more variable (not stable) genome has an advantage in adaptability, but the cost is stability.
This should mean more "species" with high variability, and fewer with "low" variability, which is exactly what is observed; the prokaryotes have retained structural "simplicity" along with high mutability and variation, the eukaryotes have more complex structure, and lower variability, fewer eukaryote species appear.

This could explain why eukaryotes nearly didn't make it, why they were nearly wiped out by the prokaryotes back when the conditions were a bit different, and the eukaryotes hadn't been around for long - the end of the Permian.

The eukaryotes, today, are the survivors of the selection process that was "applied" back then.

 

and then state that evolution

Isn't that a bit presumptuous, Vkothii. Genetics show that adaptation is the reason for the variation in similar life forms. If you label that evolution on this small scale and then propose that evolution also transforms Genus, Families and Orders of animals it becomes a non sequitor.

 

Evolution doesn't transform anything. It's an explanation, like Newton's theories.

Adaptation is half the explanation, there's another half of the story.
Some just seem to get stuck on one or the other.
Evolution is not based on a single principle, there are 2 main "agencies" involved, as far as I can figure out. And this is what I keep saying.
If I'm wrong about what I believe the theory actually says, I'm still waiting for someone to correct me.

 

The continuation of a well established pattern indefinitely is not a nonsequiter.

Genus,Family, and Order are just names we give artificial categories. They have no magic, inviolate nature.

 

It is a nonsequitor when you make the assumption that the pattern is related to adaption and presume it's influence is endless.
So according to you there is no difference between a frog and a dog?
Would you prefer I didn't use the classification system?

 

The pattern is related to adaptation; not sure what you mean by "endless influence". Adaptation is going to be around as long as life is around to do the adapting.

There's an obvious difference. They have different gene complements, different ways of reproducing. Different habitats, different kinds of breathing apparatus.

But fundamentally, they have the same overall body plan, the same kinds of structures (4 limbs, two eyes, a heart, brain, liver, stomach), in the way they excrete, the biochemical and anatomical details are different, but they have a skeleton made out of the same kind of stuff as all other vertebrate skeletons.

They share a lot of genes too.

 

I'll be more clear.
It is a nonsequitor when you make the assumption that the pattern is definitely related to adaptation and presume it's influence escalates without limits exponetially.

 

Evolution does not go anywhere. It has, however, come from somewhere. The direction in evolution is only discernible and real after the event. Your grasp of evolution is poor, or you are offering a radical new version of the theory. If it is the latter, you need to offer explanations and evidence, not platitudes and posturing.

 

Yes you are right if you jump to the conclusion that there is a relation between those fossils.
Sorry if I fail to make the leap.

 

I'll stick with platitudes for now.
Evolution came from somewhere, but it doesn't go anywhere; what, like a go-kart with a busted wheel?

Evolution is some kind of broken "symmetry"? That sounds pretty rad.
I'd say it's more like the emergence of stable self-maintaining self-transporting forms of mass and energy, sort of a whole lot of resonant (i.e. entropically stable) functions of some kind. In terms of the conditional entropy, that gets changed by some process, and because the control of energy is agency, other agency, other kinds of collective agency emerge too. Life recognises the patterns it creates, in order to alter them. It also wins by playing a losing game.

 

You mean speciation?
How does speciation mean that it's only real after this has "occured"?

 

I do not mean speciation, I mean any evolutionary change. Evolutionary changes take directions dictated by chance and circumstance. They are not going anywhere until they arrive. There is no grand scheme to make life more complex. There is no great plan to evolve intelligence. Air breathing quadrupeds were not foreordained. Evolution does not have this kind of direction, but it has certainly come from somewhere. It is only in that latter, restricted sense, that evolution can be said to have a direction.

 

But those relations are apparent not direct.
If they were evolution would be a fact.
Sorry, Iasion.

 

1) That's not waht non sequiter means. 2) no one assumes the pattern is related to adaptation. Darwin codified the relationship in a theory, for which he is famous. 3) The fact that the pattern has no ending sequence - that apparently nothing prevents it from continuing indefinitely - is observed, not presumed. It has been in continuous operation now for more than three billion years, on Earth.

 

Non Sequitor means..."it doesn't follow"

In this case. It doesn't follow that adaptation which makes small changes also transforms across Orders of animals.

DNA is a limitation.
Experiments show mutations have limitations as well.

 

All of the present orders of animals seemed to have evolved within a very short period of time called the Cambrian explosion. It's still a mystery why that period was so "productive" in terms of body plans. It probably has something to do with the modular nature of bodies. For example how a lizard could simply add more midsections and become a snake. The difference is a small one in terms of genes.