Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Robert_js, Feb 20, 2004.

  1. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    Paulsamuel wrote:

    >>> i'm assuming that you are equating "Darwinism" with natural selection, please be more specific about your terms if i am wrong in that assumption. <<<
    I thought I made it very clear I was referring to “natural selection” (and not evolution) as not being falsifiable.

    >>> in what way is it not falsifiable? be specific <<<
    This is my understanding of a falsifiable experiment. A scientist conducts a number of controlled experiments and finds that he has 10 mice that all live in exactly the same environment, eating the same food etc. etc. and if he feeds them vitamin X they all gain weight. But he is not 100% sure it is his vitamin X that has caused the weight gain for it may be some other external factor that he can not identify. He therefore conducts the same experiment with another 10 mice. This time however he only gives 9 mice vitamin X and the 10th mouse is given a placebo. If then the 9 mice still gain weight and the 10th does not the experiment has been falsified. In other words, the scientist has not only shown that mice in his controlled experiments will gain weight if given Vitamin X but mice in the same controlled experiment that did not have vitamin X did not gain weight.

    Such a controlled experiment can not be done with the evolution of species. To attempt to do so would involve firstly trying to prove that species evolved by way of natural selection. You would presumably need to get living creatures with variation into a controlled environment and then attempt to force them (by way of natural selection) to speciate. And to falsify you would have to run the same experiment again with another series of species without any variation. If the ones that did not have variation did not evolve into new species than your experiment has been falsified.

    Same would be true of the statement by James R that; “Life is just one more complex system. There's nothing mystical about it. Natural processes are all that are required.”

    It would seem that life evolved on earth only once and that was 3.8 billion years ago. To prove this happened by natural processes we would firstly need to create life several times in a controlled experiment by way of these so called natural processes. And to falsify we would then need to run the same experiment again with out the same natural processes at work to then observe that life did not suddenly spring forth without these specified natural processes.

    I am not aware that these experiments have been done and have been falsified. Or did I miss something?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    yes you did. you missed what falsifiability means. it has nothing to do with specific hypothetical experiments.

    example: if life evolved more than once, one could see this in the genetic make, i.e. the DNA sequence of genes and the structure of those genes and the presence of those genes.

    one could falsify a single origin by revealing analogy and convergence in genes rather than homology.

    hence, a single origin for life has falsifiability.

    thus it is with natural selection. if natural selection played no part in evolution, or if it did not exist, then we can falsifiy it by setting up artificial selection experiments.

    hence, natural selection has falsifiability.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hypercane Sustained Winds at Mach One Registered Senior Member

    I wonder what will we homo sapiens look like if/when we will take our next course of evolution. I might be disappointed, scared, etc. as with everybody else.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    That you use the phrase "just a theory" tends to indicate that you don't really understand what a theory really is Robert. The term theory is not used within science as it is in common parlance; it is not synonymous with 'a guess'. A theory is a testable hypothesis that is supported by all known evidence and is contradicted by none. To bring it back to the topic, the theory of natural selection is the only scientific explanation that fits the facts that we have. It is, in fact, well supported by observation.

    On the other hand, the 'God Gametes' idea is nothing more than speculative fantasy. It is not defined in such a way that it is testable nor does it make any predictions. It's merely a loose extrapolation based on some general concepts, which is well and fine as far as it goes but it is certainly not a contender for a scientific explanation of life. It's not even in the same arena.

  8. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Hence, a discussion of God-Gametes, or whatever you call it, belongs in the pseudoscience forum or the religion forum, the misapropos title of the thread notwithstanding.
  9. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    Paulsamuel wrote on the subject of “falsifiability”:

    Okay; I did a google search and it seems the following is what the scientific establishment mean by falsifiability. Sorry I am an amateur scientist and have to fund my own research (in my spare time). I find the established scientific educational institutions are very reluctant to put any person on their pay roll unless that person fully agrees with their accepted dogma.


    There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

    In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?). <<<​

    So given the above interpretation we are now looking for a falsifiable scientific experiment establishing that “natural processes” can create matter, heat, the gravitational forces that hold the universe together life and human consciousness:

    Paulsamuel wrote on the creation of life:

    There are a number of issues here.

    1. There seems little to be gained (given the above interpretation) in claiming falsifiability. You are claiming that the creation of life by natural processes is scientific and falsifiable. But if the claim that there are little green men on the moon is also scientific and falsifiable then both assertions could be equally incorrect.

    2. You make the point that life only evolved once and suggest this is supportive of your argument. But whether life evolved once or one thousand times is not the point. The question is how did it happen?

    3. You say that if life evolved more than once you could see it in the genetic make up. This presumably is a reference to the Darwinian argument that the genetic code is stable. The argument is that there is only an occasional random mutation that is beneficial (this will drive the evolution of new species) and hence it is possible to track the evolution of species by studying their genetic code. But the genetic code is not always stable. There are “jumping genes” and so called “hot spots” that mutate sections of DNA at one million times the background mutation rate. The immune system can rearrange mutated sections of DNA to code for antibodies within hours. This has confounded Darwinists and is totally at odds with what would be predicted by Darwinism. It would seem therefore rather pointless to claim the stable genetic code as a basis for Darwinism when it is obvious that natural selection is not the sole factor keeping it stable.

    4. Your response Paul (like the earlier response of James R) only addresses the issue of life and not how matter was created or how the heat, gravitational forces and our human consciousness came into existence.

    Paulsamuel wrote on the subject of natural selection:

    Again you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on falsifiability. The scientific interpretation of falsifiability (which you have correctly brought to my attention) merely suggests that a theory is either falsifiable or not falsifiable; not whether it is correct or incorrect.

    In my view it is not possible to falsify the claim that natural selection is the driving force of evolution. We can observe that life has been on earth for 3.8 billion years and that it has evolved. We can also safely assume that natural selection has played some part in this evolutionary process. But many (including myself) would argue there are other factors at work and it is impossible to know what these are.

    We could set up artificial selection experiments but you can not identify what might be all the factors that have influenced the evolution of species and you have not got 3.8 million years to play with.

    Can you tell me what type of experiments you have in mind here Paul? Will your selection experiments have identical twins with no genetic variation? Maybe you are hoping that in a few million years you can say there has been no variation and there is no speciation. But there could still be some other factor driving evolution that needs variation in genetic stock to make it work.
  10. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    I found this on the same google search mentioned in the previous post to Paulsamuel.


    What is the “scientific method''?

    The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. <<<​

    Again I would thank you and Paul for drawing to my attention the correct scientific interpretation of these words.

    I do not know if you read my book Raithere but more than half of the 170,000 words are dedicated to stating where Darwinism does not fit the facts and is not well supported by observation.

    You are correct in saying that God Gametes is not testable. I have however pointed out in earlier post I do not believe Darwinism is a testable theory and the scientific community have no problems with that. In my research for God Gametes I have referenced the book; “Before the Beginning” by Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal). Rees puts the view that there may be other universes and addresses the problem of putting forward a theory that is not testable. He argues it is reasonable to postulate the existence of other universes even though their presence can never be proven. Rees suggests that a theory that is consistent with what we know to be true and is supported by observation will be more credible. Theories that are not consistent with what we know to be true, make false predictions and are not supported by observation will then be discredited and this he believes is a worthwhile process.

    You make the claim that natural selection fits the facts and is well supported by observation but I do not agree. Some of the issues raised in my book are as follows:

    · Natural selection would not drive greater complexity. 99.9% of all species that have evolved past the single cell have gone extinct. Evolving greater complexity is a disastrous survival strategy. Single cell organisms can survive 1,500 degree C flash heating, being frozen, they survived unaided on the moon for 30 months, they can live in acid baths and have been found 6 miles underground metabolising rocks. Single cell organisms are best adapted to all environments.

    · Darwinists themselves can not agree on whether evolution was gradual or punctuated.

    · Darwin was a Lamarckian. In other words he believed that acquired traits could be inherited. This is a heresy to modern day Darwinists who believe that only the occasional beneficial random mutation is driving the evolution of species.

    · Darwinist have had to argue that there has been no increase in complexity since the first life appeared on earth 3.8 billion years ago. The problem here is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that all systems (without a guiding hand) will eventually run down and can never get more complex.

    · Darwinists have difficulty with convergent evolution. When species evolve separately on different continents but have adopted the same design Darwinists say it is because they have been forced into an environmental niche. But there are many examples of convergence (even at the molecular level) that can not be explained by environmental pressure.

    · The eye has been evolved independently more than 40 times. If survival of the fittest was driving evolution (and given the small probability that complex systems like sight could be designed by accident) then it would be reasonable to assume that sight would only have been designed once.

    · Credible scientists like Fred Hoyle have claimed that life on earth came from space. There is increasing evidence that life did not get started here on earth.

    · It can not explain why 98% of the human genome is silent.

    · It can not explain why some sections of DNA mutate at one million times the background mutation rate.

    · Some species evolved the genes for building body parts before they evolved the parts. These are called coordinating genes.

    · Darwinism can not explain jumping genes.

    · It can not explain introns; (pieces of silent DNA that appear in the middle of a gene sequence – sometimes in the middle of a codon).

    · Darwinism can not explain why 30 children in the United States have genes from neither parent. (These children were born following a technique called ooplasmic transfer in which genes from the eggs of donor women had been inserted into the eggs of infertile women. The scientists transferred genes from the mitochondria of the donor eggs in an attempt to help the infertile women. Mitochondria are free structures not part of the nucleus and not included in the process of cell division.) ​
    This is a very brief overview of the criticism of Darwinism made in God Gametes. I have not given references here but do in my book. Natural selection has never been a sound theory and the scientific community should have the courage to recognise its shortcomings. If that means admitting that there must have been something “kick start it” and we will probably never know what that something is then so be it. Far better to admit you do not know (and likely will never know) than be wedded to a theory that just does not make sense.
  11. antifreeze defrosting agent Registered Senior Member

    why not both?
    can you?
    what about humans?
    how are you so sure?
    ignorance does not solve the question.
  12. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    falsifiability has nothing to do with being correct or not. it's a materialistic view of the universe, i.e. those things that are not falsifiable, e.g. god gametes whatever, are unknowable.

    no, i made an argument that supported a single origin of life, not vica versa.
    The theory of evolution does not, and has never, been a theory to explain life's origins. It's a theory to explain life's diversity.
    there are many of life's chemicals that form naturally and have been found to be of abiotic origins. some amino acids, lipids, peptides, and I've heard that maybe nucleosides were found. I personally think that given the presence of these necessary molecules, some energy, liquid water, i.e. life's conditions, then life formation is inevitable.

    No, it's not. It has to do with convergent evolution, i.e. analogous structures or genes but with different origins. These different origins are recognizable and analyzable.

    'jumping genes' and 'hot spots' do not interfere with the stability of the 'genetic code' (although we generally use non-coding parts of the genome for systematics). jumping genes and hot spots are identifiable and do not interfere with our ability to track speciation using DNA sequences.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I'm sure you got that wrong. During the transcription of the antibodies there is a rearrangement that results in a single gene providing many different products, but this is not reverse transcribed back into the genome. It is merely a rearrangement based on formation of secondary structure of the DNA strand being transcribed. Natural selection completely and totally supports the existence of such a system.

    Natural selection is an important force in the composition of genetic makeup, but it's not the sole force and no one, including Darwin, ever claimed that it was.

    You might want to be sure you have a full understanding of a concept or process before you use them to support an argument or point of view that you have.

    These are issues beond my expertise, however I do know science when I see it, and therefore can recognize psuedoscience.

    That is a view not supported by the facts. There are millions of examples of experiments testing natural selection, i.e. attempting to falsify.

    I agree that there are other forces. I don't agree that they're unknowable, for example, punctuated equilibrium, develpomental evolution, genetic drift. If you're trying to revive a vitalistic view of life, you should bring that crap to pseudoscience or discuss it in the philosophy forum, because it sure as hell isn't science.

    Artificial selection is a perfectly good test of natural selection. We don't need 3.8 million or even billion years.

    There's no need to make up anything else, we are explaining everything quite well with evolutionary biology.
  13. antifreeze defrosting agent Registered Senior Member

  14. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    evolution, even by natural selection, has no direction. so, organisms can become more complex or less complex depending upon the selective forces at work. In other words, natural selection does not "drive greater complexity."

    That's irrelevant to the phenomena under discussion.

    Darwin was not a Lamarkian. His 'evolution by natural selection' is the antithesis of Lamarkism. However, Darwin never thought that natural selection was the sole driving force of evolution, and since technological limitations precluded ruling out the inheritance of acquired characteristics, he allowed for its existence.

    we have not had to argue that and it's not even an issue in evolutionary biology. perhaps it's an issue in special creationsim, but that's religion, not science. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the discussion and is a creationist argument. bring it to the religion forum.

    no we don't.
    we don't say this either.

    That's not a reasonable assumption at all. We know it has evolved more than once.

    There is NO evidence that life evolved elsewhere. NONE!!!

    you don't need natural selection to explain that

    yes it can and it has


    yes it can and it has

    yes it can and it has

    you really should have at least a rudimentary understanding of a process before you cite it as support for an argument or point of view. this is just completely irrelevant.

    This is also a very good overview of why no one should waste their time reading this crap.

    Back to the religion forum where you belong!!!
  15. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    You are the one who made falsifiability the issue. The point I was making here is that even if natural selection is falsifiable then this does not prove it a correct theory. But I have some problems with natural selection being considered falsifiable. I agree of course that natural selection plays a part in driving the evolution of species but Darwinists claim that natural selection is solely responsible for the design of complex systems (like the human eye for example). Your criticism of me and my presentation of the God Gametes theory is very harsh when this claim by Darwinists is impossible to prove and equally unknowable.

    I agree but Darwin did call his book “Origin of Species”. So if “The theory of evolution” or natural selection does not explain the origin of life then how did it happen? Don’t ask me because I have not a clue. I just put that one in the too hard basket. God Gametes only tries to explain “what it is doing”.

    Isn’t this trying to explain the origin of life? If it is then there is a problem with that line of argument. First is that we still can not create life in the laboratory even when we know what chemicals are necessary and the genetic code for creating life. So what chance of it happening by accident? But even if somehow life did get started by accident then where did all those chemicals (and the energy) come from? If as you say they just formed naturally then there still needs to be some underlying natural process that can put in place a system for creating matter, energy and life.

    I can not see how a sudden mutation (at one million times the background mutation rate) that targets a precise section of DNA and then rearranges it to code for antibodies (to fight antigens that have sometimes never existed on earth before) is something that is “completely and totally” supported by natural selection. Ted Steele (Professor of Immunology at the Australian National University) claims that these gene sequences not only get back into the genome but turn up in germline DNA and can be passed onto future generations. Hence braking the Weismann’s Barrier. Can I refer you to “Lamarck’s Signature” by Edward J. Steele, Robyn A. Lindley and Robert V. Blandon or the following internet sites:

    I agree that natural selection is not the only force driving evolution of complex species. It is impossible for a random process to design complex systems.

    Artificial selection has been practiced by animal breeders for hundreds of years. We have bred dogs that vary in size from ones that are larger than a man to ones that you can carry around in your pocket. But until now artificial breeding has not created a new species.

    >>> Your response Paul (like the earlier response of James R) only addresses the issue of life and not how matter was created or how the heat, gravitational forces and our human consciousness came into existence <<<
    I can not understand why you react so negatively to my posts when you readily admit you do not know the answers to those questions. You say that it is beyond your expertise but do you think anyone can fully explain the origins of the universe, life and consciousness? If not then what is wrong with putting those big questions in the “too hard basket” and then saying; “well we will probably never know how it got started but maybe this is what it is doing.” That may not be scientific but it may lead to a better understanding of our purpose in life. Isn’t that a worthwhile thing to do?

    >>> Can you tell me what type of experiments you have in mind here Paul? Will your selection experiments have identical twins with no genetic variation?<<<
    How was the matter, heat and gravitational forces created and how did life and our human consciousness come into existence?

    Paul, I was in my late 40’s when I came up with the God Gametes concept. I tossed it around in my head for a year or two but realised I needed to do some serious research to find supporting evidence. I had studied history at University and had taken zero interest in science. I would have to say though I thoroughly enjoyed the research I did and came to realise how interesting and meaningful a scientific knowledge can be. It is however a great disappointment to me to be treated with hostility when I put the view that maybe science can never find all the answers. Tell me is there some problem with this? Maybe as a new comer to this discipline there is something I missed. I know the “Jesus freaks” are hard to take but I am not one of them and I am not pushing a religious doctrine.

    Sure, 500 years ago the church were burning people at the stake for putting any point of view that did not accord with the scriptures. Maybe it is still fashionable in the scientific community to dump on anyone who believes there is a spiritual component to life but I really think it is time to move on. A little less hostility and a bit more cooperation please Paul. It can not do any harm.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2004
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Perhaps you should read my post again. I addressed exactly those matters (briefly). If you want further explanation, you only need to ask.

    Perhaps single celled organisms are, in fact, best adapted to the widest range of different environments - that is debateable. However, I dispute your claim that they are best adapted to ALL environments. Regardless, the point is irrelevant, because single-celled organisms occupy a different environmental niche than more complex organisms. There is more than enough room for other kinds of life in the same ecosystems.

    This will be sorted out as more evidence is accumulated. Note that scientists who dispute this point agree that Darwinian natural selection fits both scenarios. The argument is over the detail, not the fundamentals.

    I think you are wrong about Darwin, though I don't have specific references at hand right now. Regardless, your point is irrelevant. The theory of evolution has progressed since Darwin. Darwin wasn't right about everything; nobody disputes that.

    This is totally wrong. No Darwinist argues that life has not become more complex over the past 3.8 billion years. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, whereas the Earth gets energy from the Sun and so is open. Also, the 2nd law is statistical in nature. Hence, its conclusions apply on average and not absolutely. It in no way precludes pockets of order developing amidst the chaos, even spontaneously. But that is largely irrelevant when you're talking about life, since natural selection is not a random process.

    You are far too vague here. Perhaps you could quote a few actual examples of the kind of thing you're talking about?

    "designed" is, of course, completely the wrong word. In contrast to your view, most biologists find that the separate evolution of the many different types of eyes is one of the strongest pieces of supporting evidence for evolution.

    Such as?

    And, even if true, how would this disprove evolution?

    We don't know that it is, and if it were it would not be so surprising, given that changes to the genome are largely random.

    That is a problem for molecular biologists, not evolutionary theorists.

    What is your evidence for that?

    Please explain what you mean.

    Yes it can. This has to do with the random nature of changes to the genome, which I already mentioned.

    I would need to read more about this. On what basis do you form your conclusion?

    You are wrong. Natural selection is the only viable scientific theory which explains the diversity of life on Earth. There are simply no good alternatives.
  17. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    No, I haven't but unless you have something particularly original I've heard most of the arguments.

    As Evolution has made quite a number of predictions which have been validated I have a difficult time seeing how you could claim that it is not testable.

    Natural selection doesn't drive complexity, mutation does. Natural selection is the process whereby more successful mutations out-survive less successful ones.

    Doubtless, but this is not an argument that evolution makes. Single celled organisms fill particular ecological niches but they are incapable of filling other ecological niches. Thus we have multi-cellular organisms. Remember that other living things are a part of an organism's environment; multi-cellular complexity has a very obvious advantage in this light; it can defend itself better against single-celled organisms.

    Are you sure you understand what PE really says? Most people do not. PE and Gradualism are not mutually exclusive and PE does not say that mutation occurs more rapidly. See my post on page 2 of this thread.

    Newton thought that light was a wave traveling through the aether. Should we throw out QED? Scientific theories evolve they are never born fully realized.

    No, that is completely inaccurate. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy always increases in a closed system. Until a system reaches equilibrium one can always 'purchase' a local increase in order/energy by a decrease somewhere else. The Earth can afford a local gain because the Sun's loss more than compensates for it. The net difference is still negative.

    No there really isn't any difficulty here. All life on Earth shares the same basic sets of codes. It's like two children playing with tinker-toys on opposite sides of the world. They're using the same building blocks, it is quite likely that many of the things they build will be very similar to one another.

  18. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Born on the Beach!

    Don't know nothing about God Gametes but......The Aquatic Ape Theory has got me as a believer.

    Out of Africa theory (in my opinion) was born out of racism and geography. The rift valley was a good place for easily finding fosils. Racism made Africa the preferred place to find the origen of man. I hear that new updated timeline for the emerging African Savanah is no longer compatible with the emerging savanah being the source of bipedalism for the traditional "Out of Africa theory".

    The early African humanoid fosils don't mean much because: one, old fosils have since been found in other places. Two, Africa is where people have looked most for human foosils. Three the normal weather is ice age; this curent climate even before human global warming was freakishly warm and therefore the beaches on which mankind was born are underwater. Five, there is no place worse than a ocean beach for preserving fosils.

    The most compelling case for out of Africa is the new thoughts that the extra Genetic diversity modern African people means that they have been separate peoples longer than Asians and Europeans. My problems with this idea are: One, the samples of genetically analysed people may be still too small for anyone to be drawing conclusions. Two, Africa's Geography may have created geographically isolated pockets that created the diversity. The DNA of people in isolated pockets in Asia should be tested.

    Out of Africa and Aquatic Ape could both be true if the beach was an African beach.

    If all other humans suddenly disappeared I would starve to death unless I lived at the beach where I am well suited to opening shellfish. Give me a good four foot long thick stick and put me in five feet of water and I need not fear a lion swiming out to eat me.

    What an interesting hair pattern we humans have. There were native Americans in I believe Chile that lived in the water. Their children would hold onto their parents hair as the parents swim. Babies are born with powerfull grips and an instict to grip that allowed even new borns to hold their parents hair as they swam.

    The beach can explain evrything we need explained to understand how humans separated from the other Apes.

    In another direction, there is nothing mysterious about the recent technological explosion that requires God Gametes. Humans in New Guinea have gone from stone age to space age in one generation. Writing computer code does not requiring more brain power than being a great hunter gatherer or a fine craftsman of stone tools does. People tried to understand what dolphins are doing with their big brains. People now believe their is complex politics involved in dolphins sexual selection. Who knows how complex dolphins hunting paterns are. Perhaps dolphins speak; but their is no reason to believe that non communicative animals could not exist that need and use big brains without having a use for communication.

    Darwin seems correct to me but that does not reject God. What is consciousness? How does A child learn that one plus one is two or how does anybody learn anything? At the beginning of time where did the universe come from? Before the child was born where was their consciousness? When we die what happens to us? From a meditation of trying to go to sleep consciously I learned the difference between thoughtless awareness and the memory/brain filing of sensations into time referenced files. If you did not file it then it will not exist tommorow. Awareness can go on while you sleep, but the normal filing does not therefore awareness might go on when you are dead. Everything has a gravitational pull on everything else. There is no free will because everything flows from that which came before. Therefore even though Darwin is perfectly correct on his level, the source which might be God is still thouroughly connected with all of creation. If God created once, then God may still be creating but that further creating aka "God Gametes" are not necessary to explain anything that Darwin explains more simply.
  19. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    I agree 100%. It is totally impossible for a random process to design anything. The question I put is; “If natural selection is not driving it then what is?”

    In Chapter 2 of The Origin of Species Darwin writes:

    “with animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a marked influence ... in the domestic duck ... the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild-duck; and this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parents.”
    Darwin continues:

    “The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use.”
    Sounds very Lamarckian to me.

    RobertJS wrote

    “Darwinists have difficulty with convergent evolution”
    I started this thread with the best of all examples of convergent evolution; that of our own species. If palaeontologists have it correct then a forerunner to our species moved out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. This earlier ancestor to modern man evolved on different continents, in the extremes of climate and environmental conditions, but in all cases finished up as the same species. This is the opposite of what would be predicted by natural selection. Natural selection would have us believe that the designs for change can only be made by random mutations. Most mutations are harmful of course but Darwinists believe that the occasional mutation will be beneficial and will assist a species adapt to an ever changing environment. This process, if in fact it could design anything, would drive species further apart. But our species has evolved on separate continents from an earlier primitive species to modern man.

    Robert wrote:

    “But there are many examples of convergence (even at the molecular level) that can not be explained by environmental pressure.”
    Angier, Natalie. When Evolution Creates the Same Design Again and Again. Article from the New York Times, December 16, 1998.

    Robert wrote:

    “The eye has been evolved independently more than 40 times. If survival of the fittest was driving evolution (and given the small probability that complex systems like sight could be designed by accident) then it would be reasonable to assume that sight would only have been designed once.”
    Evolution of the eye is discussed in a quote from Genes – The Fight for Life by Brian J. Ford:

    “There are 50 different types of eye altogether. Some are compound, others simple; some have a mucilaginous structure, others are hard; some have lenses made from the body surface, others have lenses that are soft and can be focused; some are solid, others are hollow. All fit a basic pattern, in the sense that there is a focusing system at the front and a light receptor at the back. The problem is that different groups of animals have evolved eyes that are constructed in such bewilderingly different ways. If an eye had evolved once, it would be sensible to assume that nature would have repeated much the same design in all the differing life forms. According to the standard teachings of evolution and development, this is exactly what one would predict. The facts of nature contradict that prediction.”
    Robert wrote:

    Credible scientists like Fred Hoyle have claimed that life on earth came from space. There is increasing evidence that life did not get started here on earth.
    Suggest you visit

    Robert wrote:

    “Some species evolved the genes for building body parts before they evolved the parts. These are called coordinating genes.”
    “Seven independent data sets suggest that invertebrates diverged from chordates about a billion years ago, about twice as long ago as the Cambrian”. — Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton and Leo H. Shapiro. "Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla" p 568-573 v 274, Science, 25 October 1996.
    See for complete article ​
    Can science explain how genes from neither parent, genes that do not take part in cell division and are not part of germline DNA, can be transferred to offspring. You say it is irrelevant and you say Darwinism can explain jumping genes and mutation rates one million times the background mutation rate but are we to take your word for this?
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  20. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    U are making the assumption here that evolution is being driven towards complexity. I think that is wrong, just like the many people who still believe that we are the epitome of what all other species are striving to evolve towards

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Its better to say that some species already HAD SOME of the genes necessary for building body parts before the parts evolved. This is true.
  21. Robert_js Registered Senior Member

    Robert wrote:

    “Your response Paul (like the earlier response of James R) only addresses the issue of life and not how matter was created or how the heat, gravitational forces and our human consciousness came into existence.”
    Yes James R I had a look back through this thread and found you had addressed these issues.

    On matter:

    On heat in the stars:

    On the gravitational forces holding the universe together:

    On life and consciousness:

    Really James; do you call this science? How come nobody tells you to take that to the pseudoscience forum? Is what you are claiming falsifiable? Has what you are claiming been subject to the “scientific method”?

    It is true that there is enough room for more complex life in the same ecosystem but that is not the point. What I have argued here is that natural selection would not drive the creation of more complex systems when it can only reduce its chance of survival. Natural selection is “survival of the fittest”. The “fittest” and the “quickest” to adapt to a changing environment will always be the single cell organism.

    Robert wrote:

    “Darwinists themselves can not agree on whether evolution was gradual or punctuated.”
    I do not agree with this. Some Darwinists might agree with that but many Darwinists are deeply divided on this issue, (i.e. Dawkins and Gould). Most observers would say that the reason they are divided is because only one can be correct. And if it happens that evolution was not gradualist then, according to Dawkins and Darwin himself, this is at odds with the theory of natural selection.

    I do not know how getting energy from the sun helps life get more complex. If we are a “pocket” of complexity it is a pretty impressive pocket to have immerged from an accident out of chaos. And you last sentence here; “But that is largely irrelevant when you're talking about life, since natural selection is not a random process.” I can never understand how Darwinists can claim natural selection is not random. It is random. If it is not random then it is ordered and if it is ordered then someone or something is doing the ordering.

    Angier, Natalie. When Evolution Creates the Same Design Again and Again. Article from the New York Times, December 16, 1998.

    If you are talking about evolution then I agree. But if you are talking about evolution by natural selection then I want to know how the genetic code for designing a complex system like the eye was found by accident. And found more than 40 different ways of designing a system for sight when one would have been enough. See also post above to paulsamuel that quoted Brian J. Ford on the same issue.

    Robert wrote:

    “Credible scientists like Fred Hoyle have claimed that life on earth came from space. There is increasing evidence that life did not get started here on earth.”

    I guess if life floated down from space then we would not have to believe that complex systems (such as the eye) could be designed by accident. Something you apparently believe but something I have difficulty with. But even if true then this still does not answer; “Where did life from out of space get started from?”

    James, I have answered most of your other questions in the above post to paulsamuel. I expect I will get some feedback from these posts which is great. I however will be going on holidays tomorrow and do not know when I will next get a chance to check sciforums. But I will be back in three weeks and will attempt to answer the issues raised by other contributors and any questions at that time.
  22. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    The eye didn't get "designed" and it didn't come about by accident.

    Best to take Occams razor in science which tells us to go for the theory which is perfectly viable, more simple and more likely. In this case, life developed on earth. Even if organic molecules WERE introduced extraterrestrially, the majority of life would still (most likely) have been from earth!
  23. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    these statements have nothing to do with the statement i made. so, there are two explanations for that; 1) you are trying to mislead the reader, which is dispicable, or 2) you lack the capacity to understand what i said. i hope it's the latter, but i suspect it's the former.

    natural selection is NOT random, by definition!!!

    natural selection is the antithesis of inheritence of acquired characteristics. learn it, remember it, live it.

    no, the ancestor evolved in Africa.

    there's no such thing as "designs for change." that's creationist claptrap. i suggest you do some more reading on what natural selection is, and STAY AWAY FROM THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE! (if you can call that crap they write literature, or even literate).

    no, our species evolved in Africa.

    convergent evolution of the eye is evidence FOR natural selection, not against it.

    I visited it, still NO EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Thanks for wasting my time!

    This is a great article, but it's not evidence for your previous statement. As I've said before, you really ought to have an understanding of the evidence you present to support a statement.

    mtDNA from the egg cytoplasm
    no, do your research! i can help, but you gotta stop reading that creationist crap. it's not science.

Share This Page