That’s not what they did in that experiment.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:167, topic:36621”]
That’s a very big “if”. Let me know when you observe that scenario outside of a movie theater.
[/quote]
We already have the transitional fossils:
1 Like
Gold star for Chris!
QED, my contention that reasonable people could read and understand my original post, including those that had ‘liked’ it.
@Argon and @Chris_Falter,
I won’t tarry on whether Nonlin’s Point 3 should reference Populations, (i.e., aggregations of individuals), instead of individuals. It’s a an issue of semantics, rather than a difference in fact.
But have you two already covered the fact that NonLin’s Point 3
i.e., “… differential survival and reproduction” is “due to differences in phenotype”) is actually wrong?
I can imagine differential survival and reproduction due to differences in genetic information, rather than phenotype. Would either of you defend the idea that Phenotype includes the (generally invisible) appearance of DNA at the molecular level?
But then
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
is correct if you understand evolution to be what it means: "the slow unfolding of a plan"
Only if you understand that the purpose of evolution is to lead to an integrated coexistence of everything in existence in peace with each other you can understand how it works.
The problem to materialists is that they are incapable of accepting that the process is controlled by metaphysical forces. The logos is by definition metaphysical and not material.
Nothing in biology makes sense if you only look at biology from a materialistic perspective. The key elements of love and the pursuit of a will to survive expressed by a living object can only be understood if we embrace the existence of the metaphysical reality
On the flip side, there is no evidence that the process is being controlled by metaphysical forces, so there is no compelling reason to believe that it is true.[quote=“marvin, post:187, topic:36621”]
Nothing in biology makes sense if you only look at biology from a materialistic perspective. The key elements of love and the pursuit of a will to survive expressed by a living object can only be understood if we embrace the existence of the metaphysical reality
[/quote]
How so?
so you want to declare the laws of nature to be materialistic entities - be my guest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am sure that some people appear so materialistic that one could say they think like a brick, but it tends to be metaphoric 
It’s actually OK. What’s wrong in the chain of ‘logic’ is that point 4 is wrong. Genes, though not perfectly mapped to phenotypes, are subject to selection because they do influence the phenotypes displayed.
@T_aquaticus, you do know (yes?), that when you write a phrase like yours (i.e., “On the flip side, there is no evidence that the process is being controlled by metaphysical forces…”), most theists make a small chuckle and ignore what you wrote.
Your “blinders” were made clear to me and my fellow Theists back some time ago when we debated how to use the word “evidence”.
You have a rather specific (and I would say “useless”) definition of the word. It is so well outside of my world view, I’m not even going to try to paraphrase it.
My own use of the term “evidence” is: any observed or calculated object, event or quality that supports a conclusion, even if it is not definitive or conclusive.
The less definitive or conclusive an evidence is, then the more pieces of evidence is required to achieve a comfort level. I would be so bold as to say: the more inclined a person is to feeling the presence of God - - the less it matters if a piece of evidence is less than definitive or conclusive. This seems rather obvious, yes?
We also exchanged thoughts on the different levels of Proof that different court cases require:
1] in murder trials, there is the famous phrase “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. OJ avoids the verdict of Guilty.
2] in civil cases, there is the less dramatic phrase “preponderence of evidence”. When this was applied to OJ in civil court, he was found guilty of wrongful death!
3] if there were court cases about metaphysics, it would probably be inevitable that an even more nebulous evidentiary standard would evolve.
What I asked in my prior post is: arent there physiological and blood chemistry traits - - significantly dependent on genetic factors - - that would not be normally categorized as an aspect of Phenotype?
Sickle cell disorder would not be a good example, because I suppose we could point to the phenotype of the blood cells. They look like “sickles”!
But what if there was a genetic disorder that affected the permeability of the blood cell membranes. Would that be categorized as a Phenotype?
This certainly sounds logical, and in one sense it is true. But only if we define intelligence in broader terms than we usually apply to human intelligence. There is no question in my mind that all biological organisms are highly intelligent, since they are able to make use of selective pressure from a changing environment, to evolve answers to challenging problems. We humans do that with our intelligence centered in our brains. But bacteria and most creatures without brains or with minimal brains (basically everyone except us and a few others) have a different source of intelligence that is not remotely conscious, or anything like ours.
The center of cellular biological intelligence is the protein synthesis machinery that translates nucleotide chemistry (genotype) into amino acid chemistry (phenotype). This is what allows for evolution, since the target of selection is the phenotype, but the inheritance of phenotype to the next generation depends on genotype.
If you doubt that the translation system is intelligent, watch a video on it, or learn the details. Notice that I am not saying there is any consciousness here, and the translation system itself only functions intelligently in the presence of environmental selection pressure (which is a fact of our planet).
So, no; no further human style of intelligence is needed for evolution. Now however if you ask what is the source of the original biological intelligence (which includes the genetic code, tRNAs, AA synthetases, etc) we dont have an answer, but that is not any objection to evolution, or the fact that nothing in biology makes sense in its absence.
I am asking for evidence that backs your claims. Like you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In one paragraph you describe how theists ignore what I write, and then in the next paragraph you write about how I am the one with blinders. Hmmm . . .
I am asking for evidence. I am willing to discuss it. How is that having blinders?[quote=“gbrooks9, post:191, topic:36621”]
You have a rather specific (and I would say “useless”) definition of the word. It is so well outside of my world view, I’m not even going to try to paraphrase it.
[/quote]
I am using the very same definition of evidence that you use in everyday life.
In biology, evolution means “a change in allele frequencies in a population.” This is one of the most-used definitions, at least by scientists.
@T_aquaticus, Ummmm… no. You aren’t.
I use “evidence” to mean information to lead to a verdict.
Sometimes one piece of evidence is conclusive. Many times it is not.
I call all sorts of things “evidence” that you rejected because it wasn’t what you call evidence.
So, that should pretty much settle the matter - we use the term differently.
I think the difference is in what kinds of evidence you’re prepared to accept.
@T_aquaticus: correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess you’re probably looking specifically for scientific evidence here? Scientific evidence is the strongest form of evidence, because it has rigorous standards and protocols for documentation and quality control, but it isn’t the only form of evidence that we have available. There’s also historical and eyewitness evidence, for example, and while that won’t be as rigorous, and while it may suffer from confirmation or other forms of bias, it will have some value, especially if more than one source points to the same conclusion.
Some of us are satisfied that the evidence shows that there’s more to life than just natural, random processes. I guess your own expectations in that respect are somewhat more demanding.
2 Likes
Deja vu. Nothing there.
How would you test your statement? Does the sun not shine on corpses too?
In setting up the whole process. In addition, DNA is not essence of life - DNA not Essence of Life – NonLin . Also, how come you’re not triggered by all the redox processes in biology?
Nah. That’s just circular logic - presupose a link and then use that “link” to demonstrate the link.
Not my definition. How many times must I say it?
Huh? Point 4 refers to points 2. and 3. None of those mentions genes.
If this were all, this discussion, this site, Darwin’s book, etc. etc. had no point.
That is all that evolution is. Everything else follows from it. What do you think is missing?
1 Like
NonLin obviously doesn’t know that random clouds of hydrogen floating in the cosmos can, through gravity alone, gather itself together until it bursts into a giant ball of fusion, basking all around in sunlight for billions of years. And that the energy pouring down on any planet for those billions of years creates a cosmological environment not stifled in every way by the laws of thermodynamics. Organization of hydrocarbons, organizing at the molecular level are powered by a sun’s constant outpouring of energy. It’s not unlimited… but for the requirements of Evolution - - billions of years is sufficient.
This is how God takes command of a chaotic universe … using natural laws as tools to create life never seen before.
And NonLin probably also rejects the idea that stars produce increasingly heavy elements out of the process of hydrogen fusion (and even out of the processes unleashed in super novae) … because, after all, that’s just crazy talk…
If one cannot concieve of such amazing things, one certainly can’t understand how scientists have tested and confirmed these principles of Cosmology long ago…
You keep saying things like this without any evidence. This demonstrates you’re unable to address the facts.
And what is that information? How do you determine what is and isn’t information?
This is the definition I get from a Google search:
“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
It would seem that you are using a different definition than most people.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:197, topic:36621”]
I call all sorts of things “evidence” that you rejected because it wasn’t what you call evidence.
So, that should pretty much settle the matter - we use the term differently.
[/quote]
I would agree that you would need to change the meanings of words in order to support your argument.