Sorry I wrote ribosomes but the spell checker changed it and so I assumed I was remembering wrong. I will admit to not checking
Richard
There are multiple sources of genetic change and mutation is only one of them. But the change does have to appear in a germ cell so it can be passed on to offspring.
No it just has to be beneficial, neutral or only slightly deleterious with respect to fitness. Changes that are deleterious with respect to fitness are soon weeded out by natural selection. This is important because what the DNA tells us is one change that is neutral when combined with a later change can become an advantage. Small steps that add up to 1,000 miles in my analogy.
Mendel’s model would cover gene expression but doesn’t cover all of the workings of DNA. AFAIK.
Correct, but evolution happens to populations and not individuals. What matters is how a genetic change can spread through a population over multiple generations.
Change is random and not part of a master plan, but remember we are talking science and not theology.
And evolution says no such thing. Changes are passed on to offspring and overtime will spread to most or all of the population. If a population is separated into two groups over time the changes, which would be different in the two groups, accumulate and reach the point where the groups would no longer interbreed. At this point they would become 2 species. And this doesn’t require visible differences. Sometimes the changes are in mating behavior.
Correct, but I wouldn’t call it an extrapolation but an application of the process.
The origin of birds has evolved over time since the only remaining evidence is fossils. From Wikipedia
And you wouldn’t have seen it since this only came about with the advent of rapid DNA sequencing techniques. A quick Google search says they started with simple bacteria back in 1977.
Since we know how DNA is used to create proteins it is certainly the blueprint that results in the creature. That is actually a bad analogy. DNA/genes are actually more like a blueprint and a set of assembly instructions. Which is really quite marvelous when you consider the complexity of you and me. Do you question that DNA is sufficient?
It is more complicated than that. A feature would be the result of the interaction of DNA which can define the proteins and the genes that control that production. But for example we know that mammals that can’t produce their own vitamin C all share the same simple mutation in a single gene. So this would be a “feature” which is broken in the same way.
Hopefully it is a little less vague now. If you really want to understand evolution there are book length resources available.
I have only had one High School course in Biology back in 1966 and evolution wasn’t mentioned. However they way it was taught certainly showed the evolutional pathways that different systems have taken in the progression of single cell to human. Personally I thing it was avoided for religious reasons, even though I went to a public school.
With a few minor clarifications it would appear that I am working from the same song sheet. So why am I being accused of not knowing what I am talking about?
My assumption is because I am not coming at it from an evidence or scientific angle?
And, as I have said elsewhere, abstraction and understanding the ramifications of the theory do not seem to be part of the learning here.
Nothing you have said contradicts or dismisses any of my criticisms of the Evolutionary theory.
I don’t want to go and look. I want someone here to prove they know what it is by summarising it in their own words instead of “go and read it here!”
Instead it seems that study has got so polarised that the left hand does not know what the right hand does, yet they claim a coherent theory.
Richard
PS the extent and speed of change within a population will depend on the dynamics of it. If there is basically an alpha male or female then any deviation from within them will spread like wildfire. If reproduction is by individuals or worse still by single life-long pairing the change would be almost stagnant
I would rather not go into semantics, but my version is based on the fact that it expands what is known into what is guessed rather than just trying to apply the process.
My apologies, glad you read him. Origin is a masterpiece. Dawkins stands perfectly on its shoulders. But you’ll never know. So as you’re not arguing theology, what are you arguing? It’s not science. You are arguing fallaciously from your incredulity. What in Origin can’t you believe?
The theory of evolution does not exclude God from the process. All the theory states is that the natural processes we see operating in species today are also responsible for the biodiversity we see today. When scientists say that a process is random what they are saying is that it matches our models of what random should look like. Science does not make an ontological claim that processes are metaphysically random and are not being guided by a deity.
That’s false. Dawkins requires evidence for God’s actions before he will accept it.
So you agree that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the biodiversity we see today?
I am well aware of the complexities in biology.
1 Like
That appears to ignore neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution.
I put this on the other thread but I will repeat it here.
I am not claiming that Evolution is a load of codswhallop. Nor am I claiming a different theory in any shape or form. What I am claiming is that the theory of evolution is not the slam dunk (dead cert) that it is promoted as because there are philosophical and technical errors that are being conveniently ignored (swept under the proverbial carpet.).
And the reason I would not read Dawkins is because his philosophy about God is very clear. God does not even exist, let alone have anything to do with creation. He seems to think that evolution kills (the concept of) God. Do you think that?
I suppose I could read it for the purposes of criticism but I really do not have either the time or the inclination.
Richard
Which is why I am awaiting an alternative description of the evolutionary method(s?) of change.
Richard
Ignoring neutral drift is why you are waiting. That might not say what you want it to say.
Some of which are more important than you seem to think.
The problem is to really explain the theory does require more than a forum post. And sorry but if you don’t want to take the time to actually learn what evolution entails then no amount of forum postings are going to change your mind.
Yes there is even a field of study called population dynamics.
Again, not individuals but populations. But even if there is an alpha male he will have several mates with different genetics so his contribution is not the only one to the offspring.
Not stagnant. Do you know how many mutations are in your DNA that you received from your parents? Hint, it is non-zero.
The process provides the best explanation for what we see. You have yet to suggest a different process that will also explain what we see.
Correct me if I have the wrong impression, but I get the feeling you think micro-evolution is ok but macro-evolution (at least as it applies to humans) is not.
What errors?
1 Like
correct.
And, as I have said elsewhere I am not proposing an alternative. I am suggesting that, although it is the only working theory, it is by no means complete. It has more than the usual “bugs” in it, but as such it is still deemed “perfect”. Windows 7 never got past its bugs but it was still usable. But I doubt that it was ever deemed perfect and immutable.
There is a big difference between claiming a working model and claiming it to be the exact history.
Richard
As usual my words are misunderstood and then held against me. It is neither laziness nor any vanity about what i may or may not know.
If I want to understand Shakespeare I do not have to read everything he wrote. I go to critiques that summarise and inform.
Most Christians have never read the bible completely. My job, as a preacher, is not only to disseminate what is written but to prove that I know what is meant, and disseminate that also. In fact, I try to give every possible variant so that the listener can make up their own mind rather than be dictated to. I will even give interpretations that I do not agree with. (And make it clear why I do not, probably)
An examiner does not want a cut and paste or to know where to find the source documents. He(she) wants to know if you actually understand what is written. That you can both summarise it and apply it.
I have given my summary. It is only polite that someone returns the courtesy. (and not claim it to be an impossibility)
Richard
Nobody says it is “perfect” but it is certainly good enough. Nobody has yet come up with any objective evidence that is it wrong. And despite what you think, there are many researchers that are trying. And no it is not because they are blind to contrary results. An established contrary result would be a sure Nobel Prize.
1 Like
@RichardG , I was in college roughly the same time as you, and agree with your observations about genetics and evolution at that time period. The main class I took that looked at evolution was comparative anatomy. It was a tough one, with lots of memory work, and at time time I still had some struggles with the literalism of my youth and the integration of science. To trace the evolution of my middle ear bones from the jaw bone of a fish was daunting. But, the advances in science since that time has been remarkable. The Human Genome Project partially took place at my medical school, but even that was after I trained in Dallas in 1975-79. Then, with the technological advances in DNA sequencing, it really exploded. In short, while my knowledge now is shallow, things have changed so much since university that little I learned then still applies, and we must continue to learn or be left behind. I applaud your efforts to catch up, and think that time reading good books on the subject is well spent.
But most of my theoretical objections have as little chance of being proven objectively as the assertions that they contest. IOW If only objectivity and physical evidence are allowed then Evolution will be deemed correct because no evidence can actually disprove (or actually prove beyond doubt) it. And, as everyone loves to point out there is no rival theory as such.
The third option, which is to hijack the process on behalf of God will always be met by the claim that the proof of God is not able to be proved objectively (also).
As a Christian it is this third option I promote. But, I am usually lumped in with either YECs or those who dismiss the theory altogether.
Thank you for your contribution here. If nothing else it proves I am neither inventing things, nor making false claims about my knowledge.
Richard
Science does not have to. As you know right well. Atheism doesn’t arise in science as theism doesn’t.
It is a part of the scientific method that only objective physical evidence is allowed. There is no way to get around that. And based on the scientific method the theory has never been disproved so it will always be assumed to be correct. No matter what kind of analogy you come up with.
The problem with trying to “prove” that God is in control is there is no way to detect or measure, that pesky objective evidence again, God’s influence. I believe this is actually God’s plan and is just another aspect of the hiddenness of God.
I really do agree with you but nobody has ever lumped me in with the YEC folks for the simple reason that I don’t argue against the scientific theory of evolution.
Personally I believe we have all the information we need to accept that God is in control of evolution, but it is not based on objective evidence. It is based on God’s special revelation to us in the Bible. We do need to come to an agreement on what God says in the Bible and what God says in creation. And personally I think looking at the wonder of God’s creation in a cell is amazing even while I admit the process of evolution leads to that cell. There are a variety of ways people have tried to understand God’s creative influence and we will never know on this side of the Pearly Gates exactly how that works, but that isn’t a problem for me.
Richard for me once I accepted the great age of the earth, I was raised YEC, accepting evolution wasn’t a problem. They are both based on the scientific method and both are equally well confirmed.
I know you object to Dawkins but I have no trouble reading his books (when I can find them in the used book store) with my atheist filter turned on. There are other Christian authors such as Kenneth Miller and his Finding Darwin’s God (been a while since I read that one).
I hope this helps.
2 Likes
And that has always been my objection but scientific minds cannot grasp that there is any assumption at all.
If my arguments throw up any doubts about the cohesion of Evolution (without God) to onlookers and bystanders then I am satisfied.
Richard
“Our best model yet” might be a better term. And stating “this is the best we have, and it works pretty well” is all that accepting current theories does (or is supposed to do, anyway).
2 Likes