Is Evolution an all or nothing Theory?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I think this thread has gone a little too far in its hostility to Richard G.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I agree. I think Richard’s question was answered well early on when it was stated that like any area of science, some parts are well supported, and some parts are subject to debate. I think with evolution, those contentious issues are mostly in the details of the actual mechanism, and how different factors interplay, not in the basic framework.
Any thoughts related to your initial question, Richard? Was it addressed adequately?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@RichardG

!. How can you claim that DNA proves hereditary if you cannot prove the way the DNA came together and grew?

@Paraleptopecten

Those changes cause changes in structure and function, usually slight ones. If that change is inherited by a larger number of offspring, then it will become more common. Eventually, the changes will accumulate enough that a new species appears.

This is evolution without natural selection, which does not explain the reason for change. Do life forms change just because they mutate, or is there a purpose behind the change? That is, is evolution random or purposeful?

[beaglelady]

@RichardG

But they appear to be the core of the theory!. How can you claim that DNA proves hereditary if you cannot prove the way the DNA came together and grew?

If you were falsely accused in a paternity case, would you trust a DNA test to show your Innocence? Why or why not?

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@T_aquaticus

5 million year period.

Probably more like 9.

[klw]

I thought this forum demanded charitable treatment for all participants? I’d refrain from labelling other people “blind” for the simple reason you disagree with them. Just saying… all the best to you.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@jpm

Any thoughts related to your initial question, Richard? Was it addressed adequately?

If common Ancestry is deemed correct then any other aspect of the theory is irrelevant. Because it is only a support to that notion. So it is not a matter of all or nothing in the usual sense of the phrase. IOW I can argue details as much as I like but it won’t change the conclusion that we have central ancestry. The conclusion flies against any criticism of its parts.
Yes, the contention is with the details, but shouldn’t that mean that the conclusion cannot be deemed certain?

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

Yes, the contention is with the details, but shouldn’t that mean that the conclusion cannot be deemed certain?

Mere contention about some details does not change the certainty of an established scientific conclusion.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Can you name any course of study you have taken in biology? Any book on the subject you have actually read? Can you cite any peer reviewed, scientometrically ranked support for whatever your position is?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Ok I have decided to drive to the moon. I know it can be done because there is evidence that humans have been there. I know my car can get me there because it has proved itself. I don’t know the exact route but it must be possible. Everyone knows that

That is what you are telling me

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I studied to college level and have the paperwork somewhere to prove it. Perhaps you would like to challenge my understanding of anatomy and physiology. Evolutionary theory has moved on since I was taught it but the rest has not really changed.
Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I am not sure when survival of the fittest changed to just survival. It makes it so much easier if all you have to do is hide in a corner until evolution finishes the transformations.

Richard

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

You studied biology to what college level? HE? You’re a Brit aren’t you? What course of study?

Haldane’s rule (1922) hasn’t changed. It comports (US) with Dobzhansky’s timeless 1973 observation from your time that

nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution

He was inspired by J.B.S. above, of course, and de Chardin’s 1955

(Evolution) general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a curve that all lines must follow. (p. 219 of The Phenomenon of Man )

Not that you have ever read a book by a biologist.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Teacher training. It’s difficult to get qualifications without reading text books.

And what you quoted is not science but dogma.

Richard

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Which books? What subject did you train to teach? That qualifies you to biologically scientifically critique, opine? And as you tacitly admit, you’ve never read a non-textbook by a biologist, I doubt you have by or about any scientist.

You’re saying Haldane’s rule is dogma? Please give your reasoning.

PS And please make sense of biology without evolution.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Ok I have decided to drive to the moon. I know it can be done because there is evidence that humans have been there. I know my car can get me there because it has proved itself. I don’t know the exact route but it must be possible. Everyone knows that

Then show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genomes that could not be produced by known mechanisms of mutation.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@RichardG

I read it. It read like my old Calculus lessons. I just looked again and to be honest you could have been speaking Chinese. But, from what I can gather it involved using a formulae which achieved what you wanted to achieve.

It involved counting – not very sophisticated math. Just counting how many instances there are of different kinds of genetic differences. It achieves what I wanted it to achieve: it tests a prediction of common descent.

@RichardG

I could not tell the derivation of the formulae, whether it was gleaned or calculated.

There was no formula to derive.

@RichardG

If you believe that proves something I guess I will have to take your word for it, but you will have to dumb it down if you want people to understand it.

This leaves you with a problem, or rather a choice. What I presented is one of the simpler pieces of genetic evidence for common descent, described for a broad audience (trust me, a technical description for publication would be much harder to understand). This is the evidence that you claim you understand and that you claim to know is preposterous (or whatever terms you’ve been using). But it’s also evidence that you don’t understand. Your choice is this: you can do the work (I said it would not be trivial) of understanding this piece of evidence. It’s not actually that complicated, and @T_aquaticus has offered to walk you through the logic of the evidence. Or you can stop attacking evolutionary biology that you don’t understand.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

It makes it so much easier if all you have to do is hide in a corner until evolution finishes the transformations.

Evolution has already produced the transformations, and we have the record of those transformations in the genomes of living species.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@RichardG

Yes, the contention is with the details, but shouldn’t that mean that the conclusion cannot be deemed certain?

Well, no. A simple genetic test will tell you that two people are close relatives, but it may not be able to tell you if they’re half-siblings or aunt/nephew. So what? We don’t need to know the details to determine the accuracy of the conclusion.

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

I am not sure when survival of the fittest changed to just survival.

“survival of the fittest” has never meant what you appear to think it means. And you are not alone in this misunderstanding.

Evolution and “survival of the fittest” are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. “Survival of the fittest” is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of “survival of the fittest” typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one’s genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the “fittest” because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.