Evolution is Unscientific

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by SufiPhilosophy, Apr 17, 2021.

  1. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    After all is said and done, l have no problem with it because those who are giving abuse or avoiding the question are only highlighting my position that:

    1. There is no scientific observation of a genetic mutation leading to evolutionary advancement, in the lab or in the wild - yet it is the basis of many people's entire world view
    2. People have a disturbing tendency to accept claims from well groomed men in white robes, be they some temple outfit or lab coats.
    3. People are unaware how science works, they think it is a big book of indisputable lore. It takes on an almost supernatural aura. Actually science is just a method of fishing for facts, that's all. Although it has to be said, it takes a lot of diligence and skill to get anywhere. But we who have contributed to the sciences are always open to revising our views, there is no dogma no ego in science. In fact science is the ideal mindset of the religious believer. That's one interesting spinoff of this debate l want to subtly bring out - that the Believer and the scientist are cool headed and not ego. And as it happens, both believer and scientist should reject evolution by gene mutation which at best is a philosophical gloss, a backstory, not even a good one compared to my one with the dragons and the women with sixpacks. Wait what was the topic .. ?
    4. People seem to think evolution is the bedrock of science. It isn't.
    5. People seem to think there is only one possible theory of evolution, when in fact the sky's the limit. (Unless you count panspermia in which case you go way beyond even the sky, but panspermia is hilarious to me, l'm happy to discuss it elsewhere)
    6. People seem to think rejection of genetic evolution is antiscience, when in fact many people working in various sciences reject it. E.g. Creationists, but alas Creationism has developed into a specific response with its own idiosyncracies some of which l would argue against and so it's no longer merely a belief that God manages everything at every level all the time (which is what l believe)
    7. People get outraged when confronted with something new which requires them to rethink (even when the OP predicts this and admonishes against it)
    8. Ironically, that is: they rage when they are required to rethink something they accepted without much thought to begin with


    So what l have unfolded is the human comedy.
    But l want to keep the thread about only the thread title, and yes l relish the spin-off about exposing the human comedy.

    You say it's too technical.
    However, as another poster has shown, similar topics have been raised before. It sits well here.
    Moreover, it's not even too technical: just show one mutation observed in realtime. That's all. You should know why you believe in it. It was nontechnical enough for you to subscribe to the idea to begin with.

    There is nothing wrong with the thread as per my contributions to it.
    If there is content within it that is against forum rules, you're welcome to remove that but none of my content was.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2021
  2. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    I believe it's in flux. It's always moving. I'm open to all new ideas and new science. I am not going to limit my experience of the real to the limitations of ancient scripture as a decider to what I may believe or think. Perhaps that's just me ...
     
  3. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    Another example of moving goal posts...
     
  4. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    The parameters are not too technical, they are antithetical to debate. They are the equivalent of a stacked deck in poker.

    This demonstrated what you are going to have if you go with the cage match debates.

    But the (shifting) rules laid out here (show me, but don't link stack...??? Gene mutation actually happening vs a specific study where multiple researchers looked at gene mutation in real time in 2005 doesn't count???) demonstrate clearly a lack of understanding of rules and procedures of debate and a lack of understanding of rules of evidence.

    A critically thinking person seeing all of this flippant manipulation of so-called rules would have to question whether the rule maker even has a degree, from an accredited university. There is clearly no understanding of critical thinking, debate or evidence, so any degree by default cannot be philosophy, law or science. Perhaps something in the humanities, but absolutely not in any in-depth field of study.

    The irony of ironies is I actually agree with him, far more than he can possibly know. But until he reads what I've already written, I am not about to give him the pleasure of dismissing me to take credit for my work. :p
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2021
  5. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,551
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    My back hurts.

    Exercise, stretches may help...what did your doctor say?

    Appeal to authority...logical fallacy!

    I don't come here to abuse or berate folks...but when I do.
     
    juantoo3 and RJM Corbet like this.
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    Yep, short for Dictator, to which I see you have no objection at all.
     
  7. ScholarlySeeker

    ScholarlySeeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2021
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    111
    Covid 19 with its numerous mutations, and it is from a former longer line of viruses.
     
  8. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    Hello. I'm back for a quick bout but then l have to leave again.

    Thank you for this question.

    I had initially thought l had answered this in my OP re: Antibiotic resistance being natural selection, not evolution by gene mutation i.e. nothing new under the sun i.e. frequency of one form increasing, and other forms decreasing.

    However, l remembered one thing, something foretold by our Prophet (peace be upon him):
    The Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said,
    "No sexual depravity appears among a people to the point of publicity, except that they are plagued by disease the likes of which their predecessors did not witness."
    (Ibn Maajah: 4019)

    Whilst STDs aren't only viruses, this reminded me that novel viruses may appear ANEW from sexual activity, and hey, maybe even from a lil bit of bat poop on a raw pangolin sushi. So, surely viruses are evidence for evolution?

    Here are a few counterarguments, the first one being the one that kills the debate right off:

    1. Viruses aren't actually alive.
    Quote from a Cambridge University article:
    https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/viruswars/viruses.php
    "Viruses aren’t actually alive – they don’t grow or move themselves, or eat or use energy, and they can’t reproduce on their own."

    As l understand it, viruses are a few molecular units combined e.g. a piece of RNA or DNA, with a protective protein coat. By comparison, the simplest cells contain billions if not trillions of molecules.

    According to: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180117131202.htm
    a simple cell would contain some 42 million protein molecules alone

    2. I had a quick look at a Creationism website run by our Christian "big sisters": https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutational-secrets-of-a-virus/
    I couldn't recover the exact page l read but what l recall reading there was:

    Mutations in microorganisms are often own goals. I mean, they often have no effect, otherwise, l believe they are "own goals" meaning they are harmful to the microorganism, even if they, for example, confer antibiotic resistance, they have lost swathes of functionality, including deleted genes.
    I was aware from the start of this thread that in one study, a bacterial colony was shown to gain the ability to metabolise citric acid. This itself isn't innately an improvement, and in my view it was probably a fault, because the metabolites would likely be new molecules that destroy the cell.

    It reminds me of a rocky outcrop or a car bonnet.
    How?

    Tourists sit on the rocky outcrop to get away from it all. Over the millennia, the outcrop becomes moulded to the shape of their bottoms due to erosion. This is an evolutionary change.

    But then you notice the hairline fractures accompanying the now much thinned, eroded, weakened rock. That rock will soon give way.

    And the car bonnet? Scraped from some accident, you can now file your nails on it, so it's gained new functionality in that regard! But it's damaged when you appraise the car as a whole.

    3. Basically a continuation of point 1: Viruses are at the molecular level. At a stretch, they can be at the borderline between molecular and cellular (in the case of the largest most complex virus known - the Mimivirus) but that's a philosophical debate. Viruses are still macromolecules either way.

    As macromolecules they are inert like mountains or sand.



    Thank you for asking politely at least.
    As for the more vicious resopndents, l again turn to our Christian "big sisters":

    https://biblia.com/bible/esv/acts/7/54
    "When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him."
     
  9. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    To be clear, link stacking is OK now? :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    As a non-scientist, I am seeking some clarity here, and full accept the premise that I accept evolution as a viable theory based on what science tells me, without my having established that for myself.

    Statement 1:
    1. There is no scientific observation of a genetic mutation leading to evolutionary advancement, in the lab or in the wild - yet it is the basis of many people's entire world view

    I'm not sure I even understand this statement.

    As I current see it, the observation of genetic mutation from generation to generation has been observed in the lab and is well documented, and this evidence supplies support for the thesis of evolution as such.

    Observation in the field has gathered data which suggests mutation as a viable evolutionary theory.

    The argument, I think, depends on the definition of 'evolutionary advancement' – does that mean the emergence of a new species?

    Leading on from that:
    How is a species determined to be distinct from another species? Is this at the DNA level? Or the ability to breed and produce offspring?

    Again, as I understand it, the ape family Hominidae is a genus, right? Of chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and human beings – each can reproduce amongst themselves, but one (say, chimps) cannot reproduce with another (say, gorillas).

    But Neanderthals and Denisovians are what, sub-species along with 'us', as interbreeding did take place? So is that breeding possible within a species group, or is it possible across species?

    ... just a tad confused here ...

    (Statements 2-8 ignored as irrelevant / pejorative)

    So I am suggesting that:
    a) Yes, I do not understand the process enough to make any sure determination.
    b) But then neither do I understand many things which I absolutely rely on: Electricity, for example. Gravity, another, my blood pressure meds.
    c) The Theory of Evolution seems compelling, supported by a vast amount of recorded data.
    d) What's the viable alternative for how species emerged, that can be empirically demonstrated in the lab.
    (My emphasis here is that reproduction under laboratory conditions is a requirement of validity, so it should apply to an alternative solution?)
     
  11. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Is man the goal of evolution? Or did we just pop out by chance?
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2021
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    LOL. Ask me here (> Secularism > Science and the Universe) and I am obliged to say it would appear we emerged by virtue of the process.

    Ask me on the relevant religious boards, and I'd offer my own opinion.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  13. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    God works by synchronisity, imo. The universe only exists because I perceive it. If I die and there's nothing else, does the universe die with me -- if I'm not here to perceive it?

    If the universe carries on quite alright without me after I'm gone, that doesn't mean a thing to me? What's time? Did/does God create/manifest in order to BE -- for ME -- through His creation?

    Edit: Which can also be truly terrible
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2021
  14. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    The galactic complexity of a blade of grass ...
     
  15. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic) Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    918
    I'm actually surprised at this, Thomas, are these two not congruent for you? I didn't figure you to be a "when in Rome, do as the Romans" sort of person.
     
  16. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,551
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Me thinks he didn't say what that process is...lol I follow, in principle!
     
  17. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    My two bits, for all they are worth:

    First clarification...does the "Farm" count as the laboratory? In my mind, yes.

    With that in mind, after seeing the list Vajra would trot out from time to time in response to something I would say, and say "here is a list of observed speciation." The first time or two I raised eyebrows and looked at a couple examples on the list and came away not really convinced. I think it was the third time I took a few days and went over the entire LONG list. Mind you, the list was pulled from TalkOrigins, whose stock in trade is arguing against creationism. That really should have been my first clue.

    So I got to digging into all of the examples on the list, and one by one I was able to cross off *all* but one example as not demonstrating speciation. Adaptation I could easily go along with, but adaptation is not - in and of itself - speciation. The only example I could not refute was a cross between a radish and a cabbage. Probably not particularly remarkable to a non-gardener, but the two are not even in the same family, it would be like a dog mating *successfully!* with a cat. What came of the union according to the specific write up, was unable to reproduce with either of the parent stocks. That, by definition, would clearly be speciation.

    That led me to research what *exactly* was meant by the term "speciation." Here the discussion became so convoluted that it was hard to follow without a program, but I was determined. One point routinely held out was that a "species" could not mate with a different "species." OK, so what about all those fruit flies speciating? Could they still mate with other fruit flies? Oh yeah! Of course they can! OK, then they are not species. Oh, but yes they are...see the different wings, the different colors, the different (blah blah blah). OK, but can they mate with other fruit flies? Of course! But you just got done telling me moments ago that a species cannot mate with another species... Oh, but, but, but...just go away and go look at the Galapagos Finches, or the moths in Industrial England (or some other equally fraught and unsatisfying avenue - just to make me go away).

    In agriculture and horticulture and animal husbandry...humans have for thousands of years now, at minimum 5000, probably closer to 10,000, been selectively breeding various plants and animals, mostly for food, but sometimes for aesthetics and companionship. People who practice these arts, hands on, have to look at the biology texts and laugh.

    Is a dog (pick your favorite breed) a different species than a wolf? They are both canines, but almost to a person scientists will say yes. Yet the two can breed. Is a Bobcat a different species than a domestic shorthair cat? Both are felines, but almost to a person scientists will say yes. I know from personal experience Bobcats can interbreed with domestic cats and have viable offspring.

    Usually about this time the "evolutionists" back up a half step, and presuming they don't lay into me with ad hominems in an attempt to cast aspersions, or deliberately twist my words in what appears to me to be effort to dodge the question, mumble something about changing alleles and mutating DNA.

    Two things:
    First, if we are going to use outward appearance to designate "species," so that bigger nose, skin color, hair color and texture, type of teeth or any other similar outward appearance is used, we run into the little problem highlighted by Eugenics. Are humans "just another animal?"

    Second, *most* mutations are in non-coding sections of DNA, and have no determinable effect on an organism. Of those mutations that do create a determinable effect on an organism, diseases are the most common by-product - often crippling and / or life threatening, not something beneficial.

    Anybody here remember who Francis Collins, MD is? When I last mentioned him here, he and I were poopooed as if what I quoted of him was meaningless, that he didn't know what he was talking about, concerning genetics. So if you will allow me to reintroduce the current and long standing Director of the National Institute of Health, former Director of National Human Genome Research Institute, and the Director of the Human Genome Mapping Project at the time of the announcement in 2000 that the Human Genome had finally been translated. Doctor Collins is quoted from that period of time as having said, paraphrased by my memory, "there is a difference between humans and mice of only a few hundred genes, but you cannot simply replace those genes in a mouse and expect it to begin listening to Mozart or learn to play golf." The passage quoted went on to explain that human genes "multitask," which to my knowledge (and I haven't heard recently) that position has not changed. Point being so many people not directly involved in the Genome Mapping Project have placed so much emphasis over the past 20 years on gene count, but there is FAR more to the story than simply the number of genes. So what if we share 97% of our genes with Bonobos? That 3% makes all the difference! We share fully 50% of our genes with yeast and bananas.

    I spent a few hours reviewing some of the old threads over the past few nights, and can see how much more has come into the light since then, but the basis hasn't changed. *Now* we know that Neandertal genes are evident throughout Europeans, some more than others. *Now* we have conjecture based on one finger bone of a sub-species called Denisovan (after the place - in Croatia? <correction, Siberia> - where the bone was found), that seem to run through most of the Asians <correction - Aboriginal Australians, New Guinea, Pacific Islanders and some SE Asia>. We now have not only Homo Floresiensis (the Flores Island Hobbit) to account for, I'm still waiting to hear the official results of the find in South Africa <Homo Naledi> a few years back, where something like 17 <*15> individuals were purposely buried deep in a cave. This is not the place to go into details, but this is established, not a flooding accident or some other natural occurrence, these primitive people purposely buried their dead deep in a cave. Their skeletal biology showed both primitive and modern development - if you wish to interpret as a "missing link," so be it, but the point is that the conscious mental development required for considerate burial was present far earlier than we could dream of when those threads were written <currently thought to be between 275K and 295K ybp>.

    Evolution is a convenient methodology for explaining the process, but Gospel it isn't. There are far too many anomalies and contradictory evidence to the - I'm gonna call it what it is - dogma. Disputing that dogma or highlighting places where it falls short does not make me a kook or a creationist by default worthy of straw man insinuations. All I have ever done from day one on this subject here is ask the questions highlighted by the clear, undeniable, (and on the farm) daily contradictions. I think Evolution is the best explanation we currently have, but I think it is symbolically like Newtonian Physics - it works well enough to get the job done, we're just waiting for Einstein to come along and clarify some of the obvious shortcomings.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    stranger, Thomas and RJM Corbet like this.
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    LOL, I was being tongue-in-cheek.

    As you probably might figure, I'm not either/or but and/both. I believe in God, I believe in nature.
     
    Cino and RJM Corbet like this.
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Normally I'd go through and tag the elements I agree or disagree with.

    There's nothing I disagree with.

    I agree with all the rest.

    So please do not regard this short response as flip. You've really shaped up the ground for me!

    That's about it, as I currently see it.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  20. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature but is not turned by it, imo. Infinity of dimensions, beyond what we can ever start to test or imagine.

    Plato’s cave. We can perceive only up to the limits of our own natural senses -- of which all our truly wonderful scientific machines and instruments, and telescopes and microscopes etc, are really just ingenious extensions.

    Cannot the awesome creator force/first cause, permeate the mechanism of abiogenesis and evolution? The more we learn about the mechanism, the more in awe and wonder we must stand?
     
    Thomas likes this.

Share This Page