Evolution is Unscientific

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

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    By Sufi's rules? No, nothing is or ever will be.

    Genetically modified foods are a personal concern. I know they've been with us awhile now, and supposedly no ill effects. Sometimes ill effects can take decades to manifest, and even then a clear cause/effect may be difficult to reach.

    There's the "yuck" factor...such as Corn with Bacillus Thuringiensis. BT has long been used by organic gardeners to combat various caterpillars and soft bodied pests and is generally considered safe, though standard practice is to wash the veggies before consuming. By inserting BT wholesale into the Corn, the BT permeates the whole plant, including the fruit/seed. Which means it doesn't wash off, and when we eat this Corn we eat the latent BT.

    Farmers here Stateside are not allowed to keep Genetically Modified seed. Traditionally farmers would keep a portion of their crop to plant the next season. Monsanto has very strict contractual arrangement that none of their GM seed is to be kept. If you think this odd, you are not alone, but it was a big thing a few years back when Monsanto brought lawsuit against a farmer who kept part of his crop to replant...and the farmer lost the suit.

    There's the "conscience" factor... Commercial hothouse Tomatoes were crossed years ago with Flounder, a fish, to give greater resistance to cold. I've forgotten the details, and clearly it wasn't in the natural sense, only a small snip of the Flounder gene was inserted into that of the Tomato. But what are the ramifications for a religiously strict Vegan?

    Monsanto drew so much criticism (and to my knowledge still ongoing in some places) over these two examples alone, that their further research has gone silent for public consumption...truth be told, we don't really have any clue what exactly we are eating in processed foods anymore.

    Back years ago I posted here about Alba the rabbit. A little background, apparently biologists in the lab have routinely used a certain jellyfish gene that glows under certain lighting to tag various organs and biological experiments. So this "artist" comes along and convinces a lab (in France?) to tag a rabbit embryo with the jellyfish gene, the result was Alba the rabbit. Alba would glow under certain lighting because the fluorescent tag permeated her entire being, not just a piece as was typically used in the lab. Because of concerns the artificial manipulation might get loose into the wild, the artist was never given the rabbit, the rabbit remained confined in the lab where she was created until she died of natural causes. I have also seen images of a monkey which had been created in the same way. So it is possible to artificially insert genetic material in such a manner as to affect an entire being. Since (it is suspected but not allowed) Alba could reproduce with other rabbits, she was not at any time ever considered to be a new species.

    A great deal of the entire ToE discussion revolves around adaptation. Clearly animals adapt to their environments...or perish, in which case we wouldn't be discussing them. Moths changing from light to dark is an adaptation, beaks growing larger in order to eat harder seeds, shaggy coat versus thin coat (or even hairless: Xoloitzcuintle)...these are adaptations. The argument sometimes brought out is that over millenia adaptations can add up to speciation. Maybe, maybe not, it is difficult to find any straight line evidence to prove the conjecture.

    Having said that, there are transitional creatures to be found in the fossil record. So it is a bit of a "push me - pull you" argument. The safe zone for the evolutionists is to say it takes so long that we cannot show how it works, but it clearly works as evidenced by the fossil record. I see a wee bit of cop out there, not sure I can put my thought into words, but these tend to be the same people who produce the long list of "evidence of speciation" that ultimately isn't.

    One thing about the fossil record I find intriguing, is the instances of "Punctuated Equilibrium" as Stephen Jay Gould and others point out. Seems according to these folks "in the field," there are documented instances in the fossil record of expedited speciation. I am not well versed and can't speak to details, but apparently there are a few instances at least where Nature / G-d / Creation had a great deal of fun playing with organics types and styles. Clearly I am waxing poetic, but there were explosions of species and sub-species, and those who were better suited to their environmental niche went on, those who could not perished. Humanity, it is argued, is where we are because we were so effective at adapting to multiple environments, from jungle and desert heat to tundra and alpine snow, from the equator to the artic circle. I'm not arguing for or against, but this is accepted teaching as of this moment, and in my opinion it holds merit, but how it merges with ToE I am less certain.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
    Thomas likes this.
  2. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    Already did, but he won't read it.
     
  3. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    Yes .. that's an interesting topic.
    However, to me, it doesn't matter how Almighty God created His creatures.
    I am happy with the "fact" that He is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe.
    He is also the Evolver from nought. Do I need the precise details of how He achieved this?
    No .. not me .. I am not an atheist biologist trying to show that the "creation story" is false :)

    I believe that Adam and Eve were real people. I believe they were the first man and woman [ or one of a few ].
    Did they appear as if by magic? Maybe .. maybe not.
    What does it mean that the universe is billions of years old?
    It is just a measurement which we extrapolate from our sense of measured time,
    to obtain some kind of meaning. It is in our heads :)

    However, I am wandering away from the OP .. sorry.
     
  4. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    Comme ci, Comme ça.

    Here I go back to "if G-d is real, He can handle a few questions." The Apostle Thomas wasn't damned for doubting...
     
  5. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    Good point. Here are my objections:
    - Similar to the "Dude ... fractals" objection commonly found in the Big Bang or Divine First Cause debate. GM is intelligent design, like fractals are.

    Further counterargs:
    - GM involves transfer of existing natural genes, not de novo creation of them. I think it may also be masking of some genes' expression, just like gene therapy, but this is no new information within the genome as such.
    - GM varieties are often sterile
    - If we analogise GM to downloaded software, we are not getting the true analogy: corrupted software eventually being backward inherited to the server, and moreover, developing new apps within it. That is what evolution by gene mutation is analogous to. However, what GM is analogous to is software devs working on new apps, and when the app is ready, it is inserted wholesale into the program e.g. Windows Defender added to Windows OS. Not added line by line of code. And certainly not by billions of years of corrupt downloads that eventually find their way back to the MS organisation's server and thus become the new version of that download.
    - In many cases it's an extreme case of selective breeding e.g. natural gro-fast genes from Chinook salmon transferred to a GM variety of Atlantic salmon. GM species may often be too successful and thus outgrow all other natural varieties. That in itself is problematic but consider the Irish potato famine, where one potato pathogen killed em all, because the farmers were just cloning one type of potato (planting chunks / grafts of it direct into the soil). So, there is reduced resilience to disease if there's this reduction in biodiversity caused by GM.


    A nice summary here:
    https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/...ion-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/
    "One GM animal where uncontrolled growth is a concern is a fast-growing Atlantic salmon engineered by AquaBounty technologies to reach market weight in half the time as their standard relatives. AquaBounty introduced two sequences of DNA into these salmon. The first codes a growth hormone from the related Chinook salmon that stimulates growth, and the second is a sequence that activates the growth hormone year-round and not just in warm weather [4,6]. The combination of these two DNA sequences allows these fish to develop at a dramatically increased rate, and many are concerned about what would happen if they escaped into the wild. Some believe that engineered salmon will continue to grow at a faster rate in the wild. However, others suspect that because the engineered salmon have traits that were not developed by natural selection, they will not be perfectly adapted to the wild environment, resulting in similar or even reduced fitness compared to wild relatives in their natural habitat."

    - It's still an interesting topic and l'd be interested to know if a novel gene can be created from scratch, without being copied from nature, or even modified from a natural gene i.e. the amino acid sequence improved upon, and then inserted into a new organism, leading to that organism being able to reproduce and survive in nature. That is evolution via gene mutation. Even then it will be man-made.

    - Please note that on the face of it, the proposal of GM as proof of evolution is like saying intelligent design is proof of evolution, as both examples are in fact intelligent design, with GM as l say being more restrictive, by borrowing from extant natural genes.

    - And note to the other commentator: i was never asking for example of a whole new species popping up from gene mutation, an entire new species requires thousands if not millions of good mutations, often occurring simultaneously, whereas my contention is that not one has ever been shown to happen

    Private comm to @stranger and @muhammad_isa , not thread derailment:
    Sure, l will pray for you guys too. God is our creator and is intimate with us, closer to us than our jugular vein. As muhammad_isa will tell you and as you, stranger, probably know already: we are created to worship God. We draw closer through our necessary worship (whatever that is in your religion) and the extra worship beyond that, doing good even when there's no obvious reason like a religion's laws to prompt them. The stuff we didn't even have to do. Eventually, God sees and hears through us.

    Contrast with the evil eye, where a person has done so many bad things, the devil eventually sees and hears and speaks through them. They talk crooked, their compliments are worthless, they do harm even when there's no obvious benefit for them, they didn't have to do it.

    Life is a test (it will never be something you cannot bear), and the test boils down to worship or rejection of God, which manifest as vice versus virtue, which manifest as a battlefield all inside each of us. Just knowing this, can be key to winning this.

    I am not lecturing you and doing so terrifies me so please don't think that, l am just telling you what i think, your mileage may vary. End of personal message.
     
    stranger likes this.
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    OK.
    As none were ruled out by the original statement, I'd say the objections are invalid. GM is still an instance of mutation engineered in a laboratory, which was what you asked for?

    OK ... So ...

    Have you an alternative theory?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2021
  7. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    Quote from my OP:
    The implication is evidence for it being observed, rather than being manufactured in the lab. Something manufactured doesn't require evidence , just a writeup on how it was done.

    Moreover, please understand the main thrust of my counterargument to GM: there is no gene mutation. It is also the same counterarg to dog breeding already made. It is just recombination of what already exists. I have already stated this, in my immediate reply, @Thomas.

    Moreover, this is not a mere game where l am to be caught out on a technicality that "ahhhh you didn't mention intelligent design by humans!". The theory of evolution by gene mutation rests on this happening in nature. By lab observations or scientifically documented observations in the wild, l mean observations of nature taking its course as per the theory of evolution by gene mutation.

    That theory of evolution is clearly what my entire thread is predicated on.

    Once again though, as l said in my previous response, it'd be interesting to know if a gene were ever itself modified in GMO, rather than merely grafted already-made from nature.



    As for alternative theories, sure l have one idea. It is a mere inkling and so l don't want to reveal it, but it involves a very rapid process through which we, and even interdimensional lifeforms can acquire form. It is not within the scope of my thread. It is not necessary to propose an alternative in order to debunk an existing theory. My thread is about debunking as unscientific, one widely-accepted theory. It is about the technicalities of that subject. Following from that though, it is a commentary - written by the respondents - on blind faith.

    Peace.




    Oh l forgot, @Thomas, the points l mentioned, which you dismissed as "invalid" are all valid because they go to show how there isn't necessarily progress in GM hybrids, and the Irish Potato Famine example shows how this can lead to the species being completely knocked out by one pathogen, even though the famine was not the result of GM, it was the same principle - one clone comes to dominate but then that clone falls to a pathogen, with no diversity in variety of that species to make up for the loss. That is a fail, not a plus.

    Again l appeal to you, please consider how your opponent might be right in their arguments, before countering. I mean you literally just handwaved at my entire list of well-considered counterarguments, without any cause other than "hey it's still evolution", when l clearly showed in that list, that it's riddled with flaws for the altered species, and moreover, no gene was actually, you know, mutated.

    I also showed how by analogy with a software download becoming corrupted, GM is like software devs working on an app within the download, and then integrating that app within the downloaded software once it has been tested and passed beta, alpha and become 1.0.

    Appreciate the contrast between software devs working on an app and adding that to the Windows OS download, and a Windows OS download becoming corrupted. There's a world of difference.

    So too with humans in the lab GMing a hybrid plant species, a scenario made even more incompatible with evolution-by-gene-mutation by virtue of the GM using already existing complete natural genes.

    ....versus the hybrid species mutating itself in nature.

    There's a world of difference. I'm after evidence for the latter, and your proposal that the former (humans GMing around with plants) will do, is virtually (l said: virtually) a paradoxical nod to creationism as evidence for evolution, because GM hybridisation is closer to creationism / intelligent design, than it is to ToE by gene mutation, and it is this latter that l am asking for evidence of.

    All this already covered in my immediate reply, in my preceding post. Thank you.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
  8. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    Personally l'm happy to accept that at this point, any evidence for evolution by gene mutation is going to be too little too late, and "reaching". I'm also sure now there won't even be any evidence for it in any case.

    We could do with a better theory.

    EDIT: please do keep the counterarguments coming :) but first ask yourself how your proposal might be wrong? Make your case strong.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,551
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Hasn't your hill you chose been defeated repeatedly?

    Does anyone stand on your side of the fence?
     
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    Likewise, I'm sure.
     
  11. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    May I remind of the actual OP (before it is edited)?:
    Bold mine, -jt3

    You can't have it both ways...or you can, but it is not intellectually honest.

    May G-d judge between us...
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2021
    stranger likes this.
  12. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42

    I think my two responses so far said it all, except something was still bothering me. I now realise l missed the obvious simple response that is the keystone of all the other stuff l wrote: Evolution (by gene mutation or any other rival naturalistic theory of how we came to be) is a passive process. I'm referring to direct scientific observation of that natural, passive process. A GM lab protocol is not that.


    I think l get why this is important to you - because you need doubt.

    I see no reason why the First Cause, God, should have further causes in nature, to give rise to us. I so no reason why we could not materialise out of thin air.
    However, l can see why at least some type of prima mater could exist, as the substrate for the master craftsman. What is a master craftsman without his workshop and raw materials, even if it's God pretending to need materials?
    So yes, let's have a prima mater / hyle. Maybe it could even be sounding clay, or whatever the material is in Qur'an 15:26 "Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered"

    My point is: once we add further causes between the fact of our existence, and God as First Cause, we can eventually squeeze in naturalistic causes, not just raw physics of prima mater.

    Why squeeze in naturalistic causes? Because there needs to be doubt - l agree with you, otherwise we've probably gone wrong somewhere. Life has to have the aspect of a test, hence the virtue of faith and works while not knowing for sure if God exists. So, the nearest thing that could serve as a cause for us, is nature, the natural processes of our planet, rather than some prima mater way out there in space that instantly formed us.

    But we cannot just conjure up naturalistic causes for the sake of introducing doubt, that's just wrong in many ways.

    Luckily (?) God does it for us - or so l think. By allowing us doubt, and having that doubt manifest in something close at hand: the earth's naturalistic processes e.g. similarity between species.

    Darwinian evolution had precedent with Islamic scientists of our Golden Age e.g. Al Jahiz and the Ikhwan as Safa aka the Brethren of Purity:
    https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-27833-4_5187-1
    "There are few medieval Islamic scholars who speculated on the evolution of species (e.g., Al-Jahiz, Ibn-Miskawayh, and a group of writers using the pen name the Brethren of Purity). In most instances they believed in the creation of species by God and a hierarchy of God’s creation from minerals, plants, and animals to humans, angels, saints, and prophets. Al-Jahiz, however, did comment on the interconnectedness of life and described an ecosystem based on the adaptation of species to local environment, but the Brethren of Purity considered adaptation as a gift from God rather than a process responding to environmental conditions."

    [By the way, in response to your comment elsewhere, l don't believe everything is Islamic, l believe the things fairly well established as being Islamic are Islamic, and in that other post l never actually said esoteric secret sects were originated in Islam, l said the opposite, l said they had Roman, Babylonian, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian precursors, however the Near East is considered the cradle of civilisation and if you can accept that you can also accept it is the cradle of all Mysteries, and the Ikhwan as Safa were a continuation of that Near East Mystery tradition, and moreover they were not strictly spreading Islam but rather sciences for their own sake, they were rationalists that had semi secret meetings etc. possibly because they were secularists and didn't want conflicts, and moreoever l believe their stream of thought mixed with other secret traditions in the eclectic information age of the Golden Age of Islam and then the Renaissance of Europe, so yeah, there you go]

    There are also rival latter day theories, including my own which is under wraps as l want my personalised embossed travel kit from the Nobel Committee and so forth. So God has in a roundabout way offered us doubt in various ways. I don't think doubt is over just yet. But l personally have given up on this old fashioned Darwin/Watson/Crick derived iteration of the ToE. But yes, doubt can still exist. It existed before Darwin and frankly l don't get how Darwin gained traction if all he had was Natural Selection, but l guess he inflated its effects to include novel genetic developments when in fact Natural Selection gives nothing actually new as we now know.

    Some have said l have narrowed the matter down to gene mutation. However, it is actually the core of the modern theory of evolution that most people believe in. Not just a minor detail. I think the 3 parts are: abiogenesis, gene mutation, natural selection (l only agree with natural selection - it is demonstrable in the lab). If you live long enough you may one day have an alternative new fangled theory courtesy of moi. I was going to add my own theory that Darwin got bullied at school, it gets quite involved but no - let's just get back to the topic.
     
  13. stranger

    stranger wolfwing, a feral angel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2013
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    295
    Nothing scientific to add here, it's just that this is very sad. :( Alba should at least have been given a playmate so as to not be so lonely.

    Mystery must always be approached through direct experience and not through intellectual deductions, IMO. Or perhaps I should say, direct experience first, intellect second. Direct experience contains the seed of revelation. One must not fear direct (immediate, mystical) experience. I suppose I am linking direct mystical experience to science. This is a calling though, and not for everyone IMO. Many would be terrified of such things and are mercifully given more tame projects to labor upon (which are still important, just not as exciting). Having seen a bit of this calling, however, one desires to lose oneself in the depths of it. It's the call of the wild, spiritually speaking. Would not such a thing be a privilege? See, I talk crazy. Took a nap this evening and it messed up my bio rhythms or something.

    Clearly we have been fearfully and wonderfully made. May God in us not play a bit (the wisdom of men is foolishness with God)? We contain worlds populated by endless variations of life. Certainly this is a very exciting playground, so full of life, so direct, so powerful. (yawn) I hope that nap doesn't have me up all night with insomnia. :(
     
  14. stranger

    stranger wolfwing, a feral angel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2013
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    295
    Hi Sufi, didn't want to intrude here but had to comment to this. Yes, that's it... Don't try, just do. Let the God in you do it. Doubt prepares the way and then just melts away as you let if fall into God's care. (imo)
     
  15. SufiPhilosophy

    SufiPhilosophy Evolution by mutation has never been observed

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2021
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    Hello, yes this is probably worthy of another thread, but as l really cannot afford to linger here (l'm living hand to mouth so l need to be in the real world) l'll briefly say: there is a Sufi tradition of stages of gnosis: hearing there's a fire in the woods (= mundane sciences), seeing the fire in the woods (= spiritual gnosis, seeing past the trees, into the light), and then becoming the fire in the woods (= mystic annihilation).

    As for the rest of what you are saying, maybe try out some catnip? Or hold a glass marble in front of your one open eye and stare through it at a light bulb while twirling the marble around. Do this until tired (this was basically my infancy, we were quite poor).


    Dear fanclub, l really must go now because l don't foresee any further rational objections, just the hilarious rage of people on ignore and l'll admit l am titilated by the oh-so-serious outrage of some of the lost souls here, particularly that of the 291320x10^23 moderators on this ghostship. Don't worry, l'll make a better ToE for you one day. Peace :) God be with you all.
     
    stranger likes this.
  16. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    263
    But you do accept existence of Allah and Mohammad as his messenger without any proof.
     
  17. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    What sort of proof would you be referring to? :)
    I am very capable of observing what people get up to, and why that might be so.

    I am capable of reading the Bible / Qur'an and pondering over it.
    There's more to life than our bank balance.

    Spirituality can come from all different sources. Some philosophies don't claim to be from a Divine source,
    and some do. I believe in ALL the prophets of Almighty God, and not just Muhammad, peace be with him.
     
    stranger likes this.
  18. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Even those not mentioned in the Quran? Jeremiah, for example? The most major of the major OT prophets?
     
  19. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    263
    Yeah, the philosophy that I follow does not have a divine source.
    Proof could have been a divine tattoo on the body of humans proclaiming existence of God. What proof we now have is a coccyx. :)

    lahawla.jpg (lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāhi'. Translation that I like: All change and power is to Allah)

    [​IMG]
    FYI, selective breeding is because of changes in DNA, natural or induced. Without changes in DNA, a new phenotype cannot come about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
    (The article in Wikipedia has 45 references. It also has linkls to 19 other articles with their own references. But it would be futile to expect your views to change)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    juantoo3 likes this.
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955

    Let me speak plainly.


    Your thesis seems to rest on the issue that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in laboratory conditions. In the discussions, you continually narrow the parameters to rule out the evidence as you're confronted with it, not really good practice, and doesn't help your cause. Your responses tend to be abrasive rather than conversational. That's not helping your cause either.

    In science, where direct observation is difficult or impossible, the method relies on observation and logical inference. When observations contradict a theory's predictions, it will be revised or discarded, especially if a better alternative can explain observed facts.

    So, in short, your contention stands, but has been adequately answered by the weight of evidence that is available, and tests that can be observed. DNA sequencing is opening up avenues all the time. As are biological advances.

    Personally, had you been a tad more conversational, more into dialogue and less into confrontation, then we might have got a lot further a lot quicker.

    But until a better theory comes along, the Theory of Evolution will be central.

    So now is the time to either speak up, or pipe down.
     
    juantoo3 likes this.

Share This Page