Originally posted by KellyJay
Yet you believe that when ages ago according to the theory there was no living creatures with the ability to see that some how this blind process was able to give life that ability?
There was no giving of abilities; there was eating and being eaten. The creatures in which seeing happened to develop got away from their predators, whereas the ones which didn't didn't (or they moved into dark environments where seeing wasn't an advantage).
You're evidently trying to imagine this blind process as if it were a demigod, as if it were a thing which gives creatures abilities (such as seeing). It is nothing of the sort. It's a description--which helps us to understand what happened (and still is). It's not a force which makes things happen. Similarly, the laws of probability are descriptive, not normative; they don't twist a coin round in mid-air and make it come down heads or tails; they simply describe what is likely to happen. Natural selection is a law of this kind, descriptive, not normative; it describes what happens but it does not make anything happen.
You had to overcome quite a few things to get to a living dinosaur through evolution, but you just accept it as true?
I accept that the preponderance of evidence is more in favor of dinosaurs having evolved over millions of years than it is in favor of their having popped into existence full-blown in one day. Presumably you believe that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, and you just accept that as true. I grant that what I believe might be subject to correction or refinement in light of future evidence to the contrary, but it is at least not wildly at variance with observable phenomena and laws of nature. The belief that all creatures popped into existence full-blown (whether on the same day or on different days, hardly matters) is wildly at variance with the fossil record and any coherent body of natural law.
Originally posted by finneganWe do not disagree. Mutation is only one part of the picture, and possibly not even the most salient part. The thread got stuck on that, I think possibly, because mutations are random and randomness is particularly difficult to reconcile with Intelligent Design.
I hate to dispute the importance of genetic mutations because they patently do arise even now. ... For much of the process it is perfectly sufficient to point out that living species are just about never made up of perfectly replicated clones and nearly always there is a range of values for any feature ... The list is infinitely long and does not require ...[text shortened]... served. For most of evolution it is more than sufficient to explain the process of speciation.
Originally posted by KellyJayAlright, let's see where you stop keeping track. So a harmful mutation can occur, on this we agree. Once it occurs, the organism whose DNA experienced a harmful mutation has a lower chance of reproducing, relatively speaking (this is just what "harmful mutation" means, in other words). This lower chance of reproducing will result in that harmful mutation - in the language of evolution - being "selected against:" the organism will reproduce less, relatively speaking, which means the harmful mutation will tend not to proliferate through the population.
Natural selection comes in after the mutation does not before, neither does natural
selection actually select anything either. If something survives it survives if it doesn't well
it doesn't. There is no mechanism responsible to making a judgment call on which
mutations are good or bad, it is can they live with it or not. So as I pointed out to you there ...[text shortened]... l something bad enough happens to end
the process before a change in the base type is possible.
At what part in the above story do you lose track?
And have you get given it some thought which mechanism would be responsible for preventing too many beneficial mutations?
Originally posted by moonbusBiological evolution relies on mutations occurring. For the theory it is not important whether these mutations are "random" or not, only that they occur - although the distinction only matters in a reductionist kind of sense.
We do not disagree. Mutation is only one part of the picture, and possibly not even the most salient part. The thread got stuck on that, I think possibly, because mutations are random and randomness is particularly difficult to reconcile with Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow someones academic credentials suddenly matter lol
Lets see, we have had hundreds of thousands of scientists studying this topic for over a hundred and fifty years and they have built up their findings into the science of biology which is taught all over the world in universities etc and you come along, with practically no science education to speak of, and disagree with that body of work and tell everyone that they are all wrong and 'are refusing to think through the process'?
Seriously?
KJ, lets think through your scenario, shall we? The only animals which survived the flood were the ones on Noah's ark. When the ark touched down on dry land again after the flood and the animals debarked, what do you suppose the lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, leopards, and cheetahs ate? Grass!? Nothing doing; they ate impalas, antelopes, and gazelles, same as they had before they got on the ark. But there were only two impalas, two antelopes, and two gazelles on the ark. So do you think the lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, leopards, and cheetahs patiently waited for the two impalas two antelopes and two gazelles to reproduce in sufficient numbers to sustain the species before eating them? Given that the gestation period for such large mammals is 7 to 8 months, it hardly seems likely, now does it, that the lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, leopards, and cheetahs waited that long before resuming hunting. Get real! If there were only two impalas on the ark, they were eaten within days of debarking. Same for the antelope and gazelles. And then what did the lions eat?? You see any problem there?
Originally posted by moonbusAre you saying that no carnivore can survive on a vegetarian diet?
KJ, lets think through your scenario, shall we? The only animals which survived the flood were the ones on Noah's ark. When the ark touched down on dry land again after the flood and the animals debarked, what do you suppose the lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, and cheetahs ate? Grass!? Nothing doing; they ate impalas, antelopes, and gazelles, same ...[text shortened]... r the antelope and gazelles. And then what did the lions eat?? You see any problem there?
Originally posted by moonbusBut is it too far outside the realm of possibility to think of supposedly 'random' mutations just being the 'adjusting' hand of God? At least some of them, the more critical ones, maybe, certainly not all of them.
We do not disagree. Mutation is only one part of the picture, and possibly not even the most salient part. The thread got stuck on that, I think possibly, because mutations are random and randomness is particularly difficult to reconcile with Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf one assumes that God intervenes at the molecular level, then God could be guiding evolution. This is in fact the Vatican position on evolution. The question then is, how can this be empirically verified? How can the God-driven mutations be distinguished from the ones which resulted from purely natural causes or randomly? So the assumption doesn't get us very far towards explaining the phenomena we actually observe. It just leaves us with a mystery as to which mutations are part of the alleged Intelligent Design and which aren't.
But is it too far outside the realm of possibility to think of supposedly 'random' mutations just being the 'adjusting' hand of God? At least some of them, the more critical ones, maybe, certainly not all of them.
Originally posted by moonbusIf you assume that God exists, he is the omniscient creator of everything is he not? What would make you assume that he did not put natural causes into place to start off with?
If one assumes that God intervenes at the molecular level, then God could be guiding evolution. This is in fact the Vatican position on evolution. The question then is, how can this be empirically verified? How can the God-driven mutations be distinguished from the ones which resulted from purely natural causes or randomly? So the assumption doesn't g ...[text shortened]... ith a mystery as to which mutations are part of the alleged Intelligent Design and which aren't.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSome carnivores maybe, but not big cats. (A couple of anomalous lions which would not eat meat, as rumored on the Internet, notwithstanding.)
Are you saying that no carnivore can survive on a vegetarian diet?
For the same reason humans can't survive solely on alfalfa: we don't have the enzymes in our gut to break down alfalfa efficiently: it would cost us more energy to digest alfalfa than we would get out of alfalfa. A human would literally starve to death in a barn full of it.
Big cats' metabolism need high-quality protein sources. Plants don't provide it. Ruminants have digestive tracts which can break down low-grade, high-cellulose protein sources; big cats don't.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkGiven two proposed explanations of an observed phenomenon, which is to be preferred:
If you assume that God exists, he is the omniscient creator of everything is he not? What would make you assume that he did not put natural causes into place to start off with?
1. Natural causes,
or
2. natural causes + something else not observed (e.g, the hand of God executing some Grand Design)
?
Apply Occham's Razor.
Originally posted by finneganYou seem confused about what mutation and variation actually are. A mutation is not just some weird major difference that you have never seen before. A mutation is a change in the DNA (for simplification I will ignore other parts of the cell that may be involved in change) to produce something new. Over time mutations give rise to variation. Variation is mutations accumulated.
However, I do not agree that evolution needs to depend quite so heavily on weird [**] mutations that survive. For much of the process it is perfectly sufficient to point out that living species are just about never made up of perfectly replicated clones and nearly always there is a range of values for any feature you can measure: shorter / taller, more ha ...[text shortened]... hier food. The list is infinitely long and does not require mutations, just normal variation.
You are correct that Kelly is incorrectly focusing on the immediate aftermath of a mutation without realising that many mutations spread quite significantly through a population before they have any significant effect.
But to suggest that variation is a different subject from mutation is incorrect.
Phenotypes are typically a result of a combination of different genes and also often involve variations in the number of copies of a gene. But that variation in genes and copies of genes starts with mutations. Then sexual reproduction provides mix and match. That is why sexual organisms evolve more robustly than asexual organisms. They can mix and match accumulated mutations.
Asexual organisms to mix and match via different, often less efficient mechanisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Originally posted by SuzianneIt is not outside the realm of possibility. But it is not required. ie evolution would work without God. If God wanted a specific outcome, then yes, he would have to intervene.
But is it too far outside the realm of possibility to think of supposedly 'random' mutations just being the 'adjusting' hand of God? At least some of them, the more critical ones, maybe, certainly not all of them.
Many theists recognise however that if evolution could work without God, then no God would be needed and this would threaten their faith. This is why they put up such a fight against evolution to the point of outright lying about it in some cases.
Not all theists see it as a threat (many biologists are theists). I grew up in a Christian family and my parents taught me about evolution before I learnt it in school. My sister is a biologist.