Alternatives to Evolution

Originally posted by sugiezd
I am a biologist.

The distinction is, as you say, conceptual rather than real.

I don't know if it's already been said so forgive me for repeating, if it has:

Mutations happen all the time, they may be beneficial, harmful or neutral. The harmful obviously die out, as the neutral tend to do.

A beneficial change will eventually replace the wildtype ...[text shortened]... nterbreed true and fertile.

Micro/macro imples black and white - it's more shades of grey.

Why would you think the neutral ones die out, it isn't like they are
adding or taking away from anything that would cause anything to
get an advantage or disadvantage? Except of course the taking away
of resources to other parts of the system which would than make it
a disadvantage and therefore non-neutral.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would you think the neutral ones die out, it isn't like they are
adding or taking away from anything that would cause anything to
get an advantage or disadvantage? Except of course the taking away
of resources to other parts of the system which would than make it
a disadvantage and therefore non-neutral.
Kelly

I think I said "tend".

Imagine a population of thousands of animals where one has a neutral mutation.

It may get lucky and breed, half of its offspring having the mutation, or it may not - end of line (this can happen to an unlucky beneficial mutant).

Over hundreds or thousands of generations, without a positive spin, it will not replace the wildtype though it may hang on for a long time.

I could waffle on about shifing polymorphisms ( and get myself into very deep water) but basically, for something to stick it needs to give the animal an advantage, even if only slight.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody claimed that it does.....

However you are claiming that variation never leads to new species which is a false claim and the contrary is observable.

All life forms ultimately evolved from a chemical soup which was supposedly the results of millions of years of rain on a rock. So ultimately your dogs evolved from a rock.

Unless of course the theory has been modified since I was at school. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has b n Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London

ok dj2becker...why don't you advise us how we go about testing your belief system then eh?...you tell us how we can check that your conception of religion was even justified...using tha mass of accurate data you theists have no doubt accrued so far and explainable by no other means than a supernatural deity (independant of the bible, qu-ran, Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...). Once you have done this then you will have grounds for stating that the Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation...until then why not go away and tend the rabbits 😉

Originally posted by Agerg
ok dj2becker...why don't you advise us how we go about [b]testing your belief system then eh?...you tell us how we can check that your conception of your religion was even justified...using tha mass of accurate data you theists have no doubt accrued so far and explainable by no other means than a supernatural deity (independant of the bible, qu-ran, Gospel ...[text shortened]... parallel to belief in special creation[/i]...until then why not go away and tend the rabbits 😉[/b]

I would not exactly say that they are parallel, that was the opinion of L. Harrison Matthews. I would say that a belief in atheistic evolution requires a lot more faith... 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would not exactly say that they are parallel, that was the opinion of L. Harrison Matthews. I would say that a belief in atheistic evolution requires a lot more faith... 😉

seems you didn't quite grasp what was asked of you in my previous post 😴

Why do we even acknowledge you!!! 😕🙄

Originally posted by Agerg
seems you didn't quite grasp what was asked of you in my previous post 😴

Why do we even acknowledge you!!! 😕🙄

Your question was way off the topic of this thread. Maybe you could open a new thread for it. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your question was way off the topic of this thread. Maybe you could open a new thread for it. 😉

No, it wasn't. He was replying to YOUR assertion. You may have quoted someone else, but it is most definately your viewpoint, or you wouldn't quote it. How do we test for God?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, it wasn't. He was replying to YOUR assertion. You may have quoted someone else, but it is most definately your viewpoint, or you wouldn't quote it. How do we test for God?

We evaluate how his Word fits in with the evidence we see around us.

Originally posted by dj2becker
We evaluate how his Word fits in with the evidence we see around us.

It doesn't. Not well anyway. That;s not much of a test anyway - many John Grisham books fit with the real world much better - does that make them real?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It doesn't. Not well anyway. That;s not much of a test anyway - many John Grisham books fit with the real world much better - does that make them real?

That is not the ultimate test for God. There are lots of better tests for God such fulfilled prophecy etc. But once the existence of God is established, you will find that all the evidence will fit into the Biblical account if you use the Bible as the philosophical base for all the unprovable presuppositions that you always take for granted.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is not the ultimate test for God. There are lots of better tests for God such fulfilled prophecy etc. But once the existence of God is established, you will find that all the evidence will fit into the Biblical account if you use the Bible as the philosophical base for all the unprovable presuppositions that you always take for granted.

see...you're having trouble with the independent of the bible, qu-ran, Gospel of The flying Spaghetti Monster, etc... bit aren't you! (why does this *not* surprise me!)

Why not tell us what tests we can perform that do not rely on the dubious accounts of storytellers? otherwise I still maintain that the Hobgobble is the only real source of truth and within it is said that Harry the Hobgoblin just tricked you all about God simply to amuse himself and to relieve the boredom of having to live forever...look, the evidence:

Jimbob 11: 4 ...and thy holy hobgoblin laughed his head off for tricking humans into thinking that thy god which he createth from his imagination was actually real and thus gave us sprouts that we would have to eat at Christmas just for thy comedy value and irony...

Originally posted by Agerg
see...you're having trouble with the [b]independent of the bible, qu-ran, Gospel of The flying Spaghetti Monster, etc... bit aren't you! (why does this *not* surprise me!)

Why not tell us what tests we can perform that do not rely on the dubious accounts of storytellers? otherwise I still maintain that the Hobgobble is the only real source of truth and ...[text shortened]... e us sprouts that we would have to eat at Christmas just for thy comedy value and irony...[/i][/b]

Do you believe that absolute truth exists?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you believe that absolute truth exists?

oh no!!!...not this s**te again 😴

we had this little debate before and you made a total pillock of yourself when you had to finally scurry away with your tail between your legs

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is not the ultimate test for God. There are lots of better tests for God such fulfilled prophecy etc. But once the existence of God is established, you will find that all the evidence will fit into the Biblical account if you use the Bible as the philosophical base for all the unprovable presuppositions that you always take for granted.

Give us a few.