• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution

Does evolution happen


  • Total voters
    70
I'm not attacking your viewpoints by attacking you. I'm just attacking you, because you're incredibly dishonest and ask the same questions over and over in these threads and continually ignore the answers. I've had to explain the scientific definition of "theory" to you several times, and you keep asserting that evolution requires abiogenesis. This isn't the first thread where these exact same points have been discussed over and over. No one learns anything if we have to backtrack with every new thread. Yet that's what you keep doing.

We all do that. Otherwise, everyone would be constantly be changing their beliefs. I am positive that you hve recieved answers in the past as well that you ignored as well. Change the perception, and the reality changes as well.

Apparently others on your team don't do what you say. They say that evolution is fact. They say believing in God is irrational and stupid. They say that the Big Bang exists. I hear what you say, but those in your party only complicate the issue.

Furthermore, if we backtrack, more information can be gleaned. I don't believe in evolution. I presume you don't believe in God. The more you debate these issues, the more your understanding grows. You see, we're like rocks in a tumbler that grind against others; we become polished in our knowledge and understanding. Are there any beliefs you have, like abortion or homosexuality, that no matter what you hear from the opposing side you'll never acknowledge? We are all guilty of that. Each and every one of us. There are some precepts and ideals we'll undoubtedly never let go of.
 
From my rudimentary understanding, to believe in evolution seems to also mean you believe in abiogenesis. Others have claimed that is not so, so their views are a bit obscure to me in regards to the beginning.


Evolution and abiogenisis have exactly jack **** to do with one another.

]That power is believed to be the precursor of evolution/creationism. God or The Big Bang(abiogenesis).

The big bang and abiogenesis have exactly jack **** to do with one another.
 
Evolution and abiogenisis have exactly jack **** to do with one another.



The big bang and abiogenesis have exactly jack **** to do with one another.

Yet why do so many people I've talked to who believe in evolution declare that evolution began from abiogenesis---the Big Bang?
 
Yet why do so many people I've talked to who believe in evolution declare that evolution began from abiogenesis---the Big Bang?

And their ignorance means what? Can you provide some examples or is this the usual vague claim?
 
Check this out (the domestication of the russian silver fox). It's an interesting experiment that shows that evolution does occur:
The domestication of the russian silver fox. (40 year fast track evolution)

Overtime, as certain genepools/traits of the foxes were separated in the domestication process, physical changes took place as well including a shortening of the tail, color changes, ect. Really interesting stuff.

I believe that evolution occurs and that we are likely the descendants of another species (such as apes). As for how life started; I have no freakin' idea. Nor does anyone else. To say with absolute certainty that a higher power didn't create the universe, and that we weren't in a way "created" is just as arrogant as saying with absolute certainty that a higher power did create the universe.
 
What exactly is a basic understanding, here?

The amount of time involved.

Iirc, evolutionists are still quarreling amongst themselves.

They don't argue about the fact that evolution is not something you will be able to see at work.


If the experienced are quarreling, what does that say about us repeaters?

Nice false dilemma. It doesn't make your request any less pointless, though. In fact, it actually makes it even more pointless.

I merely ask for examples of evolution supposedly at work.

:shrug: And I merely point out that your request indicates a distinct lack of understanding when it comes down to evolution.

If no examples can be given, then it makes me wonder.

Wonder what, exactly? If you had any basic understanding of that which you seek to question the validity of, you'd realize why your pointless request cannot be granted. But instead of gaining a basic understanding (which would entail actually learning about the subject instead of asking pointless questions) you just ask pointless questions.

Until such time as you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the theory you wish to argue against, you are not competent enough to argue against it.

A belief is nothing but a belief. There is no absoluteness. Saying I believe in "this" is no more relevant than saying I believe in "that".

Not all beliefs are equal. :shrug:
 
AN example of the quarrel among evolutionary scientists(might be slightly old): Does evolution happen smoothly, or are there periods of equilibrium punctuated by rapid changes? Note that both assume that evolution does happen, they just differ slightly one small aspect.
 
AN example of the quarrel among evolutionary scientists(might be slightly old): Does evolution happen smoothly, or are there periods of equilibrium punctuated by rapid changes? Note that both assume that evolution does happen, they just differ slightly one small aspect.

It should be noted that "rapid changes" is a relative term. It doesn't mean within the span of a single human life, but over the course of a scant few thousand years instead of 10's or hundreds of thousands.
 
It should be noted that "rapid changes" is a relative term. It doesn't mean within the span of a single human life, but over the course of a scant few thousand years instead of 10's or hundreds of thousands.

Yeah, rapid on an evolutionary scale is still a long time.
 
Your definition of directed is suspect. Direction implies a consciousness which is doing the directing, especially in the context of this thread (see the Poll and a dictionary definition of 'directed').

Why must direction imply consciousness? Water currents are directed by the shape and flow of a river the same way that a temporary dam directs water away from a construction site. Is that consciousness?

It has already been explained many times that the randomness people should be considering should be limited to the randomness of gene mutation.

But that itself is not evolution. Mutations in pure isolation are frankly irrelevant.

Riverdad is not contradicting himself. He is being careful not to imply the consciousness that is indicated in the OP, while still accounting for the effect of the environment on the genes that flourish.

Incorrect. Riverdad is highly contradicting himself by saying that evolution is random at the same time as arguing that there is a clear and obvious influence that is causing the selection for and against genes that is in no way random. On one hand he claims random then on the other he says it's not.

Semantic games are stupid and it is rich that the one playing them calls others 'stupid'.

It is stupid when Riverdad claims it's all random and then claims it's not.
 
The concept that you're scratching around for is responsive. Not directed.

Do you believe that water flows based on the features of a river or obstacle is not directed? How is that different from water flowing on the features of a temporary dam? It's the same thing.

You are still wrong in your asinine claim it's random but directed by nature.
 
AN example of the quarrel among evolutionary scientists(might be slightly old): Does evolution happen smoothly, or are there periods of equilibrium punctuated by rapid changes? Note that both assume that evolution does happen, they just differ slightly one small aspect.

Um, very, very, very old and a very minor topic. Gould has a bigger public presence than he did a professional reputation.

Check out PubMed for how much his ideas really mattered:

"punctuated equilibria" = 36 hits
Spandrel = 9 hits
 
Why must direction imply consciousness? Water currents are directed by the shape and flow of a river the same way that a temporary dam directs water away from a construction site. Is that consciousness?



But that itself is not evolution. Mutations in pure isolation are frankly irrelevant.



Incorrect. Riverdad is highly contradicting himself by saying that evolution is random at the same time as arguing that there is a clear and obvious influence that is causing the selection for and against genes that is in no way random. On one hand he claims random then on the other he says it's not.



It is stupid when Riverdad claims it's all random and then claims it's not.

But, he didn't claim that evolution is random. He claimed that instances of gene mutation are. Then, he stated that after an occurrence of gene mutation occurs, the environmental conditions in which it occurs will determine that mutation's fate.

Therefore he didn't state that it (evolution) is 'all random', merely that it has a random element in the process. And he didn't contradict himself.

You need to read more carefully.

But, you are right, directed doesn't have to imply consciousness. But colloquially, it often does. And in this thread, some of the people are wanting to be very clear by not using words that can be misconstrued. And then you come along, and misconstrue. However, not in the way that they were trying to avoid, but toward it's polar opposite.

It is maddening to have to be so incredibly careful to begin with, and then to have some contrarian make it impossible to avoid the sort of thing that one was trying to avoid... Well it's just super maddening!

And just in case you are under the illusion that evolution has no random component at all, here ya go:
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"
 
What's random to the human mind may not be in fact 'random' at all in the grand scheme. Every action has a reaction.

When I fed my dog late today he might of thought "hey, I guess I get fed at random times now". In fact I fed him late because I went to grab a drink after work.
 
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
Option F: Evolution happens and its NOT random.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
 
But, he didn't claim that evolution is random.

He merely said this:

"The engines of evolution are genetic drift, selection pressure and mutation. For all intents and purposes, randomness is ever present. With selection, the randomness is related to the micro-environment that dominates. The world is filled with millions of micro-environments so if you frame your reference on the organism, then you'll find it in random environments subject to localized selection pressures."

And this: "There is no one directing it and the processes do not arise in response to direction."

Except that the process in which evolution functions is in response to a myriad of directions. By calling the processes of evolution "not directed" he just called it random. Unless he believes that water flows by some conscious effort directing it. But that would be stupid. Which I'm not so sure I can rule out here. There is no reason for why there must be someone directing the processes when the natural environment provides all of the direction necessary.

He claimed that instances of gene mutation are.

Except that he further argued that the method of how genes are selected for and against is random. By first calling gene mutation random and then how they are selected for and against random, how has he not argued evolution is not random?

Then, he stated that after an occurrence of gene mutation occurs, the environmental conditions in which it occurs will determine that mutation's fate.

Which is why he's contradicting himself. He insults me for arguing is not random...and then argues it is while it's not.

Therefore he didn't state that it (evolution) is 'all random', merely that it has a random element in the process. And he didn't contradict himself.

You need to read more carefully.

I think you need to read his actual posts.

But, you are right, directed doesn't have to imply consciousness. But colloquially, it often does.

But in terms of actual science, colloquially doesn't mean squat here. Evolution is hardly a random process as Riverdad called it.

And in this thread, some of the people are wanting to be very clear by not using words that can be misconstrued. And then you come along, and misconstrue.

Not at all. Just pointing out that Riverdad as usual is wrong.

And just in case you are under the illusion that evolution has no random component at all, here ya go:

Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Not at all. I just disagree with Riverdad's notion that the processes of evolution are random.
 
Except that the process in which evolution functions is in response to a myriad of directions. By calling the processes of evolution "not directed" he just called it random. Unless he believes that water flows by some conscious effort directing it. But that would be stupid. Which I'm not so sure I can rule out here. There is no reason for why there must be someone directing the processes when the natural environment provides all of the direction necessary.

It amazes me to come across a walking billboard for the Dunning–Kruger effect:


The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is . . .​


You're making all sorts of sloppy inferences, like this "By calling the processes of evolution "not directed" he just called it random." You're the one who is making that inference. I have nothing to do with your faulty thinking processes nor do I have any responsibility for your inability to fully comprehend what you're reading. The problem here is that you're picking up just enough comprehension to "kind of" understand what other people are clearly understanding, but you lack the wisdom to see your errors and you believe that you're smarter than everyone else so of course you can't be wrong, everyone else must be wrong instead, including those who tell you that they understand exactly what I've written.

Here is an example of how scientists use the phrase "directed evolution." Actually, this post is for the benefit of other commenters who are interested in the finer points of evolutionary science and I'm pretty confident that they can use their sophisticated reading skills to extract meaning from the context, that is, they will make a correct inference and you, in all probability, will stick to your guns, and double down on the basis of stubbornness, ignorance and the Dunning–Kruger Effect.



The next step is to identify the enzyme variants that have improvements in the desired properties. In this sense, directed evolution is more like breeding than like natural selection. The outcome of the experiment depends crucially on what properties are investigated. Devising screens that are sensitive to the small functional changes that are expected from single amino acid substitutions (e.g. a twofold increase in activity) can be challenging and, because the frequency of improved mutants might only be 1 in 1000, the screen must have low inherent variability . . . .


A second goal of our directed evolution experiments was to test whether it is possible to evolve enzymes that are both thermostable and highly active at low temperature. Therefore, we required that the esterase and the subtilisin protease retain significant activity at room temperature while thermostability increased. We encountered no difficulty in finding thermostable enzymes that retained, and even increased, their activities . . .​



Except that he further argued that the method of how genes are selected for and against is random.

You argued that, you moron. This is an inference that you're making. I flat out stated that mutations are responsive to their environment.
 
Why do evolution vs creationism debates always end up in debates over the existence of some power that is beyond our understand? i.e. debates over whether or not a "deity" exists? last I checked science never proclaims things as absolute facts and instead declares them as lying on differing levels of evidence based support. right now evolution is the best explanation for how organisms came to be and there is little to no understanding of how matter came to be in the first place. science doesn't attempt to support the theory of a deity existing because there is currently no way to measure related variables, i.e. things are too subjective. at least that's how I understand it.
No it tries to explain how we evolved. How does it explain how things began?
 
No it tries to explain how we evolved. How does it explain how things began?

What .. are you saying that science tries to explain how we were evolved? Why yes, of course it does (at least the majority of science does); they go by the evidence given and make the most reasonable explanation for the evidence.

I never purported that science explains how things began in terms of how initial matter was created. Any theories on this are currently speculation. What is well supported is that once life was created (in is most microscopic form) the wheels were set into motion and natural selection took over, resulting in the organisms we see living on earth today.

The point of my post was that somehow, these evolution vs. creationism posts inevitably end up in arguments over whether or not a "deity" exists when it need to be that way. Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a "deity" - aka some force that is beyond our understanding - this is all I was saying

I also mentioned that science never claims to have proven anything as true; instead, hypothesis are made and tested and they either support theories or not; as of now, the theory of evolution is a well supported one

Does this make sense?
 
If you read the thread, you will find that this point has been addressed, and repeatedly. I personally clarified what I should have said.

Yep. Just testifying here that you did do so, and that it has also been clarified by others. Funny thing is, I knew what you meant, and took it as such, before you ever clarified. The notion of randomness, as spoken of in your poll and OP, taken in context, where it is contrasted with being guided by an intelligence, is sufficiently clear. Your main point was whether a person felt naturalistic explanations were adequate to account for evolution, or whether evolution must involve supernatural elements in order to work. I voted correctly, even though I was fully aware that randomness plays only a part in the naturalistic explanation.
 
Science hasn't explained how life "came to be". If science can't pinpoint how, then why should I care for their suppositions about evolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom