[W:926]The central evolution problem

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Oh, I've said plenty, Tim the plumber. I cannot be held responsible for the deficiencies in understanding that flow from your dogmatic scientism and poor reading comprehension.
The "central problem" you keep asking someone to explain to you was explained in the OP and reiterated in reply to your persistent queries on this score a dozen times by G4N and myself. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That's up to the horse.

As far as we can make out the central problem is you don't like it.

You just don't want it to be so.

Is that right?

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

as far as we can make out the central problem is you don't like it.

You just don't want it to be so.

Is that right?

q.e.d.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Evolution doesn't mean a species changes to an optimum level but to one where successful breeding is possible.


Intelligence can only increase the chances of survival...or afford a longer life which means be more likely to produce successful offspring.


Chimpanzees, along with humans, are the only animals that use tools or weapons in fighting.

There is no evidence that increasing intelligence was caused by the struggle for survival and natural selection. There are some whales, for example, that are highly intelligent but have hardly any predators, and do not hunt. And gorillas are another example of an intelligent animal that, before humans, didn't have to worry much about predators, and does not hunt large animals.

It takes a real stretch of the imagination to think natural selection explains everything.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

As far as we can make out the central problem is you don't like it.

You just don't want it to be so.

Is that right?

No. The central problems with neo-Darwinism are that it has no evidence, it is implausible and impossible. And we already know that cells can modify their DNA. So there is absolutely no scientific reason for saying all genetic changes are accidents.

The theory is full of holes. You only believe it because you trust experts and authorities. No matter what they say, you will trust it.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

No. The central problems with neo-Darwinism are that it has no evidence, it is implausible and impossible. And we already know that cells can modify their DNA. So there is absolutely no scientific reason for saying all genetic changes are accidents.

The theory is full of holes. You only believe it because you trust experts and authorities. No matter what they say, you will trust it.

One could say the same for you.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

I must have blinked and missed the explanation about incremental steps.

#1278

Still waiting for someone to explain why life a new complex feature or species cannot evolve in tiny incremental steps.

#1296

That has still to be explained.

Shame on you, zyzygy. Your post reeks of bad faith and immaturity.
Quag is "still waiting" because he doesn't read any posts but his own.
You, on the other hand, had this explanation given to you 270 posts ago.
Here's how it went:

#1033

...Why can't evolution proceed in incremental steps?

#1035

Why can't evolution proceed in incremental steps? Would you like to withdraw that statement?

#1070

No, zyzygy, gfm7175 did not bring up incremental steps. G4N brought it up.
The incremental steps issue has nothing to do with the thesis gfm7175 is arguing.
The incremental steps argument addresses the impossibility of accounting for the myriad steps toward a complex organ by way of natural selection alone.
Clear?

I've bolded the answer to your nagging question. Enough already.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

One could say the same for you.

No. I don't mindlessly believe things just because authorities promote it. If I did, I would not be criticizing a widely accepted theory.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: The central evolution problem

True. None of this points to a higher universal intelligence. Humans are smart.

They at least they think they are.'

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is no evidence that increasing intelligence was caused by the struggle for survival and natural selection. There are some whales, for example, that are highly intelligent but have hardly any predators, and do not hunt. And gorillas are another example of an intelligent animal that, before humans, didn't have to worry much about predators, and does not hunt large animals.

It takes a real stretch of the imagination to think natural selection explains everything.

So working out where the sporadicly availibe blooms of plankton are and how to navigate the featureless oceans does not take intelligence?

Just because they have large brains does not automatically imply intelligence. The size of their brains might be due to their ability to dive which necessitates that the wiring of the brain cells is simplified. Also the large brain may be a throwback similar to the remnants of their pelvis etc.

Gorillas similarly have social politics to do and to work out where to find the food they need. Territorial battles or wars are probably also a constant threat for them.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

No. The central problems with neo-Darwinism are that it has no evidence, it is implausible and impossible. And we already know that cells can modify their DNA. So there is absolutely no scientific reason for saying all genetic changes are accidents.

The theory is full of holes. You only believe it because you trust experts and authorities. No matter what they say, you will trust it.

1, SHOW THIS CELLS MODIFYING THEIR OWN DNA THING!!!

2, It is not implausable just because you don't like it. It has vast evidnece what evidence do you want?

3, Clearly you have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the theory. Clearly you have no clue.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

1, SHOW THIS CELLS MODIFYING THEIR OWN DNA THING!!!

2, It is not implausable just because you don't like it. It has vast evidnece what evidence do you want?

3, Clearly you have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the theory. Clearly you have no clue.

The evidence is for evolution. As I said very many times.

Evidence for cells modifying their DNA has been found by James Shapiro. As I already said.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

So working out where the sporadicly availibe blooms of plankton are and how to navigate the featureless oceans does not take intelligence?

Just because they have large brains does not automatically imply intelligence. The size of their brains might be due to their ability to dive which necessitates that the wiring of the brain cells is simplified. Also the large brain may be a throwback similar to the remnants of their pelvis etc.

Gorillas similarly have social politics to do and to work out where to find the food they need. Territorial battles or wars are probably also a constant threat for them.

Yeah working out where to get food can only be done by highly intelligent creatures. Sharks can't do it, that's why they are extinct.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

The evidence is for evolution. As I said very many times.

Evidence for cells modifying their DNA has been found by James Shapiro. As I already said.

Link to it so we can all look at it. It would be of Nobel Prize status in science.

 

[William Rea]

Re: The central evolution problem

John lives a subsistence lifestyle, he has the exact same mental capacity as Jack but, John has to use all available time and energy generating food to stay alive.

Jack has domesticated animals and manages the land. Jack now generates enough calories to create an excess for his requirements and he will use the time that that affords him to figure out how to create more and how to preserve the food so that he can easily survive the seasons that create feast and famine.

Jake has exactly the same mental capacity as John and Jack and, does not need to manage the land because the social group that he lives in generates enough calories to allow Jake to learn and develop ways to respond to the world that he inhabits. Unfortunately, Jake cannot shake off many of the traits that were useful when his ancestors were evolving so, he wastes energy trying to respond to things that only exist in his mind.

Bill has the same mental capacity as John, Jack and Jake and has reaped the benefits of decades of liberal politics and reason. He has largely reasoned away many of distractions that occupied Jake but, he still falters and believes things that are not justified by the evidence occasionally; Bill strives to only believe things that can be justified.

One day, we can all be Bill.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yeah working out where to get food can only be done by highly intelligent creatures. Sharks can't do it, that's why they are extinct.

Sharks are reasonable but they don't tend to vary the depth they are at as quickly.

The answer might be the it is not known. But so what? You still have no evidence to say that natural selection has any problems.

You are also claiming that it is a choice for something, some God thing, that whales have big brains. Why would that god thing bother?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

No. I don't mindlessly believe things just because authorities promote it. If I did, I would not be criticizing a widely accepted theory.

You believe Shapiro or whatever his name was.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Link to it so we can all look at it. It would be of Nobel Prize status in science.

I'd like to see the link.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

The evidence is for evolution. As I said very many times.

Evidence for cells modifying their DNA has been found by James Shapiro. As I already said.

Said, yes. proven, no.

 

[zyzygy]

Anyway, Shapiro’s point is that our modern understanding of how genomes are constructed and regulated when building organisms has completely overturned the modern theory of evolution—including the importance of natural selection—by making the notion of a “gene” fuzzier.

He’s wrong, and he’s wrong because he doesn’t seem to understand how evolution works.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/james-shapiro-gets-evolution-wrong-again/

 

[zyzygy]

Those who complain about a supposed unilateral neglect of potential functions for non-coding DNA simply have been reading the wrong literature. In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972; Gall 1981; Comeron 2001), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969, 1971; Jain 1980; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971; Bennett 1982; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), coordinating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966).

A key source of confusion is that “junk DNA” can mean different things. Practicing researchers have nearly always used the term in the sense of “partly or largely non-functional; with its functional elements dispersed and incompletely understood”, as is evident in the Comings quote above. Occasionally researchers use “junk DNA” to mean “completely non-functional,” but the context will show that they are distinguishing such non-functional, non-coding DNA from functional, non-coding DNA.

Nevertheless, starting around 1990, one can find a small but steady stream of publications by misinformed and/or publicity-seeking scientists claiming that, “The scientific consensus before [fill in the date] was that essentially all non-coding DNA is useless junk….. But NOW we have overturned this consensus with our dramatic discovery of [fill in the blank]”.
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/junk_dna_design/

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

You believe Shapiro or whatever his name was.

He explains the evidence he found. There is no reason to not believe him.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: The central evolution problem

The evidence is for evolution. As I said very many times.

Evidence for cells modifying their DNA has been found by James Shapiro. As I already said.

Shapiro:

"... he claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe...."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)


So life comes about normally and quite naturally ?


No higher being is required ?


You still refuse to say what you mean.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

He explains the evidence he found. There is no reason to not believe him.

I disagree.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Shapiro:

"... he claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe...."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)


So life comes about normally and quite naturally ?


No higher being is required ?


You still refuse to say what you mean.

If it comes about naturally then no higher intelligence is required.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

If it comes about naturally then no higher intelligence is required.

If nature is intelligent, then life comes about naturally.