Darwinism and a book by David Berlinsky

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Variation of species is not a mutation. It is selective breeding highlighting pre-existing traits to dominance.

What you are speaking of on a cellular level is adaption, which our bodies are capable of doing. Some people and animals are less adaptive and may not survive a hard time, so they were not born with a certain genotype. Still what you are talking about is a loss of information, not a gain. Unless you can demonstrate an example of 1 person or animal having something beneficial that no other has and passing it on.

So cancer is a beneficial mutation now? I would hardly call cancer a way to cope, and is more indicative that we are breaking down, not improving.

You seem to believe that evolution can only occur through positive mutations. That is simply not true. You really need to read up on the subject. You need to understand the concepts behind genetic drift, bottleneck effect, and the founder effect. Look at ring species etc.

Berlinsky offers no alternative theory to evolution. Science dictates that if you are attempting to disprove an accepted theory you must postulate an alternative theory of your own. Berlinski does not do that. He leaves it hanging. Why?

Because certain groups of people will fill that void with their own beliefs. He's happy to let them do so. He is the director of an organization that is the main driving force behind the attempt to inject intelligent design into science classrooms. Intelligent design is simply creationism run through the back door. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that there is any guiding force in the universe.

As the director of an organization pushing the idea of intelligent design, Berlinski and his organization receive massive funding from faith-based organizations. The scientist in him will not allow him to jump out and state, "God did this". The mercenary in him leaves it hanging to ensure more funding from those willing to fill the void with a god. His PhD simply makes it easier for him to prey upon ignorant people.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Variation of species is not a mutation. It is selective breeding highlighting pre-existing traits to dominance.

What you are speaking of on a cellular level is adaption, which our bodies are capable of doing. Some people and animals are less adaptive and may not survive a hard time, so they were not born with a certain genotype. Still what you are talking about is a loss of information, not a gain. Unless you can demonstrate an example of 1 person or animal having something beneficial that no other has and passing it on.

So cancer is a beneficial mutation now? I would hardly call cancer a way to cope, and is more indicative that we are breaking down, not improving.

Cancer has nothing to do with adaptive behavior .blind cave frogs have eyes.those eyes have lost the ability to detect light. This shows they are relatively new at living in caves. How you ask ? The fish in the same cave have lost eyes altogether . Yet catfish and frogs in the same river system retain eyes out side of the cave system . both thru adaptation,succeed in a specific area that the other would perish . Time ... billions of years allow life to overcome all obstacles that do not extinguish all life. What you guys gona do when we find life on the next planet found light years away . Lol .

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Variation of species is not a mutation. It is selective breeding highlighting pre-existing traits to dominance.

How do those traits become 'pre existing' in the first place if not through mutation of a similar trait that existed before it. This is the circular argument of the anti evolutionists.

What you are speaking of on a cellular level is adaption, which our bodies are capable of doing. Some people and animals are less adaptive and may not survive a hard time, so they were not born with a certain genotype. Still what you are talking about is a loss of information, not a gain. Unless you can demonstrate an example of 1 person or animal having something beneficial that no other has and passing it on.

Insects that have poison, and the insects that mimic it as a defence against predation. One has the adaptation that is so beneficial others forms of life have adapted to look like it to reap those benefits. Fair enough example?

So cancer is a beneficial mutation now? I would hardly call cancer a way to cope, and is more indicative that we are breaking down, not improving.

I never said cancer was beneficial. I said that cancer is the result of a mutation/adaptation to a cell that didn't work out. It's part of evolution and natural selection would play it's part in all of it. For if that adaptation leads to sickness and death the carrier is less likely to reproduce and less likely over time to form the basis of a new gene pool and a new species.

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

So tell us about the mutation? There ought to be thousands or millions of examples.

Speaking of that, there should be someone right now that has a new mutation that will be able to be passed on to benefit the species. After all there is 7 billion chances right now.

Sickle cell anemia. look it up. It's one of the negative dominant, beneficial recessive mutations that exist today.

[BeeGuy]

Geez. Difficult discussion to have when both sides don't have a strong grasp of either the theory or the mechanisms.

Marc, like I pointed out earlier, unless you outline the scope of the discussion, it will be confounded by generalizations.

If, as you posted originally, we are discussing Darwinian evolution, we should attempt to stick to that.

Im not sure who here can write clearly about genetics or molecular biology, so, it would be helpful to just present concepts in terms of species, characters/traits, imheritance and selection.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Not sure who this in response to, but I would like to address it.

You are saying the elephant and the mammoth are different species, correct?

Are you sure about their inability to mate, and has it always been this way? Just looking at the physical characteristics, they don't look like different animals to me. Although it is entirely possible that the strain with the long hair is completely lost.

I suppose like if the poodle died off tomorrow, future generations could say: "The Wooly Coated Water Pup, could not adapt to the sudden global temperature change, so is extinct." We know that dogs as a whole would not be however.

Can foxes and coyotes mate? They look about as different as mammoths and elephants do.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Geez. Difficult discussion to have when both sides don't have a strong grasp of either the theory or the mechanisms.

Marc, like I pointed out earlier, unless you outline the scope of the discussion, it will be confounded by generalizations.

If, as you posted originally, we are discussing Darwinian evolution, we should attempt to stick to that.

Im not sure who here can write clearly about genetics or molecular biology, so, it would be helpful to just present concepts in terms of species, characters/traits, imheritance and selection.

I try.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Sickle cell anemia. look it up. It's one of the negative dominant, beneficial recessive mutations that exist today.

Yup.

Keep in mind that what determines whether a trait is beneficial or not is the environment in which it is found.

When the environment changes, the influence of a trait on an organisms reproductive success and survival can also change.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Yup.

Keep in mind that what determines whether a trait is beneficial or not is the environment in which it is found.

When the environment changes, the influence of a trait on an organisms reproductive success and survival can also change.

Yes, evolution doesn't follow a set program or path. It's just life changing to its environment. Darwin proposed that this happens through a process of reproductive selection based upon the abilities of the species to survive and attract mates. Might be a simple explanation, but it's my understanding of it.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

You seem to believe that evolution can only occur through positive mutations. That is simply not true. You really need to read up on the subject. You need to understand the concepts behind genetic drift, bottleneck effect, and the founder effect. Look at ring species etc.

Berlinsky offers no alternative theory to evolution. Science dictates that if you are attempting to disprove an accepted theory you must postulate an alternative theory of your own. Berlinski does not do that. He leaves it hanging. Why?

Because certain groups of people will fill that void with their own beliefs. He's happy to let them do so. He is the director of an organization that is the main driving force behind the attempt to inject intelligent design into science classrooms. Intelligent design is simply creationism run through the back door. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that there is any guiding force in the universe.

As the director of an organization pushing the idea of intelligent design, Berlinski and his organization receive massive funding from faith-based organizations. The scientist in him will not allow him to jump out and state, "God did this". The mercenary in him leaves it hanging to ensure more funding from those willing to fill the void with a god. His PhD simply makes it easier for him to prey upon ignorant people.

If it was not an improvement, it would be called devolving wouldn't it?

And to the latter part of the post; so what? And a PhD makes it easier for either side to prey on the ignorant does it not? The ad hominem attack does not strengthen the argument.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

If it was not an improvement, it would be called devolving wouldn't it?

And to the latter part of the post; so what? And a PhD makes it easier for either side to prey on the ignorant does it not? The ad hominem attack does not strengthen the argument.

I gave his reasons and motives. Can you disprove them?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Sickle cell anemia. look it up. It's one of the negative dominant, beneficial recessive mutations that exist today.

Because it has a side benefit, it does not mean that it's a good thing. Kind of like saying that because my heart is set to explode in a month, I won't have to worry about cancer!

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Geez. Difficult discussion to have when both sides don't have a strong grasp of either the theory or the mechanisms.

Marc, like I pointed out earlier, unless you outline the scope of the discussion, it will be confounded by generalizations.

If, as you posted originally, we are discussing Darwinian evolution, we should attempt to stick to that.

Im not sure who here can write clearly about genetics or molecular biology, so, it would be helpful to just present concepts in terms of species, characters/traits, imheritance and selection.

Nothing to add?

[BeeGuy]

A common misunderstanding is the idea that evolution leads to complexity.

It can, but as a rule, it favors neither complexity, nor simplicity.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Can foxes and coyotes mate? They look about as different as mammoths and elephants do.

Heck if I know. Could they have at one point? Divergent paths of specialization may have made it impossible.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by markg

What I like about Dr Berlinksy's approach is that he asks some very penetrating questions. Questions that I haven't heard effectively answered. His example in the video of a cow changing to a whale needing in excess of 50,000 physical adaptations and transitional species i think is a legitmate one.

His 'argument' on cow to whale evolution (which is an extremely crude argument at it's core) doesn't really leave any hard questions to answer. All he states is that there are 50,000 morphological differences between a cow and a whale... astounding! I would like to just show how his 'argument' actually does nothing to disprove darwinian evolution at all!

First, the ancestor of the whale was not a cow. The fossil record of the evolution of whales is actually a fairly well understood bit of paeleontology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

The ancestor of the whale lived about 50 million years ago.

50,000,000 / 50,000 = 1000 years. One morphological change every 1000 years (don't get me started on how most of these morphological changes would occur simultaneously). Humpback whales reach sexual maturity at 6-10 years of age, the ancestors of whales were much smaller organisms and probably reached sexual maturity even faster than that (probably closer to 2-5 years). We will use 10 years for fun though.

1000 years per morphological change / 10 years per generation. That's 100 generations of animals for ONE morphological change (again, these morphological changes would occur simultaneously). The mathematics don't seem very prohibitive to me.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Because it has a side benefit, it does not mean that it's a good thing. Kind of like saying that because my heart is set to explode in a month, I won't have to worry about cancer!

Do you know what sickle cell is and what it does? Looks to me like you're just jumping to conclusions here.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

If it was not an improvement, it would be called devolving wouldn't it?

Speciation does not always occur through mutation.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

A common misunderstanding is the idea that evolution leads to complexity.

It can, but as a rule, it favors neither complexity, nor simplicity.

Exactly. Sometimes simplicity enhances survivability. In that case "devolution" would be a good thing.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Yes, evolution doesn't follow a set program or path. It's just life changing to its environment. Darwin proposed that this happens through a process of reproductive selection based upon the abilities of the species to survive and attract mates. Might be a simple explanation, but it's my understanding of it.

Common misconception. It's not life changing to it's environment, it's more the environment SELECTING for a PRE-EXISTING trait.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I gave his reasons and motives. Can you disprove them?

Why would I have to? No other scientist is paid? There is quite a bit more money to be made on the secular side of things.

You don't have to believe this either however, but you have to question why it is that you can get a big thick book for free if there was so much money for the taking.

You can also visit book stores and compare prices there, the difference is pretty shocking in some cases.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by whammy

Common misconception. It's not life changing to it's environment, it's more the environment SELECTING for a PRE-EXISTING trait.

I had always had this picture of organisms moving into new environments and adapting to survive there, or current environments changing and life adapting to survive with those changes. You're telling me it's the other way around then.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

A common misunderstanding is the idea that evolution leads to complexity.

It can, but as a rule, it favors neither complexity, nor simplicity.

Where do you get that? If that is your stance, you neither agree nor disagree that we started off more advanced than we are now. So?

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Why would I have to? No other scientist is paid? There is quite a bit more money to be made on the secular side of things.

You don't have to believe this either however, but you have to question why it is that you can get a big thick book for free if there was so much money for the taking.

You can also visit book stores and compare prices there, the difference is pretty shocking in some cases.

Dealers always give the first taste for free.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by markg

Evolutionary biology is not verifiable by experiment as you so dually noted. Ergo my opinion that it is not good science. We have alot of well meaning conjecture but little experimentation. We are able to breed for specific traits we can create variation ranging from chow wow wa (spelling) to great danes but we are not able to achieve speciation no matter how hard we try via breeding or mutating. I have a problem with that. When ever someone has a problem with this part of evoulutionary biology the propents of it simply reply you have to have faith that given enough time what we think will happen will happen. Frankly i am not comfortable with that answer in a scientific context. I need more proof. Sorry for sounding so sceptical.

Science does not require experimentation. Observations are just as good, as long as reasonable controls can be assumed. The fossil record is truly an amazing thing constantly assaulted by creationists as 'incomplete' and 'missing important steps'. That is just plain ignorance.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Why would I have to? No other scientist is paid? There is quite a bit more money to be made on the secular side of things.

You don't have to believe this either however, but you have to question why it is that you can get a big thick book for free if there was so much money for the taking.

You can also visit book stores and compare prices there, the difference is pretty shocking in some cases.

But those other scientists actually have theories of their own that they have to defend. Berlinski does not. That is the point. He deliberately does not put forward a theory of his own so that he does not alienate his cash cow.

He does not make his money from his books. His books are simply a venue through which to attract "believers" who will then support his foundation with donations. As the director, he of course collects a salary from those donations. Nonprofit does not mean that somebody isn't making money from it.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Nothing to add?

Once I get off my phone. I'll point out some of the glaring misunderstandings.



Evolution is change. It is not an improvement. The process is a selective one. There is no devolving. If your traits are poorly suited to changes in your environment, the traits and the genes for them will be reduced in frequency in your population. If your traits are well suited to changes in your environment they will proliferate and attain a higher frequency in your population.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I had always had this picture of organisms moving into new environments and adapting to survive there, or current environments changing and life adapting to survive with those changes. You're telling me it's the other way around then.

That was the general consensus when I learned about evolution a few years ago in university. Mutations/varied physical traits exist BEFORE the environment selects for them. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but that's what we were taught.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I had always had this picture of organisms moving into new environments and adapting to survive there, or current environments changing and life adapting to survive with those changes. You're telling me it's the other way around then.

Yes.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Do you know what sickle cell is and what it does? Looks to me like you're just jumping to conclusions here.

It's called sickle cell anemia disease. I didn't name it, and until recently having it meant having a short life.

The people that named it must be conclusion jumpers too.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by whammy

Common misconception. It's not life changing to it's environment, it's more the environment SELECTING for a PRE-EXISTING trait.

Careful, you sound like a crazy creationist now! I knew there was nugget in there!