Evolution

[zimmah]

it had to start from somewhere, even if just 1 atom randomly formed, it would be sudden, as you can't have a half atom.

Yes you can. Atoms are split in half all the time, that's how nuclear power works. Anyway I don't know what "atoms forming randomly" has to do with evolution, perhaps you'd like to explain that.

also, read the multiple articles on degeneration. you probably skipped them because you have nothing witty to say about them, now do you?

I don't know what you're talking about. What is "degeneration" and what does it have to do with evolution?

It has everything to do with evolution. Because the way our DNA works, evolution can only lead to degeneration, not to improvement. However, under some circumstances the loss of genes can prove beneficial, but only under those circumstances. This is mistakenly believed to be evidence to prove evolution.

And I wasn't talking about fusion or fission, but about atoms being needed to form molecules, cells, and by extension, life. You can't just take some Lego bricks and shuffle them and then expect a perfect Lego house to be the result. Or whatever construction you want. And even more ridiculous is the assumption that whatever happened to be the result spontantiously becomes alive, can reproduce, and has some form of awareness or intelligence. Yet even more ridiculous is to assume human are somehow evololves from lesser life forms, which have, apart from looks or sometimes some forms of common behavior, nothing in common.

It's hard to admit mistakes, isn't it?

[zimmah]

Also, online there's a book, the original is in Dutch. But there's an English translation here. http://evolution-is-degeneration.com/in ... inaID=1104

[BigBallinStalin]

Because the way our DNA works, evolution can only lead to degeneration, not to improvement. However, under some circumstances the loss of genes can prove beneficial, but only under those circumstances.

Can genes not degenerate but mutate, thus creating benefits for the organism?

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, online there's a book, the original is in Dutch. But there's an English translation here. http://evolution-is-degeneration.com/in ... inaID=1104

From the wiki

Peter Scheele (Arnhem, July 7, 1962) is a Dutch TV program maker, evangelist and author of Christian books. He has also published creationist works.

Scheele was born in a family of three children and grew up in Deventer. His father was a doctor and his mother a nurse. He studied two years electrical engineering at the Technical University of Eindhoven, and then spent six years at college-level theology at the Bible Institute in Heverlee Belgium (which later merged in the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Louvain), Belgium. During the same period (1985-1988) he was leader of a commune and from 1986 to 1990 leader of an eatery of Youth for Christ in Eindhoven.

He founded in 1986 the Jesus-fanklub (later: Jesus fan club), which seeks the Gospel in a creative way to sell them. He was known especially for the approximately five-minute EO program Peter, which he also people in a somewhat playful way with the gospel tried to bring. Then came the (extended) programs Peter: Friends, interactive and Bus Stop, which were in line with Peter.

Apparently, he lacks the formal credentials. Does that concern you?

What requisite knowledge of the physical sciences does Peter Scheele possess?

[zimmah]

Also, online there's a book, the original is in Dutch. But there's an English translation here. http://evolution-is-degeneration.com/in ... inaID=1104

From the wiki

Peter Scheele (Arnhem, July 7, 1962) is a Dutch TV program maker, evangelist and author of Christian books. He has also published creationist works.

Scheele was born in a family of three children and grew up in Deventer. His father was a doctor and his mother a nurse. He studied two years electrical engineering at the Technical University of Eindhoven, and then spent six years at college-level theology at the Bible Institute in Heverlee Belgium (which later merged in the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Louvain), Belgium. During the same period (1985-1988) he was leader of a commune and from 1986 to 1990 leader of an eatery of Youth for Christ in Eindhoven.

He founded in 1986 the Jesus-fanklub (later: Jesus fan club), which seeks the Gospel in a creative way to sell them. He was known especially for the approximately five-minute EO program Peter, which he also people in a somewhat playful way with the gospel tried to bring. Then came the (extended) programs Peter: Friends, interactive and Bus Stop, which were in line with Peter.

Apparently, he lacks the formal credentials. Does that concern you?

What requisite knowledge of the physical sciences does Peter Scheele possess?

Have you even read his work or are you just complaining about his education because you have no better evidence to counter his?

[crispybits]

by your logic, if i were to put you in a room with a lamp and a on-off switch, and i'd flip the switch and the light turns on, and than i tell you the light was designed by Edison and i installed the light and the switch, you'd answer, nope, it's electricity. makes sense dude, makes sense.

So now you installed the universe and did a college course all about how universes are made and the laws that govern what form they take? You have no more knowledge about the limits of possible universes than I do, you have only seen THIS universe. You have only seen ONE dice roll. I don't claim knowledge of how it came into being or if there are others out there or not or any of that, I say "I don't know", yet based on zero evidence about these kinds of natural (superuniversal) laws and rules and probabilities and observations you claim that "I KNOW it's this." You don't know a thing about it, and I'm not saying I know better, I'm just saying "we don't know, so stop claiming you do"

also, there's a huge flaw in your reasoning, because chemistry always produces the exact same results, yet you claim it's a process of RANDOM events. RANDOM does NOT produce the same results every time. in fact, the scientific method is BASED on the fact that if you do something once, it should ALWAYS happen in the same way. (given the circumstances are identical). And if you chance one thing (like only temperature) the outcome may vary to support the chance n environment, but just by a given amount, which can be predicted based on results from earlier study.

I didn't claim chemistry was random. Please provide a quote to show I did or you're just being a massive hypocrite and putting words in my mouth again. I said that the universe can get it wrong 99.99999% of the time and still randomly get it right enough to make life. The random term in there doesn't imply that an individual chemical reaction is random, but that if you throw all the primordial matter in a bowl then all sorts of reactions will happen, and it doesn't need design to make the right one happen, it just takes a big enough sample size for that very low probability on a singular level to equate to a probability of 1 on the larger, universal scale. It had to happen, somewhere, and if intelligent life is sitting here analysing it then I'd say that it did happen, here, a very very long time ago.

with our without a creator, but who defined the rules in the first place? If i were to make a computer, but put no operating system on it, not even any BIOS or any software at all, just the hardware. and then put power on it and let the power on it forever, will at some point in time the computer suddenly evolve it's own operating system? NO! then why do you pretend this (and even more, because in your case not only did not even the computer exists, the parts didn't even exist, heck, not even the atomic parts to MAKE the parts existed, get the picture?). there was nothing, nothing at all. and you say this whole complex universe, complex beyond our imagination just randomly evolved into existence, and yet everything is so stable that there is no chance involved. can't you even see that you are contradicting yourself here?

Who defined what rules? The nature of the universe? I don't know, maybe someone, maybe no-one, maybe they're just inevitable given the way the universe formed. Again, I don't claim any knowledge of something that, by definition, I cannot know. All I'm saying is that you cannot claim any knowledge of that either unless you can back it up (and if you could back it up you wouldn't be here wasting time on the CC forums you'd be off collecting your Nobel Prize and enjoying the complete adulation of the entire world for solving a problem nobody else has even got remotely close to the solution for). Yes the universe is complex but complexity doesn't necessarily mean design. Without any thought or design I could throw a handful of grains out of my window, and they could (conceivably) fall in such a way as to make a pretty pattern. Does that mean I designed the pattern? As I said it's not that I'm arguing I have special knowledge, it's just that your claims aren't knowledge either (which wouldn't be a problem if you didn't attach a thousand other things to your definition of the creator, I'll happily agree if someone just says "It's very likely that something created the universe" and doesn't then try and give that something any other qualities at all).

and how in the world can you compare the universe with a single dicethrow? we haven't even seen the whole universe yet, and the small piece we do see is already so complex we understand very little of it. what more evidence do you need? also, there is no evolution, but only devolution. how do you explain that, if not for intelligent design? (in other words: the devolution is a proof that the bible is correct and it's a result of the original sin). With all the evidence it's much more plausible that creation is true, and evolution is not. yet you seem to say it's the other way around.

So now you're finally being honest with your wording. "It's much more plausible that....", or in other words "I think it's likely that....". Stop claiming knowledge about stuff you cannot know and only claim on the stuff you can know, and recognise the rest as probability, and while I may think you're entirely deluded, I won't tell you you're being factually incorrect. To answer the question, yes I find it much more likely that the Christian God is a fairy tale, and while I don't discount there being some kind of "creator", I believe that we cannot give it any further attributes than "the thing that created".

and besides, you speak of one universe to relate to my answer, but in the same post, you speak of millions upon millions of planets. make up your mind.

You do know the difference between a planet and a universe right? And how to read plain English? Because I'm starting to wonder...

[natty dread]

It has everything to do with evolution. Because the way our DNA works, evolution can only lead to degeneration, not to improvement.

Provenly false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_l ... experiment

However, under some circumstances the loss of genes can prove beneficial, but only under those circumstances. This is mistakenly believed to be evidence to prove evolution.

What? That's just gibberish. Loss of genes? What? That doesn't even mean anything.

What happens is that the genome of an organism undergoes mutations and sometimes those mutations turn out to be beneficial. The organisms with beneficial mutations adapt better to their environment and thus eventually this mutatation becomes the norm among the population of organisms. When these mutations stack over millions of years, eventually the organism evolves to a completely different species.

And I wasn't talking about fusion or fission, but about atoms being needed to form molecules, cells, and by extension, life.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

You can't just take some Lego bricks and shuffle them and then expect a perfect Lego house to be the result

Lego bricks are not atoms. Atoms react with other atoms and spontaneously form molecules, all you have to do is mix the right atoms. If you mix pure hydrogen with pure oxygen, they will "miraculously" form water (after releasing a huge amount of energy) which is a molecule.

That's how chemistry works, you know.

Or whatever construction you want. And even more ridiculous is the assumption that whatever happened to be the result spontantiously becomes alive, can reproduce, and has some form of awareness or intelligence.

Logical fallacy: argument from incredulity. No, it's not ridiculous at all, you just don't understand the process.

Also: define "alive". What exactly is "alive" and what isn't? Are bacteria "alive"? Are viruses "alive"?

Yet even more ridiculous is to assume human are somehow evololves from lesser life forms, which have, apart from looks or sometimes some forms of common behavior, nothing in common.

It ceases being ridiculous once you learn and think about it with an open mind, free from the shackles of dogma.

It's hard to admit mistakes, isn't it?

You tell me. What mistakes are we talking about?

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, online there's a book, the original is in Dutch. But there's an English translation here. http://evolution-is-degeneration.com/in ... inaID=1104

From the wiki

Peter Scheele (Arnhem, July 7, 1962) is a Dutch TV program maker, evangelist and author of Christian books. He has also published creationist works.

Scheele was born in a family of three children and grew up in Deventer. His father was a doctor and his mother a nurse. He studied two years electrical engineering at the Technical University of Eindhoven, and then spent six years at college-level theology at the Bible Institute in Heverlee Belgium (which later merged in the Evangelical Theological Faculty of Louvain), Belgium. During the same period (1985-1988) he was leader of a commune and from 1986 to 1990 leader of an eatery of Youth for Christ in Eindhoven.

He founded in 1986 the Jesus-fanklub (later: Jesus fan club), which seeks the Gospel in a creative way to sell them. He was known especially for the approximately five-minute EO program Peter, which he also people in a somewhat playful way with the gospel tried to bring. Then came the (extended) programs Peter: Friends, interactive and Bus Stop, which were in line with Peter.

Apparently, he lacks the formal credentials. Does that concern you?

What requisite knowledge of the physical sciences does Peter Scheele possess?

Have you even read his work or are you just complaining about his education because you have no better evidence to counter his?

I want to know if he is a legitimate authority on the subject; otherwise, you're relying on an appeal to authority (logical fallacy).

No need to get testy. Just asking about his credentials. Would it be wise to jump to any source which confirms your bias without questioning the legitimacy of such a source? No, it wouldn't be.

[zimmah]

It has everything to do with evolution. Because the way our DNA works, evolution can only lead to degeneration, not to improvement.

Provenly false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_l ... experiment

i fail to see how degeneration proves degeneration false.

What? That's just gibberish. Loss of genes? What? That doesn't even mean anything.

What happens is that the genome of an organism undergoes mutations and sometimes those mutations turn out to be beneficial. The organisms with beneficial mutations adapt better to their environment and thus eventually this mutatation becomes the norm among the population of organisms. When these mutations stack over millions of years, eventually the organism evolves to a completely different species.

for example, polar bears losing pigment in their hairs, so they turn white may be beneficial for them, but it's still a loss of genes. As long as no new genes from original-colored polar bears do not come from outside source (mating with original population), they will never get their original color back. After a while, they'll lose all the genes that are important to survival outside of their current habitat, thus, if the environment changes, they have no means of adapting anymore, because the population that carried the genes to survive in other habitats died off long ago (because it didn't reduce their chances of survival at the time).

Just like the blind pale fish in the dark caves. They didn't have any disadvantage losing color or sight, because it was unnecessary there, probably even beneficial (because it conserves energy), but they'll never be able to evolve eyes from the defect genes, because the mutation to get working eyes would be too complex. Look at it this way. If i give you a random chapter of a book, and than scramble the letters and words, the chapter will become unreadable, given i scramble it enough. (If i just scramble a few letters you may still be able to read it, except for maybe a few sentences). However, if you randomly scramble several letters of the alphabet, you'll never come up with a book. I don't care how many times you try, you just won't.

Lego bricks are not atoms.

no they are even more complex. and they work by rules defined by a creator. just like lego bricks were designed too.

@BBS, Darwin had no knowledge about genes, yet everyone believed him too. The book is very well written and his arguments make sense, that's what matters, not what school he went to.

[BigBallinStalin]

@zimmah:
(1) I bet you're oversimplifying Darwin's stances. Surely, he would have used some qualifiers? And if not, then how does that criticism apply to the 100+ years of supporting evidence?


(2) Anyway, it sounds like you're relying on a logical fallacy. Until you show that Peter Scheele has the credibility, then I won't take it seriously. If you're presenting his arguments, they seem to be failing stupendously here, so your assertion "his arguments make sense" could be false (and likely is).

What matters at least is his ability to understand the findings of science and use a scientific means to address that body of literature. Exercising logic works too.



(3) If you're failing to present his views accurately, maybe you could post a 300-word summary for others to deal with? Or maybe quote him on specific topics?

(in order to show us that Peter Scheele's content is credible--regardless of his lacking credible education on this matter as well as your failure to explain how he is even credible.


(4) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175962&view=unread#p3863767

[natty dread]

i fail to see how degeneration proves degeneration false.

What degeneration? Did you even read the article?

Clearly, the bacteria has evolved to better adapt to its environment. That's not degeneration.

for example, polar bears losing pigment in their hairs, so they turn white may be beneficial for them, but it's still a loss of genes.

No it's not. Loss of pigment doesn't mean loss of genes.

As long as no new genes from original-colored polar bears do not come from outside source (mating with original population), they will never get their original color back.

Sure they can. They can undergo a mutation which transforms the gene sequence which is responsible of the lack of pigment into a gene sequence which gives them pigment. However, if the mutation doesn't help them adapt better, it's not likely to become common in the population. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is often dependent on the circumstances.

Furthermore, genetics isn't that simple. A gene might simply not be expressed, until it becomes beneficial to do so again and then it's expressed again. A gene can be "active" or "inactive". Just because a gene stops being expressed in a population doesn't mean it's "destroyed" from the gene pool.

Just like the blind pale fish in the dark caves. They didn't have any disadvantage losing color or sight, because it was unnecessary there, probably even beneficial (because it conserves energy), but they'll never be able to evolve eyes from the defect genes, because the mutation to get working eyes would be too complex.

And you know this how? Given enough time, they could well evolve eyes the same way other species evolved eyes. I see no reason why they couldn't.

Also they don't have any "defect genes". There's no such thing. They have exactly the genes they need to survive in their environment.

Look at it this way. If i give you a random chapter of a book, and than scramble the letters and words, the chapter will become unreadable, given i scramble it enough. (If i just scramble a few letters you may still be able to read it, except for maybe a few sentences). However, if you randomly scramble several letters of the alphabet, you'll never come up with a book. I don't care how many times you try, you just won't.

Actually, yes I will, given enough tries. Anyway that's totally irrelevant because evolution is not random.

Lego bricks are not atoms.

no they are even more complex.

Actually, they're less complex. Lego bricks are comprised of many different atoms in complex configurations, therefore lego bricks are more complex than atoms.

and they work by rules defined by a creator. just like lego bricks were designed too.

So... lego bricks were designed, therefore god?

[zimmah]

so put on a lab coat and everything you say about any subject s true, have no lab coat, and all your arguments are false.

makes perfect sense.
alkso, the spelling errors are becaus e have no labcoat

[zimmah]

i fail to see how degeneration proves degeneration false.

What degeneration? Did you even read the article?

Clearly, the bacteria has evolved to better adapt to its environment. That's not degeneration.

for example, polar bears losing pigment in their hairs, so they turn white may be beneficial for them, but it's still a loss of genes.

No it's not. Loss of pigment doesn't mean loss of genes. Loss of genes CAUSES the loss of pigment.

As long as no new genes from original-colored polar bears do not come from outside source (mating with original population), they will never get their original color back.

Sure they can. They can undergo a mutation which transforms the gene sequence which is responsible of the lack of pigment into a gene sequence which gives them pigment. However, if the mutation doesn't help them adapt better, it's not likely to become common in the population. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not is often dependent on the circumstances.

Furthermore, genetics isn't that simple. A gene might simply not be expressed, until it becomes beneficial to do so again and then it's expressed again. A gene can be "active" or "inactive". Just because a gene stops being expressed in a population doesn't mean it's "destroyed" from the gene pool.

Just like the blind pale fish in the dark caves. They didn't have any disadvantage losing color or sight, because it was unnecessary there, probably even beneficial (because it conserves energy), but they'll never be able to evolve eyes from the defect genes, because the mutation to get working eyes would be too complex.

And you know this how? Given enough time, they could well evolve eyes the same way other species evolved eyes. I see no reason why they couldn't.

Also they don't have any "defect genes". There's no such thing. They have exactly the genes they need to survive in their environment.

Look at it this way. If i give you a random chapter of a book, and than scramble the letters and words, the chapter will become unreadable, given i scramble it enough. (If i just scramble a few letters you may still be able to read it, except for maybe a few sentences). However, if you randomly scramble several letters of the alphabet, you'll never come up with a book. I don't care how many times you try, you just won't.

Actually, yes I will, given enough tries. Anyway that's totally irrelevant because evolution is not random.

Lego bricks are not atoms.

no they are even more complex.

Actually, they're less complex. Lego bricks are comprised of many different atoms in complex configurations, therefore lego bricks are more complex than atoms.

and they work by rules defined by a creator. just like lego bricks were designed too.

So... lego bricks were designed, therefore god?

degeneration is not defined by how well you do in a specific environment, but by the nature of the mutation. If the loss of sight in a cave or otherwise dark environment helps you preserve energy, than it could be seen as a beneficial mutation, but the mutation is still a loss of genes, thus degeneration.

Also, your article clearly states the mutations are at least partly the effect of defects in the genes. how is that not degeneration? even if it's beneficial to them, it's STILL degeneration. they are not producing eyes, limps or new organs, they are just destroying genes that do not matter in their environment (due to random mutations), and as a result eventually some sideeffects may occur. this does in no way prove evolution, that's just a fallacy, a word you often like to use.

[Frigidus]

so put on a lab coat and everything you say about any subject s true, have no lab coat, and all your arguments are false.

makes perfect sense.
alkso, the spelling errors are becaus e have no labcoat

Not necessarily, but people in lab coats are much less likely to talk out of their ass. Take, for instance, this "gene destruction" thing. It comes off as completely butt pulled to anyone that's taken a basic college biology class.

[thenobodies80]

there was nothing, nothing at all. and you say this whole complex universe, complex beyond our imagination just randomly evolved into existence, and yet everything is so stable that there is no chance involved.

Nothing? Actually no one can say there was nothing. This because humans can't understand things without the presence of time.

degeneration is not defined by how well you do in a specific environment, but by the nature of the mutation. If the loss of sight in a cave or otherwise dark environment helps you preserve energy, than it could be seen as a beneficial mutation, but the mutation is still a loss of genes, thus degeneration.

This is just mutation not degeneration. I can accept the contrary in the moment you can prove to me that that fish has no genes for eyes and that it can't have them anymore. The fact it doesn't show it on its body doesn't mean it has lost a gene or that it can't have them again in future.
There's no degeneration, this because nature and life tend to improve, all time. It's just matter of cause and effect.

[BigBallinStalin]

so put on a lab coat and everything you say about any subject s true, have no lab coat, and all your arguments are false.

makes perfect sense.
alkso, the spelling errors are becaus e have no labcoat

You just made a great example of a straw man fallacy. Legitimacy on scientific topics does not originate from one's clothing but from one's knowledge on the subject.


So, brushing away your straw man fallacy, we're still on the topic of your appeal to authority. After 2-3 posts, you have brought nothing in support of Peter Scheele's legitimacy on the subject matter.

Although I agree with you that the content of his message matters, the establishment of one's legitimate authority on a subject is still an acceptable pursuit. Since you have refused to do that, and since your supposed portrayal of his arguments are faring poorly against natty dread, then....

(1) Why not post a 300-word summary of Peter Scheele on topic A for others to deal with?

(2) Why not quote Peter Scheele on specific topics as support?

(3) Or have you even read and understood that book?

If you refuse to answer these questions, then we can reasonably assume that your arguments are relying on two logical fallacies--unless of course you can answer the questions and/or successfully defend that Peter Scheele is a legitimate authority on the subject matter of evolution. OR maybe we can conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you used Peter Scheele as an illusion of support to your position.


(I think you can secretly admit to yourself that your straw man fallacy was nonsense. If not, please explain how your portrayal of my view is actually my view. Hint: it isn't; therefore, you used a straw man fallacy).

[natty dread]

Loss of genes CAUSES the loss of pigment.

Can you show me your source to the genetic mechanism of the lack of pigment in the hair of the polar bear? I'm genuinely interested.

degeneration is not defined by how well you do in a specific environment, but by the nature of the mutation. If the loss of sight in a cave or otherwise dark environment helps you preserve energy, than it could be seen as a beneficial mutation, but the mutation is still a loss of genes, thus degeneration.

What "loss of genes" are you talking about? Do you think just because an organism evolves to not have eyes it suddenly has "less genes" or something? You have some really weird ideas about genetics.

If a mutation is beneficial, it's beneficial. Your definition of "degeneration" is entirely meaningless.

Also, your article clearly states the mutations are at least partly the effect of defects in the genes. how is that not degeneration? even if it's beneficial to them, it's STILL degeneration. they are not producing eyes, limps or new organs, they are just destroying genes that do not matter in their environment (due to random mutations), and as a result eventually some sideeffects may occur. this does in no way prove evolution, that's just a fallacy, a word you often like to use.

I suppose you're talking about this small part?

Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.

Way to cherry pick... this has nothing to do with "destroying genes". It's only a mechanism to increase the rate of mutation.

You blatantly ignore (or perhaps simply fail to understand) the continuation of that sentence:

Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

This means that only the beneficial and neutral mutations become "fixed" in the population, because the ones with non-beneficial mutations die off without reproducing. The beneficial mutations in this case were able to produce an entirely new ability for the bacteria, one which it didn't have before - an ability to metabolize citrate and use it for nutrition. Sorry but that's evolution, plain and simple.

[crispybits]

I think a quote from that great atheist... ermm I mean creationist St Augustine applies quite nicely here:

It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.

The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?

There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’

One of the founding fathers of Christian thought, a very very devout man (he's a saint after all - don't get to be one of them by being unreligious), a Bishop of the early church, and one of the most influential people in the development of Western Christianity. Probably someone to be listened to....

[thenobodies80]

degeneration is not defined by how well you do in a specific environment, but by the nature of the mutation. If the loss of sight in a cave or otherwise dark environment helps you preserve energy, than it could be seen as a beneficial mutation, but the mutation is still a loss of genes, thus degeneration.

What "loss of genes" are you talking about? Do you think just because an organism evolves to not have eyes it suddenly has "less genes" or something? You have some really weird ideas about genetics.

If a mutation is beneficial, it's beneficial. Your definition of "degeneration" is entirely meaningless.

Exactly. The problem is that zimmah didn't made a distinction between genotype and phenotype. In fact a gene is just a "sort of code" that tells how to react to a precise condition.
So your gene plus the enviroment in which you live push you to have a particular phenotype. A well know example is the Hortensia and their flowers, which have different colors for each different soil acidity level. If you pick two different branches of the same plant (so same genotype) and you put them in two different terrains, you can have two different phenotype. So on a long time period the plants on both terrains have no reason to lose a gene, but just to show a different phenotype.
Another good example could be the Ivy, it's very common that the same plant show different phenotype due the position of leaves. Where the plant is in the shade, the leaves have 5 "small petals", but where the same plant is under the sun all day the leaves have a heart shape, again same genotype but different phenotype.

So, coming back to the fish example, it's possible that the fish has the gene for eyes, but considering it lives in a cave the enviroment has pushed it to not show the phenotype (or better to show a different one). But this doesn't mean that the genotype is lost. Put that fish under the sun for some million of years without any predator ready to kill it and it's possible (not sure) that the eyes will appear.

Unfortunately, the evolution is a process that gives visible effects on long period of time and for humans it's hard to have a full knowledge on the matter since we're just a recent result of the same process and a too small part in the history of the universe of which we know de facto few, or almost nothing.
But, again the facto, observation, exploration, and experimentation, for now, demostrate that things works in this way, at least for the period of time we can know about.

[zimmah]

oh but i wasn't talking about phenotype and genotype, that's just normal reproduction.

i was talking about point mutations, which are the cause of defective genes, which are the cause of malfunctioning DNA, which is the cause of degeneration, which is mistakenly considered evolution.

Off course i know that different colored plants can produce other colored plants if you crossbreed them, or even let them reproduce the natural way, but that's not mutation, that's just the result of dominant and recessive genes and basic stuff. But for example if a plant suddenly loses a piece of the DNA that is supposed to have the blueprints to produce the cells needed for photosynthesis, the plant would not be able to make food, so it'd die. That's a mutation that can happen when a gene is mutated and gets defective. It still has the same number of genes, but some of them have become gibberish. Also less severe mutations can happen, such as the loss of pigment, or the loss (or reduced function) of organs. For example, colorblindness in humans. It's fine to be colorblind, so the defective gene can spread. But unless you produce offspring with someone who has the un-mutated genes, the chances of returning to the original gene, are very unlikely, depending on how much of the gene was lost. (1 or 2 point mutations can be repaired by chance, but after a 3th point mutation you can forget about it, it will never work again unless the original DNA is still present in some other carrier).

[thenobodies80]

Off course i know that different colored plants can produce other colored plants if you crossbreed them, or even let them reproduce the natural way, but that's not mutation, that's just the result of dominant and recessive genes and basic stuff.

I wasn't saying about different plants but just different branches of the same plant. I used that example because it gives to you the idea of how evolution works in a small period of time. It's not matter of different colors, but more why they have the different colors (or shape)

But for example if a plant suddenly loses a piece of the DNA that is supposed to have the blueprints to produce the cells needed for photosynthesis, the plant would not be able to make food, so it'd die. That's a mutation that can happen when a gene is mutated and gets defective. It still has the same number of genes, but some of them have become gibberish. Also less severe mutations can happen, such as the loss of pigment, or the loss (or reduced function) of organs.

This is exactly evolution, just you picked the part of it that has as outcome a failure modification. If the mutation is a failure the specie will die (extintion), exactly what evolution theory says: Only those who are able to change and adapt themselves to the enviroment around them will survive. So it's always evolution, but there's no more step after that because the modification was a "bad decision".

For example, colorblindness in humans. It's fine to be colorblind, so the defective gene can spread. But unless you produce offspring with someone who has the un-mutated genes, the chances of returning to the original gene, are very unlikely, depending on how much of the gene was lost. (1 or 2 point mutations can be repaired by chance, but after a 3th point mutation you can forget about it, it will never work again unless the original DNA is still present in some other carrier).

Colorblind people represents just the 5% of men and 1% of women, a minority. It would be nice to find some data about the percentages of people affected in past to see if there's an increment or not. But if we think why there're colorblind people today, we will find another proof of the fact evolution is right, infact there are some studies that let us think that this defect is a defect now, in the enviroment in which we live today, but it couldn't be the same in past, when the men had to hunt animals to survive: http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... WAEw9Nss-g

Said that, we need to consider that colorblindness is a mutation of the X gene so it's hard to think it will disappear in future, but if the study is right....there's a valid reason behind it; let me say that if men wasn't a social animal (so able to share food) and a very intelligent creature (better and bigger brain to create other ways to provide food - that's exactly another evolution), probably today we would be all colorblind!

Certainly DNA can mutate in a wrong way, no one is perfect and everyone is subject to death.....but when it happens the people with the defective gene will slowly disappear (on a long period of time) in a natural enviroment.

[BigBallinStalin]

I got a question for the evolutionary people in here:

Certainly DNA can mutate in a wrong way, no one is perfect and everyone is subject to death.....but when it happens the people with the defective gene will slowly disappear (on a long period of time) in a natural enviroment.

What does evolutionary theory (or that body of literature) say on compensating differentials?


For the sake of an example, a group of humans may be colorblind, but they adapt in other ways to their environment, such as have higher birth rates, maybe having an incentive to "try harder" since they're naturally disadvantaged or have something to prove about themselves, etc.

Now the above isn't necessarily true; it's just an illustrative example. In other words, a "defect" in one's genes may actually be the source of the development of several advantages--which are not derived from one's genes, but are learned and developed.


By "compensating differential," I'm talking about the additional wage rate received relative to the negative aspects of a job. It's used to explain why garbage men are paid $35,000 a year for unskilled labor. In the evolutionary sense, as a colorblind person, one's life faces more negative aspects compared to the "normal" person--as in, the colorblind is exposed to more negative aspects than the non-colorblind person), so the colorblind person has to develop ways in order to "increase his wage/the value of his productivity."

I know the compensating differential concept is not analogous, or perfectly applicable, to evolutionary theory. I was just wondering how evolutionists describe it, and if there's a set science of predicting such events. ???

[Army of GOD]

I think a quote from that great atheist... ermm I mean creationist St Augustine applies quite nicely here:

It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.

The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?

There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’

One of the founding fathers of Christian thought, a very very devout man (he's a saint after all - don't get to be one of them by being unreligious), a Bishop of the early church, and one of the most influential people in the development of Western Christianity. Probably someone to be listened to....

From what I remember, St. Augustine was a pretty sinful piece of shit before he eventually saw the religious light and become a hardcore Christian, but don't quote me on that.

[BigBallinStalin]

He served in a war, didn't he? Didn't a cannonball smash into his leg, so he had to hobble around for the rest of his life?

[crispybits]

Yep he was a hedonist earlier in his life and only converted to christianity at the age of about 32. So he must have been something pretty special in terms of christian theology and philosophy to still get canonised and ordained as a bishop after living in sin for the first half of his life

And wikipedia said nothing about a war, he was a teacher who kinda floated around Italy for a while before "seeing the light"