Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[pogi]

16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

As to convergence.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I take the time to articulate my argument and someone responds with a link or an hour long video.  In case you didn't notice, I actually copy and paste the relevant parts from my links so you don't have to read hours worth of documents to find what I am talking about.  I only put a link for context and verification. 

What exactly do you want me to understand from your wikipedia (serious?) link?  Your link primarily explains convergent evolution as it has historically been understood, without addressing the new and surprising discoveries of convergent genotypes.  It only addresses convergent phenotypes. 

Here is the extent of data you link has on genetic convergence:

Quote

Nucleic acids

As more sequence data are becoming available, there is growing interest in convergent changes at the level of DNA and amino acids. In 2013 the first genome-wide study of convergence was published. Comparisons of the genomes of echolocating bats and the dolphin identified numerous convergent amino acid substitutions in genes implicated in hearing and vision.

In case you didn't notice, I already beat you to the punch.  I have a link to the article about the bats and dolphins. Remember that article where they said this new evidence destroys the genetic family trees as we know them.  What new do you have to offer the conversation.  

Comically, your link also references Richard Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker to explain convergent evolution, but it makes no attempt to explain genetic convergent evolution in light of Richard Dawkins explanation of Dolly's Law in the book.  According to Dolly's Law, convergent genetic evolution should be impossible. 

Are you even reading my posts and links, because if you were, it should be obvious that your link doesn't address my concerns at all? 

Edited March 26, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

That bats, birds, insects, and some fish have developed the ability to fly. That such coincidences have been common throughout the 3.5 billion years history of evolution.

[bcuzbcuz]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

 

  In light of the magnitude of recent discoveries of genetic convergence, either Dolly's Law is wrong, or the theory of evolution is wrong.  I will place my bets on Dolly's Law being right.  It is a "Law" after all, while evolution is just a non-falsifiable "theory".

 

 

 

I really don't see your "either/or". Nor do I see references to Dolly's Law trumping evolution anywhere else other than your posts. 

The requirements for a scientific or mathematical law are strigent. A mere reference from a book by Dawkins does not qualify. Where can one read about the specifics of Dolly's law?

The requirements for a scientific or mathematical theory are equally strigent. To enclose the idea that evolution is "just" a theory displays a lack of understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I really don't see your "either/or". Nor do I see references to Dolly's Law trumping evolution anywhere else other than your posts. 

The requirements for a scientific or mathematical law are strigent. A mere reference from a book by Dawkins does not qualify. Where can one read about the specifics of Dolly's law?

The requirements for a scientific or mathematical theory are equally strigent. To enclose the idea that evolution is "just" a theory displays a lack of understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory.

I have no idea as to what "Dolly's Law" is.

[JAHS]

I am a scientist myself and have studied evolution in all its forms. But of course it is not something that is observable in the laboratory, but only from the hints we find in the ground. In my opinion it can only be identified as the scientific best guess as to how all creatures came to be according to the available evidence. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am a scientist myself and have studied evolution in all its forms. But of course it is not something that is observable in the laboratory, but only from the hints we find in the ground. In my opinion it can only be identified as the scientific best guess as to how all creatures came to be according to the available evidence. 

Such has been said about gravity.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Such has been said about gravity.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

But even though we may not understand exactly why gravity(or whatever it is) exists, it is still an observable phenomenon that can be studied and tested in space and in the lab so we can advance our understanding on it. Not so for evolution unless we hop into Doc's Delorean and go back in time and watch it happen. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by JAHS

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But even though we may not understand exactly why gravity(or whatever it is) exists, it is still an observable phenomenon that can be studied and tested in space and in the lab so we can advance our understanding on it. Not so for evolution unless we hop into Doc's Delorean and go back in time and watch it happen. 

No need for a Delorean.

SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

SEE

 

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No need for a Delorean.

SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

 

The movie pretty much only talks about geology, most of which I agree with, although they are still making some guesses and assumptions about the causes. In the link about bacteria, mutations may have caused them to take on some minor new traits, but they are still just bacteria. They are not a different kind of animal. That is something we cannot observe in the lab or in nature; we can only make guesses and assumptions based on fossils we find in the ground. Maybe God did use some form of evolution until the animals got to the forms they were at the time of the Garden of Eden; I don't know. But I do still recognized His involvement as the creator of all things in the universe. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The movie pretty much only talks about geology, most of which I agree with, although they are still making some guesses and assumptions about the causes. In the link about bacteria, mutations may have caused them to take on some minor new traits, but they are still just bacteria. They are not a different kind of animal. That is something we cannot observe in the lab or in nature; we can only make guesses and assumptions based on fossils we find in the ground. Maybe God did use some form of evolution until the animals got to the forms they were at the time of the Garden of Eden; I don't know. But I do still recognized His involvement as the creator of all things in the universe. 

There is no biological definition for the word kind.

SEE

I don't have a problem with God using Evolution to Create us and our world/universe.

There has been lots of evolution since the Garden of Eden.

SEE

 

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no biological definition for the word kind.

Perhaps it's better to use the word genus or family. Nevertheless my scientific background tells me that if I cannot test things and observe them happening, we can't be 100% certain that what we assume happened really did happen. It's our best guess. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have no idea as to what "Dolly's Law" is.

It would help if you actually read my posts.  Dolly’s Law is really just a statement about the statistical improbability of following exactly the same evolutionary trajectory twice.

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I really don't see your "either/or".

Dolly's Law says, "it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice.  And it is similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same endpoint from different starting points".  However, new genetic discoveries show that the exact same evolutionary pathways have been travelled, not twice, but thousands of times in two unrelated species.  Dolly's Law makes statistical sense - it is "elementary", but the reality of genetic convergence transgresses all statistical probabilities, which creates a problem for a theory based on "random" mutation and natural selection.  

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps it's better to use the word genus or family. Nevertheless my scientific background tells me that if I cannot test things and observe them happening, we can't be 100% certain that what we assume happened really did happen. It's our best guess. 

That is just the ever shifting definition of kind.

We observe it in nature and have demonstrated it in the lab. While science is always tentative( We'll never be 100% certain of the explanations of anything) the evidence to date is that evolution did happen and is happening right now. Science is not a guessing game. It is the search for well-substantiated explanations through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation for an observation.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Edited March 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That is but one interpretation of evolution. Can God "selectively breed" man to be in His image like He planned, much like we do with various foods we wish to make more palatable? 

I have no problem with the idea of intelligent design, but that is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. 

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/evolution-creationism-and.html#.VvbjJ8fjIxI

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

It would help if you actually read my posts.  Dolly’s Law is really just a statement about the statistical improbability of following exactly the same evolutionary trajectory twice.

Dolly's Law says, "it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice.  And it is similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same endpoint from different starting points".  However, new genetic discoveries show that the exact same evolutionary pathways have been travelled, not twice, but thousands of times in two unrelated species.  Dolly's Law makes statistical sense - it is "elementary", but the reality of genetic convergence transgresses all statistical probabilities, which creates a problem for a theory based on "random" mutation and natural selection.  

Evolution isn't about impossibly high numbers.

SEE

 

[pogi]

Enough with the videos!  I have seen that video a million times from you, and yes I have watched it.  Your video simply doesn't address or account for the new discovery of GENETIC CONVERGENCE anywhere.  Yes, genetic convergence is about impossibly high numbers.  READ MY POSTS, and cross check my links.  The "chances" are said to be "vanishingly small", other scientists have said the chances are "nil".  It is your precious scientists making this about impossibly high numbers, NOT ME. 

This is about impossibly high numbers because the mutations are supposed to be "random", but now they are suggesting that the genes and mutations may actually have a "bias" or "predisposition" for a "given novel function".  Somehow THAT part didn't make it into your video - because it doesn't fit the theory. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by pogi

[bcuzbcuz]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Enough with the videos!  I have seen that video a million times from you, and yes I have watched it.  Your video simply doesn't address or account for the new discovery of GENETIC CONVERGENCE anywhere.  Yes, genetic convergence is about impossibly high numbers.  READ MY POSTS, and cross check my links.  The "chances" are said to be "vanishingly small", other scientists have said the chances are "nil".  It is your precious scientists making this about impossibly high numbers, NOT ME. 

This is about impossibly high numbers because the mutations are supposed to be "random", but now they are suggesting that the genes and mutations may actually have a "bias" or "predisposition" for a "given novel function".  Somehow THAT part didn't make it into your video - because it doesn't fit the theory. 

I've read all your posts. That bats and dolphins have similar echolocation systems is marvelous but not proof of anything. The articles you reference to are sometimes only accessible as summaries or synopsis. The reporters who have collected statements from the actual scientists have repeatedly tried to go for the WoW factor. Whether or not the few worded summaries actually reflect provable  evidence will require a good deal more research. Statements like 200 genes or even thousands of genes does not reveal whether the studies reflect 200 "series of genes" or singular genes. I will withold judgment until there is further, supplemental information or studies. In other words, it's too soon to tell. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I've read all your posts. That bats and dolphins have similar echolocation systems is marvelous but not proof of anything.  

Thank you for reading everything so that we can have an intelligent conversation. 

We have always known that bats and dolphins have "similar" echolocation systems.  That is nothing new.  The bewildering discovery is that they are based on the exact same genes which evolved independently.  To say "that is not proof of anything", is not giving credence to the discovery/s.  It is proof that the once considered impossible convergent trajectory of two different genes is now a known fact.  We are not just talking about bats and dolphins either, there are hundreds of new discoveries of convergent genetic evolution now.  The bats and dolphins were just the first to publish in 2013. 

Further, the discoveries are proof that genetic evolutionary trees cannot be trusted. 

I do have full scientific papers linked in my posts.  The quotes from the summaries and synopsis are referenced in the full scientific papers.  That is how I found them, I got the quotes from the full paper. 

Fact - Thousands of convergent genes have been discovered in two unrelated species. Convergent genetic evolution is real.

Fact - The genetic family tree is screwed up now.

Fact - This should be impossible according to evolutionary thought (random mutation) and statistical probabilities, but it is found to be prominent in nature.

Fact - Scientists are now talking about studying genes as being "biased" or "predisposed", having "preferential" paths to a "given novel function." Fact- That is a deviation from the theory of evolution as we know it.

Yes, the reporters are going for wow factor, but the quotes from the scientists are direct quotes.  "we currently have no way to deal with this."

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Statements like 200 genes or even thousands of genes does not reveal whether the studies reflect 200 "series of genes" or singular genes. 

I am assuming they are talking about singular genes.  But that doesn't make it probable.  As Dawkins stated, before the discovery of genetic convergence: 

Quote

even in the case of the biomorphs with their nine little genes, the mathematical space of all possible trajectories is so vast that the chance of two trajectories ever arriving at the same point becomes vanishingly small.

If the convergence of 9 genes is vanishingly small, what is the probability of the convergence of thousands?  Boggles the mind!

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by pogi

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I have no problem with the idea of intelligent design, but that is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. 

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/evolution-creationism-and.html#.VvbjJ8fjIxI

I believe you have a skewed view of the theory of evolution. It does not address God, so does not deny He may have some part in the creative process. It merely seeks to explain each and every chain in the creative process from a biological standpoint. Traditionally, intelligent design has sought to show some processes could not be created purely from a biological process, but are rather the sole product of an intelligent designer - something I do not promote nor believe. What I am saying is that I believe God involves Himself in the process of selection either directly through natural events or more indirectly so that, although it may appear to be completely driven by "natural selection" has a certain amount of "divine selection" guiding the development process. Indeed, you will probably find that all modern man is descended from a single male tens of thousands of years ago - so too with all women - literally a biological Eve. This is probably due to genetic mutations which gave a slight advantage in a series of severe natural events. Does God have power over such natural events?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Does God have power over such natural events?

Of course He does:
 "And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles."  (Morm 9: 15)

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Of course He does:
 "And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles."  (Morm 9: 15)

Anytime you must posit a God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

[thesometimesaint]

Pogi:

Evolution is not chance.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anytime you must posit a God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

Do you have a problem with God making man in His image? Assuming God made man according to the laws of nature, does this mean God does not use the scientific method? Or did not form this solar system according to various laws of nature? Or perhaps did not design those laws Himself?

He was responding to me, and I have not said that my system requires the intervention of God to "make it work." 

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you have a problem with God making man in His image? Assuming God made man according to the laws of nature, does this mean God does not use the scientific method? Or did not form this solar system according to various laws of nature? Or perhaps did not design those laws Himself?

He was responding to me, and I have not said that my system requires the intervention of God to "make it work." 

None what so ever. But to claim God did it is a end of discovery of how he did it.

SEE

 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anytime you must posit a God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

God is the head scientist. He knows exactly how it all works. God and science have to be connected in some way. I didn't give up my religion or belief in God when I became a scientist. In fact it helped give me a stronger belief in God.