What prevents evolution?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty hard to establish when all we have to work with is evidence.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite so.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no end to the creativity of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too funny.

Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

Or is your sciencey faith supposed to be the default?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do I keep thinking that this exchange is going to show up on the Colbert report?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no end to the creativity of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too funny.

Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

Or is your sciencey faith supposed to be the default?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont mean establish. You want to be careful to only use the word prove, because then you allow wiggle room at the end. Plenty of things are established and still wrong. Evolution is DEFINITELY established.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no end to the creativity of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too funny.

Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

Or is your sciencey faith supposed to be the default?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont mean establish. You want to be careful to only use the word prove, because then you allow wiggle room at the end. Plenty of things are established and still wrong. Evolution is DEFINITELY established.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, "established" as in the dogma of the establishment.

You're right. My bad.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no end to the creativity of theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too funny.

Perhaps we should establish that "evolution" happened at all before feeling the need to reconcile it with intuition or inspiration.

Or is your sciencey faith supposed to be the default?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont mean establish. You want to be careful to only use the word prove, because then you allow wiggle room at the end. Plenty of things are established and still wrong. Evolution is DEFINITELY established.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, "established" as in the dogma of the establishment.

You're right. My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I really just meant you require it to be proved to you to some arbitrarily high standard and we obviously aren't going to do that. So its pointless. If you want it established, you are in luck...it is entirely established.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]


It is inexplicably presumptuous and foolish to believe that the above in any way necesitates 'evolution' as most on this forum understand it.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is inevitable


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. And another such as "and these are sufficiently likely and sufficiently numerous to produce humans from dust in a 3 billion year timespan."

Only reason and common sense support that statement, not hard proof.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
So because you're prickly about anti-religious sentiments, you'll deny a scientific theory you know to be true? That's pathetic.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]


It is inexplicably presumptuous and foolish to believe that the above in any way necesitates 'evolution' as most on this forum understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that you would agree that (if true), it does necessitate evolution to some point..but to the the point of evolution "as most on this forum understand it." What point are you speaking of..up to the point of "kinds" perhaps [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]..seriously though, I'm curious.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Evolution is inevitable




I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.


I agree. And another such as "and these are sufficiently likely and sufficiently numerous to produce humans from dust in a 3 billion year timespan."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Borodog's post is about the inevitability of evolution, not the inevitability of man arising from bacteria. There is no such need for advantageous mutations for evolution to occur. Lets start with a hypothetical.
1. God creates a world with just one island, a sea of water and turtles. 1000 turtles are hatched at the beggining of year 1, 500 are identical clones of each other as are the other 500. The only difference between the groups is that when they crawl back onto the island to depsoit their eggs after maturing the exposure to the sun will produce a brown spot on the back of group A, but not group B. Here you have a difference in phenotype that confers no reproductive advantage or disadvantage, but allows us to distinguish the groups. All 1000 turtles go off and swim and mature but 500 return. The returning tutles deposit 2 eggs which hatch into 1000 new turtles and swim away repeating the cycle. God introduces brownian motion into the ocean which decides the which turtles make it back to deposit eggs and which don't. At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations. It doesn't matter that the phenotype had no impact on the reproductive success of the turtles for that phenotype to become dominant. Thisis evolution on a very very slow scale, but the point is that given Borodog's conditions evolution WILL occur unless there is a mechanism preventing it. So God could not create the animals as they are and have them remain that way for eternity without actively preventing evolution in some way.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
At some point inthe future either population A or poulation B will constitute 100% of the population. This is genetic drift due to randomness in the environment, as long as there is a differnece in reproductive success there will be change, it requires a mechanism to stop what would otherwise become a mathenmatical certainty given enough permeations.

[/ QUOTE ]

One mechanism that stops this completely hypothetical process from occurring in the real world is the increasing infertility among the members of the genetically drifting population that accompanies their individual divergence from the original stock.