Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@farmerman,

Quote:

PS, I read "Darwin Devolves" and I stick with my comment apparently you only read the Discovery Institutes versions eh?

I haven’t finished reading my copy, but his reasoning parallels my own.

You may or may not remember our previous discussions on the subject of evolution. I explained to you that we do not know how much information was front loaded on the earliest life form. Since we only know the function of the 2% of DNA (the introns), the rest is mostly a mystery right now. At least We know that it isn’t junk anymore but just beginning to unravel the other 98%.

Is it possible the there is coding there that directs evolution in response to environment? Of course it is possible, but we don’t know.

But that only makes design more likely for that first biological Life form, not less.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

you assume that RNa was even there t the beginning. Im not convinced what with ll the chemical fossils andBob Hazens book on the evvolution of mineral salts

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Is it possible the there is coding there that directs evolution in response to environment? Of course it is possible, but we don’t know

So apparently what you dont know is exactly what I dont know, but I feel that the environment and other evolutionary control arent "directed along the way". I truly see way more evidence supporting a non ID world.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

we are also giving Lamarck a new day of consideration all from epigenetic research.

To me, an ID trck that includes epigentic "heritance of acquired characteristics" to be more an argument angains Free will rather than a newer revelation in genetics

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I feel that the environment and other evolutionary control arent "directed along the way". I truly see way more evidence supporting a non ID world.

So you think that LUCA was able to foretell the environment of the future and incorporate information for all the necessary mechanisms ahead of time.

Interesting theory. So much for 'evolution is blind'.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

you assume that RNa was even there t the beginning. Im not convinced what with ll the chemical fossils andBob Hazens book on the evvolution of mineral salts

I have asserted no such thing. Where do you get these things?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

well, for one, youve been beating only on Creation,(not evolution) and youve been talking up DNA?RNA.

PS, Its kind of interesting, that DARWIN DEVOLVED was published by Harper One, the religion and spiritual sub-corportion of Harper Collins.
HMMMM?.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

LUCA isnt a fortunetelling division of nat selection. Its a classification based upon EVIDENCE in the field.

BTW, if your reading Darwin Devolved , seems that Dr Mike conflicts with himself.

Hesaid something like
"Since humans and great apes are in the same family we probably arose without a designers intervention".
So, it appears that His analyses go farther back than Species, He seems to want us to buy that FAMILY similarities and up are NON Designer intervened, bcausw his ntire theses are based on a commitment that macro-evolutionary mutations are beyond mere nat selection and mutation (HMMMM)

BUUT

then he says

"There are excellent reasons to suspect that those differences between great apes and humans are BEYOND DARWINIAN PROCESSES"

Thats the kind of double talk **** Ive grown accustomed to hearing from the entire Discovery Institute posse. So it looks like Behe, a committed (pre- Pope John 23) type Catholic still believes in the old Catholic Doctrine of "Special Creation". I was raised on that but Br Dr G Francis my first bio teacher said that "Special Creation"
always sounded a bit too "divine" for his acceptance as a scientist and a Jesuit .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

BTW, if your reading Darwin Devolved , seems that Dr Mike conflicts with himself.

Hesaid something like
"Since humans and great apes are in the same family we probably arose without a designers intervention".
So, it appears that His analyses go farther back than Species, He seems to want us to buy that FAMILY similarities and up are NON Designer intervened, bcausw his ntire theses are based on a commitment that macro-evolutionary mutations are beyond mere nat selection and mutation (HMMMM)

BUUT

then he says

"There are excellent reasons to suspect that those differences between great apes and humans are BEYOND DARWINIAN PROCESSES"

Thats the kind of double talk **** Ive grown accustomed to hearing from the entire Discovery Institute posse.

You are going to have to give chapter and paragraph on your 'Darwin Devolves' quotes because I can’t find ANYTHING resembling your first one and lots to support the second. Here is the actual quote:

“Humans are placed in the family Hominidae with the great apes, but there are excellent reasons to suspect those differences are well beyond Darwinian processes.”

— Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution by Michael J. Behe
https://a.co/18bmnIr

If you read the preceding paragraph, the point he is making is that our classifications are just that : 'Ours'. That did not come down from above on stone tablets. Just as with Darwin's finches, HE called them different species, but that ain’t necessarily so.

Behe is not conceding that humans and great apes actually ARE in the same family, that is 'your side's' claim. The Science changes but reality does not.

Including the preceding sentence, the quote reads:

“Darwin’s finches are thought to be descended from tanagers, which had been placed in a separate family a few decades ago. 20 Now both groups have been placed in the family Thraupidae. Humans are placed in the family Hominidae with the great apes, but there are excellent reasons to suspect those differences are well beyond Darwinian processes.”

— Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution by Michael J. Behe
https://a.co/g4ao373

I think you are doing what you accuse me of, seeing what you want or expect to see, not what is actually there.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

actually Behe has asserted the "without designer intervention" based on his attempts at redefining macro evolution.
You guys gotta unglue yourself from the stealth "Special Creation" stuff

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

the biological fact that hominidae is the family of all great apes need not require Behes "concession". Darwin's "Finches" was a fact that after the bird specimens were correctly identified by Gould , were a key to his development of natural selection. Are you saying that nat selection was active in the evolution of the genera in the Hominidae FAMILY?

Ok Ill buy, but we need to evidence that .Oh wait , the Grants (at Princeton) had shown strong evidence for Galapagos finch speciation in human generational time

Quote:

that is 'your side's' claim

Thats true, Your side concludes that the genera within the Hominidae Family are of "different KINDS" (Biblically speaking). W hav enough genomic work of the entire clade to show the developmental relationship among the genera within the great apes. You really ought get some books not so steeped in one spiritually base side of a discussion. Ive red all of Behes books and have entered some comments to literature. A look at evolution from several POVs and sciences is better than concluding something and then sorting out anything that does not agree with you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Also, as Ive said before, theres only one or two sects of Evangelical ,Funamental Christianity that even accept "Special Creation" Wven the sect that "creted " the term, has separate itself because, in the Vatican Observatory's own terms "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming". The concept of special creation as doctrine was thereby disavowed by Dr Behe's own religion.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

actually Behe has asserted the "without designer intervention" based on his attempts at redefining macro evolution.
You guys gotta unglue yourself from the stealth "Special Creation" stuff

It is apparent that you are willing to misquote and misrepresent Behe and myself while ignoring every answer given to you.

I’m bored with that.

1 Reply

And who is the farmer sycophant who follows us around giving opposite thumbs..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

sure aint me, the only thumbs I ever gave was to an artist who used to post here and one time to gunga for jamming one of our self proclaimed brainiacs. I usually just ignore for a while. I must have some that Im ignoring in this thread but I dont recall anyone

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Behe's still doin his Irreproducible complexity dance even though several Canadian Grad students in paleo and genomics (as well as some more famous scientists) have shown that the need generates the "wave" and these enzyme floods have grown from simplest of life forms (including plants) and they seem to follow similar paths for plants , animals, and even Archea.

how me evidence of nucleotides or preaminos (even the 4 pyrimidines and purines that form our 20 amino acids). If you cant the you shouldd maintain an open mind and try to fit a scenario of "Designed" life that is nutrient and energy based. Stuff like ADP and ADT is more than 25% OXYGEN (a if youre unaware, Oxygen came into the story only afer we ended the heavy bombardment peiod when water became slightly available and was able to be dissociated.

HAzen stated that in the erly erth there were but 35 minerals because most minerals today have "Evolved" as a result of the 2n law of thermo.. Iron nickel hit thearth as did silicon in carbonaceous chondrites. The reactivity of all these simple minerals resulted in the mess of salts, hydroxyls etc (BUT most ALL needed lots a OXygen (we only seem to look at Carbon)
SO, did the first life on earth merely subsist as a polymeric blob of methyl based or sulfur based energy for a half billion years ?

mitochondria werent available till we had eukaryotes and that was maybe half a BILLION yers after the ISUA, FLinder an Cnadian Shield mudflats and themral springs (Early early water)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

So you’re still bang'n the old 'that complexity stuff was debunked long ago' drum.

Boring beat.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

when something i a fact, its hard to impprove on it.
Ive noted that the CRI under "Dr" Hmm hs annponced the finding of Noah;s Ark and by that, hs presented the fact-free discussion of trying to debunk real science.
Youll never see it in peer journals .

read abit about the multiple gene sequence that is in association with the corporus Collosum of two subspecies of commo chiickqdee. The boreal forest version has a more complex memory patterning in their CC. Apprently associated with the finding of buried nuts and buds within the Canadian boreal forests heavy snofields.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Congratulations, You are the absolute king of non sequitur.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

and you are the prince of "I need to believe spoon fed bullshiit to make my life complete"

0 Replies

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know