0
   

In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

 
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 10:38 am
The essence of evolution is natural selection. The scientists studying the origin of life got the essence and used the word evolution correctly and creatively.

Word flunkies would cry foul. Because they are used to rote, unable to get the essence.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 11:37 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

The essence of evolution is natural selection. The scientists studying the origin of life got the essence and used the word evolution correctly and creatively.


Essence? That's ridiculous. You are turning "science" into a religion.

Science is about testable facts and objective data. There is no part of science that has anything to do with "getting the essence". You might want to read about what "scientific method" means. You are throwing around these wild unsupported claims and then googling articles and picking the ones you think support your superstitious beliefs about science. This isn't science.

This thread is still nonsensical.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 11:41 am
@oristarA,
As far as I know Oristar, there are two of us on this thread who have actually done science professionally. Both of us are telling you that what you are posting is nonsense.

That should tell you something.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 11:46 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
The essence of evolution is natural selection. The scientists studying the origin of life got the essence and used the word evolution correctly and creatively.
However, it seems that the "Father" of natural selection, never used the word evolution once in his first edition of his most famous work(he used the term evolve once as a verb), It took someone later to even coin the term , and weve been arguing about his use of the term for over 100 years
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 08:47 pm
@maxdancona,
Not to even mention that the majority of evolutionary theorists today deny that "natural selection" plays a significant role in "evolution" to begin with, eh?

Hardly the "essence" of evolution, although it may well be a essential axiom of the outdated "neo-darwinistic" dogma.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:11 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

Yeah, Hawking is truly a genius in science. Led by your heart, you'll find the truth.


If it weren't for the fact that he is probably the longest survivor of ALS, we wouldn't even know his name...He's a run of the mill physist. Nothing special.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:22 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Not to even mention that the majority of evolutionary theorists today deny that "natural selection" plays a significant role in "evolution" to begin with, eh?


One of us doesn't know what the heck you are talking about. Do you want to provide a link?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:32 pm
I've done it before. Here's one (of many available):

Moran, quoting PZ Myers:

Quote:
First thing you have to know: the revolution is over. Neutral and nearly neutral theory won. The neutral theory states that most of the variation found in evolutionary lineages is a product of random genetic drift.


Moran himself:

Quote:
What Neutral Theory tells us is that a huge number of mutations are neutral and there are far more neutral mutations fixed by random genetic drift that there are beneficial mutations fixed by natural selection. The conclusion is inescapable. Random genetic drift is, by far, the dominant mechanism of evolution...

The revolution is over and strict Darwinism lost. We now know that random genetic drift is an important mechanism of evolution and there's more to evolution than natural selection. Unfortunately, this blatantly obvious fact is not understood by the vast majority of people and teachers. There are even many scientists who don't understand evolution.


http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theory.html
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:46 pm
@layman,
This is outside of my field of expertise (I suspect it is outside of yours as well). I certainly don't see any support for your claim that "the majority of evolutionary theorists today deny that 'natural selection' plays a significant role in 'evolution'".

I looked for reputable scientific sources on this and found this Nature.com article.

Quote:
It must be stressed that the neutral theory of molecular evolution is not an anti-Darwinian theory. Both the selectionist and neutral theories recognize that natural selection is responsible for the adaptation of organisms to their environment. Both also recognize that most new mutations in functionally important regions are deleterious and that purifying selection quickly removes these deleterious mutations from populations. Thus, these mutations do not contribute—or contribute very little—to sequence divergence between species and to polymorphisms within species. Rather, the dispute between selectionists and neutralists relates only to the relative proportion of neutral and advantageous mutations that contribute to sequence divergence and polymorphism.


http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839

I also fail to see why you think this is relevant to this discussion. This seems to be a inside debate between evolutionary scientists (who all accept Darwinian evolution) about a specific mechanism of the divergence of species.

Maybe you can start by explaining why you think this is important to this thread?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:54 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Both the selectionist and neutral theories recognize that natural selection is responsible for the adaptation of organisms to their environment[/b]. Both also recognize that most new mutations in functionally important regions are deleterious and that purifying selection quickly removes these deleterious mutations from populations. Thus, these mutations do not contribute—or contribute very little—to sequence divergence between species and to polymorphisms within species.

I also fail to see why you think this is relevant to this discussion. This seems to be a inside debate between evolutionary scientists (who all accept Darwinian evolution) about a specific mechanism of the divergence of species.

Maybe you can start by explaining why you think this is important to this thread?


Perhaps "significant" is a subjective term. Moran says "The conclusion is inescapable. Random genetic drift is, by far, the dominant mechanism of evolution...

Nobody denies that so-called "natural selection" plays a "culling role" that serves to eliminate unviable mutations. But "evolution" is not about how or why species merely "exist." It is concerned with what causes CHANGE in existing species. I don't see anything you quoted which challenges what I quoted Myers and Moran as asserting.

As far as relevance goes, I was merely responding to Ori's claim (as you were) that "natural selection" creates life--a preposterous claim, in my view.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 10:06 pm
By the way, I would also dispute this claim (which you quoted):

"Both the selectionist and neutral theories recognize that natural selection is responsible for the adaptation of organisms to their environment."

Natural selection is not "responsible for" adaptation. Natural selection does not create anything. It can only act upon (select from) that which is pre-existing.

The real issue in evolution (and "adaptation") is what causes genetic variation, so that new forms are created (which may or may not be viable).

If some new form of genetic variation "survives," it is NOT because of natural selection. It is because it has innate, pre-existing, survivabilty, which precedes "selection."
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 10:12 pm
@farmerman,
What is vital is idea, not wording. Darwin got the idea and Richard Dawkins did a good job to expound it. His Climbing Mount Improbable very well explains natural selection as the essential means of evolution.

It is conceivable that Darwin may have actually realized that the process by which life arises from non-living matter is also very likely part of the evolution.

In the closing of Origin of Species, Darwin said "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." By the Creator! Is it really said by him? Darwin is exactly the creator-mythbuster of countless forms of life. Why would he have to conceive a creator for "one or a few forms" of life? It does not hold water. As intelligent as he was, it is impossible for him to not think of the question - "then where does the Creator come from"? The Creator himself must have most likely evolved in some why.

In fact, there is no "Creator" in the first edition of Origin of Species: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Fortunately, scientists have now offered the evidence that Evolution Created Life From Lifeless ‘Primordial Soup.' More evidence will surely follow.


farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The essence of evolution is natural selection. The scientists studying the origin of life got the essence and used the word evolution correctly and creatively.
However, it seems that the "Father" of natural selection, never used the word evolution once in his first edition of his most famous work(he used the term evolve once as a verb), It took someone later to even coin the term , and weve been arguing about his use of the term for over 100 years
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 10:36 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
Fortunately, scientists have now offered the evidence that Evolution Created Life From Lifeless ‘Primordial Soup.' More evidence will surely follow.


No they haven't offered the evidence that Evolution Create Life (I Don't Know Why You uSe Such Strange Capitalization).

There is also no certainly in science. It is foolish to say "more evidence will surely follow". Anyone who as actually done science knows that quite often... it doesn't.

You are trying to turn science into a religion. Science doesn't work as a religion.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 10:37 pm
@giujohn,

Hawking is well respected by scientific community. The ignorant say he's mediocre.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2017 06:49 am
@oristarA,
Quote:

What is vital is idea, not wording. Darwin got the idea and Richard Dawkins did a good job to expound it. His Climbing Mount Improbable very well explains natural selection as the essential means of evolution.
What was DArwin's "idea" called by Darwin?(Hint" he had his term titling ach of his notebooks) You seem to be arguing using a mass of circular reasoning.

It seems that you wish to argue and denigrate individuals who dont agree with you. Why not do a deeper dive into the sciences and gather up what the bulk of scientists have to say about the concepts of abiogenesis (Creation of life on earth) and evolution (The changes and dispersion of living forms on earth) .

Actually Darwin added the word "creator" in his second edition to calm several detractors and to assuage his wife. (I assume youve read <Morris Peckham's Variorum text of "The Origin..." Ive been quoting Peckham over the past 10 years here(including the very closing line youve just posted and boldened) You seem to be the first one whose caught up on it, Im pleased.

However, theres really no valid connection you can draw from Darwin to support your "added responsibility" imposed upon the word "evolution"

Ill stick with the majority of fellow scientists who use the word limited to life on arth and not the origin of same.

giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2017 08:34 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:


Hawking is well respected by scientific community. The ignorant say he's mediocre.


That's your opinion...But then it sounds like you're in love.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:14 am
@giujohn,
Me alone? Media used to say something like "Physicist Stephen Hawking is one of the more widely respected voices in the scientific community," "Stephen Hawking, the Physics icon."

Even BIOLOGOS, founded by Director of NIH Francis Colins, which supports God-guided evolution, has to admit that "What's worse is that he (Hawking) is still a well-respected and beloved figure, not just by scientists but by everybody."

If one thinks such public media are not worth paying attention, one may turn to taking a look at the most prestigious journal in scientific community: nature:"Most physicists (or mediocre physicists - the words in the parentheses are added by me) foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice." (I think I quoted this in the past).

The facts emphasize again the take"Hawking is well respected by scientific community."

You are out, or out of your mind.

giujohn wrote:

oristarA wrote:


Hawking is well respected by scientific community. The ignorant say he's mediocre.


That's your opinion...But then it sounds like you're in love.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2017 10:33 am
@farmerman,

Darwin's Theory!

Is this more circular? Yes! But every scientists or educated people know what it is. It works well! Regardless of being circular or not!

farmerman wrote:

What was DArwin's "idea" called by Darwin?(Hint" he had his term titling ach of his notebooks) You seem to be arguing using a mass of circular reasoning.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 09:41 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

oristarA wrote:

Yeah, Hawking is truly a genius in science. Led by your heart, you'll find the truth.


If it weren't for the fact that he is probably the longest survivor of ALS, we wouldn't even know his name...He's a run of the mill physist. Nothing special.


Who's we?

As successor of Newton's academic post in one of the most prestigious universities in the world(see:Lucasian Professor of Mathematics) for 30 years(1979-2009), is it possible that Hawking's name would be unknown to the world? Could you find a lie more lame than this?

There is no so-called "we" in your claim. You're all alone murmuring your shabby theory.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 10:23 pm
@giujohn,
Hawking and Penrose deserve q Nobel Prize. They, and Hawking alone, hqve linked the mathemqtics and conceptual models of thermo-cosmology-quantum physics-as applied to the cosmos.

Denigrating him does no service to us. He must be recogniaed for wht hes accomplished in cosmology. Much of it is still hypotheses but hes worked out much of the conceptul models tht underpin q more mathematical discussion of " a black hole's effect on the surrounding neighborhoods".

Hawking does, however, stretch his fields of endeavor to include things that hes not very well versed on.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2017 at 03:51:09