Evolution or not?

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is not simply random, due to environmental factors. The mutations are not necessary, they happen. Nothing is necessary, unless other changes necessitate it.

Random mutations are random - that's what I've actually written as the record proves - now do you disagree?

They are necessary else we don't get novelty which is necessary.

I never once said environmental factors were not necessary did I?

If certain mutations lead to success and the environment remains relatively the same, mutations which don't fit the environment will fail. You completely ignore the environment part of evolution. It is not simple about random mutations. That is the point I was making. Random mutations alone do not explain evolution.

What mutations? you just f*****g said they were not necessary now you argument is based on them?

I did not "ignore" environment, you ignored mutations, I corrected someone, you jumped in and mouthed off and I corrected you.

Actually random mutations are also deemed necessary, DNA alone is not what evolution is based on.

No, it is also based on environmental factors. No mutations are necessary, they just happen. And the ones that give the best chance of surviving in the given environment have the best chance of being passed on in greater numbers in a particular life form or species.

Look at this Sir:

Scitable.

Is it possible to have "too many" mutations? What about "too few"? While mutations are necessary for evolution, they can damage existing adaptations as well.

Understadning evolution.

Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur. In this tutorial, we'll explore.

Discover.

Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution

See? I can always back up what I say, you never, ever, ever do, you just blurt out made up stuff, deny the undeniable.

I know rather more about Darwin, evolution, genetics, cell biology and so on that you and most atheists here, because (I already told you) I used to be an atheists and a vocal one - so get out of my face.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is complete bunk. You have zero valid evidence of your claims. Molecular biology and biochemistry support evolution.

Once again a jumbled up rambling post, be clear man.

Are you denying there are molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems, some of these do not believe evolution happens at all? yes or no? are you claiming this is a false statement?

Just be clear, say so please, if you think it is false say so so I can prove you wrong and we can all move on FFS.

 

[watsup]

Once again a jumbled up rambling post, be clear man.

Are you denying there are molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems, some of these do not believe evolution happens at all? yes or no? are you claiming this is a false statement?

Just be clear, say so please, if you think it is false say so so I can prove you wrong and we can all move on FFS.

Prove it. Show the scientists that you claim not to support evolution. What is the alternative?

 

[Somerville]

Once again a jumbled up rambling post, be clear man.

Are you denying there are molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems, some of these do not believe evolution happens at all? yes or no? are you claiming this is a false statement?

Just be clear, say so please, if you think it is false say so so I can prove you wrong and we can all move on FFS.

Prove it. Show the scientists that you claim not to support evolution. What is the alternative?

OK, boys - calm down. Both of you are being absolutists and obviously have little understanding of how science works and progresses.

Yes, there are "molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems", when and if you understand that a true scientist questioning 'established' science has found something in their research which causes them to question some singular aspect of the commonly understood explanations for a process. This does not always mean they are questioning the basic foundational theory which provides an explanation. Biologists and biochemists, at least the vast majority of them, accept the Theory of Evolution, the basic explanation of how we and every other species got here. These nerds work every day, trying to determine exactly how it works. Much of the argument about evolution by ordinary people is actually about abiogenesis and not evolution of species from that period when 'life' originated on this planet.

There are 'scientists' who question the Theory of Evolution because they personally view it as an attack on their religious beliefs - NOT ONE of these 'scientists' has provided, thru research, alternative explanations based on actual scientific research. Then there is the fact that some of deniers are actual scientists, just not in the field of biology.

 

[grip]

Yes, it does.

Produce it. Go right ahead. Produce the water walker, and let me examine it (and not the fakes where someone is actually walking on a board just underneath the water. You can claim to have evidence all you want, but , you have not shown me. And, hidden stone under the water is not walking on water,. It's walking on stones that are covered by water.

We both know magic doesn't exist but until Jesus explains how he walked on water, it remains a miracle. Most likely, the average human mind couldn't even comprehend it.

So, until you can tell me how the illusionist below performed these tricks, without guessing, they're called magic.

 

[RAMOSS]

We both know magic doesn't exist but until Jesus explains how he walked on water, it remains a miracle. Most likely, the average human mind couldn't even comprehend it.

So, until you can tell me how the illusionist below performed these tricks, without guessing, they're called magic.

I see no evidence that Jesus ever walked on water, or claimed to have walked on water himself. I see claims from books written decades after his alleged execution.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I see no evidence that Jesus ever walked on water, or claimed to have walked on water himself. I see claims from books written decades after his alleged execution.

Yes, ancient history's like that.

 

[zyzygy]

Why would anyone believe that Jesus walked on water?

 

[watsup]

OK, boys - calm down. Both of you are being absolutists and obviously have little understanding of how science works and progresses.

Yes, there are "molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems", when and if you understand that a true scientist questioning 'established' science has found something in their research which causes them to question some singular aspect of the commonly understood explanations for a process. This does not always mean they are questioning the basic foundational theory which provides an explanation. Biologists and biochemists, at least the vast majority of them, accept the Theory of Evolution, the basic explanation of how we and every other species got here. These nerds work every day, trying to determine exactly how it works. Much of the argument about evolution by ordinary people is actually about abiogenesis and not evolution of species from that period when 'life' originated on this planet.

There are 'scientists' who question the Theory of Evolution because they personally view it as an attack on their religious beliefs - NOT ONE of these 'scientists' has provided, thru research, alternative explanations based on actual scientific research. Then there is the fact that some of deniers are actual scientists, just not in the field of biology.

Agreed.

 

[watsup]

Yes, ancient history's like that.

Ummm...the Bible is not history. Where Jesus is concerned, it is mostly myth.

 

[grip]

I see no evidence that Jesus ever walked on water, or claimed to have walked on water himself. I see claims from books written decades after his alleged execution.

Show me evidence of how the universe evolved, and not a bunch of written theories. You can't, therefore illusion and a false claim?

 

[Somerville]

Ummm...the Bible is not history. Where Jesus is concerned, it is mostly myth.

Up to the time of the Babylonian captivity, there is very little, if any, history in the Bible.

 

[watsup]

Show me evidence of how the universe evolved, and not a bunch of written theories. You can't, therefore illusion and a false claim?

Yes, science has theories and continues to investigate them. That in no way makes it an illusion or false claim. Nor is it in any way the same as the stories of clear myth about Jesus and his “miracles”. No one can walk on water. An investigation of science can clearly show that.

 

[Somerville]

Yes, science has theories and continues to investigate them. That in no way makes it an illusion or false claim. Nor is it in any way the same as the stories of clear myth about Jesus and his “miracles”. No one can walk on water. An investigation of science can clearly show that.

THE single most important aspect of 'science' and good scientists is a willingness to say, "We don't know the answer YET, that is why we conduct research."

Religious believers KNOW the answer and KNOW there is no reason to carry out any research.

 

[RAMOSS]

Show me evidence of how the universe evolved, and not a bunch of written theories. You can't, therefore illusion and a false claim?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-the-universe/

This, your statement is shown to be false. You can deny it all you want, but the evidence is there. Facts win again.

 

[watsup]

THE single most important aspect of 'science' and good scientists is a willingness to say, "We don't know the answer YET, that is why we conduct research."

Religious believers KNOW the answer and KNOW there is no reason to carry out any research.

Agreed. The ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of “believers” versus the falsifiability of science.

 

[grip]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-the-universe/

This, your statement is shown to be false. You can deny it all you want, but the evidence is there. Facts win again.

Again, I've proven you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[distraff]

Show me evidence of how the universe evolved, and not a bunch of written theories. You can't, therefore illusion and a false claim?

Below is a great resource for understanding the big bang and the expansion of the universe over billions of years. Scientists have also seen stars and planets forming right in front of their eyes.
Evidence for the Big Bang
Astronomers Observe the Birth of a Massive Star in the Milky Way
Scientists Have Observed a Planet Forming For The First Time Ever

 

[grip]

Below is a great resource for understanding the big bang and the expansion of the universe over billions of years. Scientists have also seen stars and planets forming right in front of their eyes.
Evidence for the Big Bang
Astronomers Observe the Birth of a Massive Star in the Milky Way
Scientists Have Observed a Planet Forming For The First Time Ever

RAMOSS isn't asking for other opinions. He wants direct, physical evidence.

 

[iguanaman]

RAMOSS isn't asking for other opinions. He wants direct, physical evidence.

They are not opinions, science does not engage in that. Opinions are for the religious and they are like a-holes everybody has them.
You may not know this but science can "directly" see the past by looking far into the universe.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-technology/hubble.html

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They are not opinions, science does not engage in that. Opinions are for the religious and they are like a-holes everybody has them.[/URL]

This is your opinion.

 

[iguanaman]

This is your opinion.

That is the dogma of science, opinion has no place in science.

Science Is Not Just a Matter of Opinion | Psychology Today

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is the dogma of science, opinion has no place in science.

Science Is Not Just a Matter of Opinion | Psychology Today

How do you know that?

 

[iguanaman]

How do you know that?

How do you know the sky is blue?

The past 400 years have witnessed incredible advances in our scientific knowledge; our mathematics; our ability to sense and measure things both large and small; and our collection of vast arrays of empirical data on every conceivable topic. We may be tiny ants on a small pebble, but we are clever creatures and have managed to discover many of the fundamental secrets of the universe.

But, our brain wiring remains adapted to the world of 50,000 years ago. Evidence based, data driven, scientifically informed decision-making is a new and fragile approach to life's problems. Many people are far more comfortable accepting authoritative traditional narratives, however false.

And we humans passionately hold on to our beliefs even when confronted with compelling scientific evidence that we are dead wrong. Trying to dislodge false beliefs with scientific facts rarely results in grateful enlightenment. More often the belief becomes even more firmly entrenched, taking on a tenacious authority of tenure. Once a group has accepted a received ‘truth’ for some time, arguing to the contrary from the facts is dismissed as rebellious, sacrilegious, and threatening.

Science Is Not Just a Matter of Opinion | Psychology Today

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How do you know the sky is blue?

It isn't blue, I perceive blue, it looks blue to those sensitive to visible light frequencies.