• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:926]The central evolution problem

Re: The central evolution problem

I am waiting for his theory about what drives evolution. We have had no answers yet.

We DO NOT KNOW what drives evolution. We do know that cells can modify their DNA. For example, it is known that cells can correct DNA copying errors. And that cells can increase their mutation rate in response to environmental stress. And we know that epigenetic changes can result from environmental pressure.

A LOT MORE needs to be discovered! No one can give you the simple answers you seem to crave.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

I think he's trying to say that micro-evolution exists through natural selection; but macro-evolution does not.


ie: a species can change physically but cannot evolve into two or more species.

So different species of finches evolved independently.

No I didn't say that. Different species of finches obviously branched out from a common ancestor. But we DO NOT KNOW what caused the variations that were then selected from.

Neo-Darwinism says the variations are ALWAYS caused by errors. And that natural selection is the organizing force of the origin of new more complex species.

Also keep in mind that the different finch species were still at the same level of complexity.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

That is the hypothesis. There is no evidence that it explains the origin of new more complex species.

the new species appearing over time in the fossil records seems to do the trick

not that evolution would alway increase complexity
 
Re: The central evolution problem

We DO NOT KNOW what drives evolution. We do know that cells can modify their DNA. For example, it is known that cells can correct DNA copying errors. And that cells can increase their mutation rate in response to environmental stress. And we know that epigenetic changes can result from environmental pressure.

A LOT MORE needs to be discovered! No one can give you the simple answers you seem to crave.

dna can be miss copied those mutation either don't affect reproduction help it or make it less likely that's the driver
 
Re: The central evolution problem

No I didn't say that. Different species of finches obviously branched out from a common ancestor. But we DO NOT KNOW what caused the variations that were then selected from.

Neo-Darwinism says the variations are ALWAYS caused by errors. And that natural selection is the organizing force of the origin of new more complex species.

Also keep in mind that the different finch species were still at the same level of complexity.


Alright, so Macro-evolution exists then ?


One species can and does evolve into two or more species ?


You're just arguing about "how" this happens not the "if".


The "if" how has been explained - natural selection and random mutation.


If you have a different hypothesis, go ahead and publish it.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Are you not listening?

Natural selection and random mutation.

That is the hypothesis I am arguing against. There is NO evidence that natural selection and random mutation and NOTHING else can explain the origin of new more complex species.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Alright, so Macro-evolution exists then ?


One species can and does evolve into two or more species ?


You're just arguing about "how" this happens not the "if".


The "if" how has been explained - natural selection and random mutation.


If you have a different hypothesis, go ahead and publish it.

No it has NOT been explained. Neo-Darwinism is just a hypothesis.

No one has a different hypothesis yet. We can still say that the currently popular hypothesis is NOT a scientifically established explanation.

We can believe in evolution without accepting an implausible hypothesis about its cause that is without evidence.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

That is the hypothesis I am arguing against. There is NO evidence that natural selection and random mutation and NOTHING else can explain the origin of new more complex species.

what else do you need?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

No it has NOT been explained. Neo-Darwinism is just a hypothesis.

No one has a different hypothesis yet. We can still say that the currently popular hypothesis is NOT a scientifically established explanation.

We can believe in evolution without accepting an implausible hypothesis about its cause that is without evidence.

so intelligent design is out then
 
Re: The central evolution problem

That is the hypothesis I am arguing against. There is NO evidence that natural selection and random mutation and NOTHING else can explain the origin of new more complex species.


Sorry, are you asking for evidence of a negative ?
Evidence that there is no factor in evolution other than natural selection or random mutation ?


Do you understand what you're asking for ?


But if it makes you happier, evidence shows that evolution is caused by natural selection and random mutation, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.


By all means, go and suggest some additional factors that might be involved.

You might be right. But you'd have to supply evidence to back this up.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Sorry, are you asking for evidence of a negative ?
Evidence that there is no factor in evolution other than natural selection or random mutation ?


Do you understand what you're asking for ?


But if it makes you happier, evidence shows that evolution is caused by natural selection and random mutation, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.


By all means, go and suggest some additional factors that might be involved.

You might be right. But you'd have to supply evidence to back this up.

I have already mentioned evidence that cells can modify their DNA. New research is increasingly showing that neo-Darwinism is not the explanation it was assumed to be.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

so intelligent design is out then

Intelligent design is merely a mathematical approach showing that neo-Darwinism must be wrong. It does NOT provide any alternative explanation.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

"Darwin's theory has not been verified scientifically. Actually, there is no evidence for it. And it is wildly improbable."

Odd statement. Factually false.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Intelligent design is merely a mathematical approach showing that neo-Darwinism must be wrong. It does NOT provide any alternative explanation.

don't think it manages to show that much

and the alternative explanation with it is someone who did not need to be built by any one designed life

its not a very good explanation true
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Intelligent design is merely a mathematical approach showing that neo-Darwinism must be wrong. It does NOT provide any alternative explanation.

In what manner is id a mathematical approach. Id is in fact just adding an unnecessary and unsupported complication. You claim no evidence with evolution while also having no evidence of id.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

There is a strong ideological motivation behind faith in neo-Darwinism. If the variations that lead to the origin of new more complex species are entirely accidental, that means the process does not involve anything mysterious. If complex living systems can occur by accident, then science should be able to understand them. And science should be able to modify and improve them.

Current understanding of biological systems is very limited. But if neo-Darwinism is true, nothing should prevent eventual complete understanding.

But if neo-Darwinism does not actually explain the origin of new more complex species, then maybe biological science will have trouble figuring out the explanation. And maybe life will remain ultimately mysterious.

Materialists always refer to the great advances of modern science and technology. Their claim is that so much has been discovered and explained, we can be sure that everything will eventually be discovered and explained.

That is only an opinion, a statement of faith.

We should remove opinion and faith from this debate and focus only on what is known and what is not known.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

There is a strong ideological motivation behind faith in neo-Darwinism. If the variations that lead to the origin of new more complex species are entirely accidental, that means the process does not involve anything mysterious. If complex living systems can occur by accident, then science should be able to understand them. And science should be able to modify and improve them.

Current understanding of biological systems is very limited. But if neo-Darwinism is true, nothing should prevent eventual complete understanding.

But if neo-Darwinism does not actually explain the origin of new more complex species, then maybe biological science will have trouble figuring out the explanation. And maybe life will remain ultimately mysterious.

Materialists always refer to the great advances of modern science and technology. Their claim is that so much has been discovered and explained, we can be sure that everything will eventually be discovered and explained.

That is only an opinion, a statement of faith.

We should remove opinion and faith from this debate and focus only on what is known and what is not known.
My understanding is that neo-Darwinism is just a contemporary understanding of evolution. It has evolved from a hypothesis into a theory and the body of evidence has expanded over time. No faith involved.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

My understanding is that neo-Darwinism is just a contemporary understanding of evolution. It has evolved from a hypothesis into a theory and the body of evidence has expanded over time. No faith involved.

You didn't read my original post or any of my comments. You are stating the misunderstanding that I have carefully explained.

This is NOT a post against evolution theory.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

You didn't read my original post or any of my comments. You are stating the misunderstanding that I have carefully explained.

This is NOT a post against evolution theory.
I read them but I guess your careful explanation does not make sense to me. I cannot detect a coherent argument.
No worries I’m sure someone will come along who can see things differently than myself.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Darwin's theory has not been verified scientifically. Actually, there is no evidence for it.

Actually there is a lot of evidence for Darwin's theory. E.g. look at the fossil evidence for human evolution, or the ordering in the fossil record, or the matching retrovirus DNA in humans and apes. See these links for a lot more examples.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is a fact. How could it not be? It says that individuals who are capable of surviving are more likely to survive. In other words, it says nothing. But it is a nothing that had not been said before.

Natural selection does explain certain things. But does it explain evolution? Lots of people say it does. But how do they know? They don't know, they just think they know.

Natural selection is the idea that certain features coded by genes are better for survival in than others and that depends a lot on the environment. For example, heavy fur is better for survival in cold environments than light fur. A long neck is better for reaching fruit in trees than a short one. It actually does say a lot.

What was new and different about Darwin's theory was that it said evolution could have happened entirely by chance

If evolution operated by mutations alone, it would be pure chance. Natural selection selects good mutations and this process is definitely not chance but directional.

The trickery is in pretending that evidence for evolution is evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

There is plenty of evidence for common descent and its more than just the evidence for the process of evolution. Look at the links I provided.

But ID has been called creationism and banned from science education.

Only 2% of scientists are creationist/ID and no major scientific organization supports creationism/ID. There is no major scientific research completed using or supporting creationism/ID. Why should politicians teach "science" that scientists outright reject because there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. In order for something to be taught in a science class, it needs to be scientifically verified and gain some kind of support among actual scientists. Else, we can maybe teach it in a religious studies or philosophy class.
 
Last edited:
Re: The central evolution problem

Atheism and materialism have been around for a long time, at least since ancient Greece. There was always tension between science and the authority of the Catholic church, and religion in general. Atheism was sometimes a kind of defiance, a rebellion against dogmatic authoritarianism.

In the 19th century, Darwin's idea about the cause of evolution seemed to support atheism. Evolution was not a new idea, but Darwin's theory was new. He speculated that random variations occur, and the most successful of these variations are the most likely to survive and reproduce. Well how could that not be true? And does it actually explain evolution?

But somehow it seemed to be a breakthrough in scientific understanding.

In the 20th century DNA was discovered, and it seemed to validate Darwin's theory of how evolution may have happened.

Remember that evolution theory was around long before Darwin. What was new and different about Darwin's theory was that it said evolution could have happened entirely by chance, without any direction from any kind of supernatural forces or beings or gods.

The 20th century science of genetics supposedly verified Darwin's theory, and it made atheism seem plausible and scientific.

Then we had Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism.

And here we are now, with an increasing number of New Atheists, materialists, rationalists, naturalists, etc. In other words, denial of the supernatural, of spirit.

Ok, is there anything wrong with all that? Well yes, there is. Darwin's theory has not been verified scientifically. Actually, there is no evidence for it. And it is wildly improbable.

So why do so many educated people believe it? Misunderstandings, trickery, politics.

The scientific evidence is for evolution. Evolution is not debatable, because we have enough evidence for it. But how and why evolution happened is as much as mystery as ever.

Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is a fact. How could it not be? It says that individuals who are capable of surviving are more likely to survive. In other words, it says nothing. But it is a nothing that had not been said before.

Natural selection does explain certain things. But does it explain evolution? Lots of people say it does. But how do they know? They don't know, they just think they know.

The trickery is in pretending that evidence for evolution is evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design theory says that evolution could not happen by chance. But ID has been called creationism and banned from science education.

One of the most important questions of our time -- Could life have evolved by chance? -- can't be asked or answered because it's all tangled up in misunderstandings and confusion.

You have no clue about this.

This is a video talk from TED. It shows how simple drops of oil act in a manner that is clearly compettitive and involves them reproducing themselves, eating, growing splitting, interbreeding and doing all the things you would take as life.

The guy say that they don't qualify as life as they are not complex enough. For me they pass the life test.

https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life?language=en

Selection and evolution (same thing) predate life. It starts before life happens.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

There is a strong ideological motivation behind faith in neo-Darwinism. If the variations that lead to the origin of new more complex species are entirely accidental, that means the process does not involve anything mysterious. If complex living systems can occur by accident, then science should be able to understand them. And science should be able to modify and improve them.

Current understanding of biological systems is very limited. But if neo-Darwinism is true, nothing should prevent eventual complete understanding.

But if neo-Darwinism does not actually explain the origin of new more complex species, then maybe biological science will have trouble figuring out the explanation. And maybe life will remain ultimately mysterious.

Materialists always refer to the great advances of modern science and technology. Their claim is that so much has been discovered and explained, we can be sure that everything will eventually be discovered and explained.

That is only an opinion, a statement of faith.

We should remove opinion and faith from this debate and focus only on what is known and what is not known.

It would be good if you knew smething about the subject before you spouted on about it.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

No it has NOT been explained. Neo-Darwinism is just a hypothesis.

No one has a different hypothesis yet. We can still say that the currently popular hypothesis is NOT a scientifically established explanation.

We can believe in evolution without accepting an implausible hypothesis about its cause that is without evidence.
What is your hypothesis?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

You didn't read my original post or any of my comments. You are stating the misunderstanding that I have carefully explained.

This is NOT a post against evolution theory.

So what is it? You are all over the place.
 
Back
Top Bottom