ZouPrime

Nor does it even try to.
We are 100% sure that natural selection produce change in the genetic code, and we are 100% sure that change in the genetic code (can) produce changes in the living beings phenotype. From all the things we know about evolution, these are among the ones we have the most evidences of (because biologists routinely reproduce them in laboratories).
Please provides evidences of "the fall of evolutionary theory".
The evidences of the fossil record follows our understanding of evolution theory. If you don't believe so, provides evidences.
The irreducible complexity problem (if there's a problem) has nothing to do with evolution, but with abiogenesis.
Finaly, your last point cannot make any sense until you provides a good way to differentiate micro and macro changes on the molecular level (good luck).
We are 100% sure that it is not the case or, more precisely, we are 100% sure that we don't need to postulate "information contained in the organism from the beginning" in order to explain micro-evolution.
Bad changes result in death of the organism, who thus can't reproduce, who thus can't pass its genes to its children. "Bad" gene won't spread into the gene pool.
Until you provide us with the specific difference between micro and macro changes on the molecular level, it's hard to even know why your concerns are relevant.
Most mutations are not beneficial, but the point is precisely that non-beneficial mutations don't spread in the gene pool. That's the whole idea behind natural selection.
I don't know why Gould came out with PE, but it is largely irrelevant, since PE has been observed in simulation. So we know that for any population of imperfectly self-replicating entities, PE *has* to happen.

Mikie

I run into this type of thinking A LOT with religious folks. The only difference here is that your religion is naturalism, and your book of faith is the science textbook.

Let's see if I can make you see what I'm saying by using your statement, but substituting certain terms, and then you tell me if you make sense. Here we go:

Looks like we have a basic misunderstanding of terms here.

I'm sure you've at least glanced briefly at [the Bible] right?

If not, you should probably take a look at [Genesis Chapter 1]"

Basically (in case you can't be bothered to look it up yourself), it is a well established FACT that [creation] has occurred.

The [SCRIPTURE] attempts to explain how [creation] has happened, and is well supported by considerable evidence.

Do you see what you've done? Because you believe so strongly in your faith, (naturalism) you completely refuse to address any other idea or thought. You don't address what I've said, and try to refute it using your reasoning skills, you simply refer me to the talkorigins site, as if it's the holy grail of your belief system. I'm not suggesting that you believe in God, but you seem to be afraid that if my suggestion is correct, then the door for a creator God is opend up again. What you can't tolerate is that possibility, so you shy away from looking at it. I find the same thing with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists and so on, when challenging them on their religious perspective.

What I'm trying to do is get you to tell my why my suggestion, that adaptation can be acomplished without natural selection, is not at least something to look at. But you can't do that. Right? Ask yourself why you have trouble with this. Admit to yourself that it might be because you believe evolution to be true - no matter what, so there's no room for discussion. If you can get this far, you'll have made progress for science, because, afterall, that's what science is all about!

faust

MIkie, what about the pictures of the daisy and the hawaiian flower? What about my question on the chimp chromosome fusion?
What about Duck's questions?
Well, I *have* read the bible, genesis, AiG, ICR, Behe, Dembski, Hovind, along with Darwin, Kimura, Gould, etc.
You have never directly said if *you* have read talk origins. Have you?

Peez

LOL! Do you recall these statements:As has been explained, Darwin makes no such admission. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link.":Next:As has been explained, DNA is found in chromosomes. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:Next:As has been explained, humans have far more than 16,569 base pairs. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:Next:As has been explained, the nautilus is not a fish. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:Next:As has been explained, you gave only two of six definitions, and in fact the wrong ones. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:Next:As has been explained, this is false in virtually every particular. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the links:Next:As has been explained, atheism is not a religion, and is not adherence to some alleged "naturalistic dogma." "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:Next:As has been explained, evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, and a scientific theory is not an unsupported speculation. "You need to do your homework" and "read your textbook" and "check the link:There are other examples, of course, but you get the idea (I hope). Rather than directing others to do their homework, read their text book, and check the link, perhaps you should head this advice yourself.

Peez

Mageth

Gould's own words, from here (emphasis mine):

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...es/lie009.html

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Or here:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
From S.J. Gould, "Evolution as fact and theory", in Science And Creationism, Ed.: A. Montagu, 1984.

Doesn't sound like Gould had much problem with the "macro problem."

Peez

See what you did here? You took a discussion about definitions of terms, and tried to turn it into a discussion about what is true and what is not. When you stated:you made it clear that you do not understand the terms "theory" and "fact" in science. When cjack tried to correct your misunderstanding, you tried to compare it with a creationist claiming that some specific hypothesis is a fact. Humourously, you goes on:Note again the implication that one must be a philosophical naturalist to accept evolution. This is false.

Peez

ZouPrime

Mikie, the reason we are not looking at your suggestion is because we don't need it to explain our observation. It is superflous, because we already know (in the sense of being 100% sure) that natural selection and other mechanisms produce variation in the gene pool.

Here's another convulated methaphor (a love them). Imagine that we both play pool. I explain to you how the effect of one moving pool ball on another, how their movement can be calculated and predicted with good accuracy. I can show you the relevant thermodynamic equation that you can apply yourself to see how it works.

Now, you could tell me "yes, sure, that's all fine, but I believe that the movement of the second ball is, in fact, already "programmed" before it is even hit by the first one". You don't have any evidence for this, but somehow, because we don't know everything about thermodynamic physics, it is still possible. Sure I said, but does it means that I should take your hypothesis seriously? After all, I can already explain the balls movement with the science I know and use everyday. Why should we postulate some kind of new mechanism when well known and well understood mechanisms already explains the facts? What would be the use of that?

...Ahhh.... why do I even bother?

chapka

I'm talking about variation within a species, not differences between species. I assumed your contribution to the cave fish discussion meant that you at least agreed that even in a population of a single species, there would be some genetic variability.

If so, that's something we all agree upon. The difference would be that in your model, that range was fixed by God at some specific date, whereas in the ordinary evolutionary model, it changes as new mutations accrue and alleles that become harmful are phased out.

It's been explained to you already that evolutionary theory does not say anything about the origin of life. Most Christians in the world today are Catholics, Anglicans or Lutherans, and none of these three churches sees any conflict between God and evolution. Why do you think there's a conflict?

On the contrary, it is the foundation of the theory of natural selection. If all of the mutations were beneficial, there would be no role for natural selection.

Here's how it works. A generation is born with slightly varying amounts of a specific hormone released during gestation, causing changes in the growth of the legs. Some members of the population may have only stunted legs which prevent them from walking. Some will have shorter legs than others, and some longer.

Which of these is harmful? It depends on the situation. Truly harmful mutations which invariably cause death before reproduction (i.e., no legs for most land animals) will die with that generation and not be passed on; that's natural selection. Some others may be somewhat harmful; these will slowly be phased out. What's left will be those few mutations that are either reproductively neutral and thus form background levels of genetic diversity, or are beneficial and slowly edge out their competitors.

The thing is, there's no set boundary as to what is or is not "within a species." If two populations are isolated from each other, they will gradually diverge until they cannot reproduce. We have observed this happening, both in life and in the fossil record. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" change. Many, many micro changes will eventually get two populations that started out with roughly the same gene pool to the point where they can't reproduce.

Actually, as I understand it PE was intended to respond to the distribution of species represented in the fossil record. Nobody involved in the PE debate has ever questioned whether new species could actually evolve.

Have you ever seen a star change from one stage of its life cycle to another? If not, is it a better theory that the stars never change and God created each one at its current size and brightness?

The fact is, we do understand genetics much better than you seem to think. In addition, evidence gathered by genetics is confirmed by other scientific disciplines like physics and geology.

Again, every scientist and educated layperson on this board is willing to believe that natural selection is wrong if it's proven wrong. You seem unwilling to do the same. If we bring up evidence that seems to contradict your theory, such as the distribution of the fossil record, you simply dismiss or ignore it. Your theory may be important to you, but unless you can tell us specifically what evidence it would require for you no longer to believe it, it's not science.

Mikie

I like your analogy. And if that was happening, then you'd be saying something. But that's not what's happening. Here's what's happening:

Imagine that we both play pool. you explain to me how the effect of one moving pool ball on another, how their movement can be calculated and predicted with good accuracy. You can show me the relevant thermodynamic equation that you can apply yourself to see how it works - but you come up with another version. You go on to explain the effect, by disregarding all that you know to be true about physics and other sciences. You go on to explain how, when you hit the ball, physics demands it move one way, but you insist it moved another. While physics demands that the ball move to the corner pocket, you insist it went to the side pocket. You deny physics, but expect me to believe you anyway - because you've come up with another explanation. When I ask why your explanation doesn't gel with the other sciences, you call me stupid, and say I just don't understand.

This is what we have with evolution. While we can kid ourselved into some aspects of it, we fail to demand that evolution fall in line with other, proven, laws of nature. For example, we know from observation that in order to move anything, living or dead, from a state of disorganization to higher complexity, information must be introduced, not just energy - so don't pull the open/closed system argument.

Information necessarily implies a design and a designer. Despit this knowledge, which applies to all other scientific areas of study, evolution rejects it. It has to. Entropy is real folks. The INFORMATION is what makes living things what they are, not just the building blocks! Information is what seperates reality into meaningful elements, and information doesn't just happen in nature. Unless of course you can show where it does, and I'd be happy to see it. And I'm not talking of patterns. I'm talking of complex living systems that we don't even fully understand today, even with all of our vast scientific knowledge, that interact with each other to form a complex organism of life on our planet.

So, my argument isn't so much about evolution, as it is about abiogenesis. If you have to deny certain other established scientifice laws to make evolution work (which you do) I'm not buying - but you're free to fall for it.

Kingreaper

variation is the fodder for natural selection, it is CAUSED BY MUTATIONS NOT NATURAL SELECTION