Denial of evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's this teleology that bends the universe?

I thought teleology was one of those goes-nowhere philosophical questions like life after death, or what experience or knowledge is.

And here's the rest of the "God did it" version:
"IT doesn't bother, it just happens to be that way."
 
Last edited:
If that one was a muddle, this should look like a real mess, huh?

The principle of Biological Evolution (Darwinism), is that life varies, and is subject to selective pressures.
Life is both structure and agency; both are necessarily conserved (inherited), and, because of feedback (hysteresis, equilibrium), both also affect the environment, and result in changes in those selective pressures (amongst representations - genera, classes, and phyla). Life changes itself and its "world",

A lifeform has to deal with living by using the technology that has been developed for it, by its ancestry; obviously if this technology or toolkit is adaptive, then a lifeform will use it advantageously -indeed many random program changes have, down the ages resulted in a large collection of adaptive and useful tools - photosynthesis; multicellular plants & animals; eyes; feathers and hair; teeth and claws; lungs and gills; cortical neurons.
Just for example.
Individual organisms, using and adapting the tools they have, and thanks to selection which sees the fittest and best adapted survive and pass on their genetic material (persist in the genome), are responsible for of all of them.
Darwin's theory relies on the concepts of agency, rather than a static classification or schema.
DNA isn't an organism (it represents one, though); persistence requires sufficient functional structure (a cell) to maintain itself.

What's wrong with this picture? Can you spot the mistake?
 
Last edited:
"The agency behind the process is completely blind, it throws the dice and spins the big wheel (after carefully shuffling the cards), and you get the hand you're dealt.

A lifeform has to deal with "living", using the technology that has been developed for it, by its ancestry; if this technology or toolkit is useful (if it isn't, it's ancestors didn't do too well, or this individual is a 'dud' one), then it will use the tools advantageously. Chance, or probabilistic (uncertain, having an expectation) program changes have resulted in a large collection of adaptive and useful tools, that we can see.

But Life's had a few Gy to do it. It seems to have appeared almost as soon as the planet formed, more than 4.5 Gy ago. 4.5 billion times around the central star, and a lot of times around the galactic centre. A lot of tectonics and break-ups of the lighter crustal (continental) material, and formation and dissassembly of supercontinents (the supercontinent cycle); of which the current one is nearing the end of a dispersal phase. These cycles have had a large influence on the divergence of various kinds of life, at all levels (that we classify as such), of the big network. The current dispersal has seen major climatic change over the last 500 My.

How about this picture, any problems or dare I say, contentions anyone can spot?
P.S. I kinda sneaked the quoted bit in somewhere else already.
 
Last edited:
Moderator note:
Okay thread reopened, lets try again to discuss the topic only.
 
As far as Darwinism and biological evolution, one thing he got right (about the real-life version), is that failure is always an option.
 
Roman said:
Yeah, antibiotics actually kill all the gut flora.
Click to expand...

Humans are loaded with bacteria, even after death.

No bacteria, no life - PERIOD. Especially no new life, IOW's its over.

Same bacteria as the first sign of life on the planet, this is how i know for a fact that the same exact type of bacteria present from day one is still here. We owe it all to bacteria Roman....EVERYTHING, every living creature, every breath you take, every glass of water you drink. Eat an apple BAM - bacteria, eat a bananna - BAM - bacteria. And when it leaves you - BAM - bacteria.

I figure this out myself so if i am wrong, so be it. Now you, Roman, show me where i am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
As far as Darwinism and biological evolution, one thing he got right (about the real-life version), is that failure is always an option.
Click to expand...

This a thread about how to counter-argue creationist, not about the exact philosophical mechanism on how biological evolution works.
 
John99 said:
Humans are loaded with bacteria, even after death.

No bacteria, no life - PERIOD. Especially no new life, IOW's its over.

.
Click to expand...

Is it sure that pathogens & cancer cells still survive even after the death of a patient?
 
I wouldn't think that bacterial rRNA would have any significant relevance to immune response.
Click to expand...

The bacterial rRNA are just the end product of feces processing used for DGGE. Probably because they have an rRNA library and can use it to identify the products. I haven't used the method myself but I assume they use PCR to get enough product to run a gel.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, rRNA sequences are diagnostic to specific species. DGGE is a quicker but less specific method to assess the population. rRNA is reversed-transcribed, usually subjected to nested PCR. In the end you got PCR products of a conserved region of the rRNA-gene which differs in few bases from species to species. This affect the melting behaviour of the resulting PCR products, which can be monitored in a denaturing gel. Unless you already know what populations exist a DGGE can not be used to unambigously identify the underlying species, though. In any case it is a well-known fact that diets change the gut flora (the working principle of pre-biotic foods).

So much for the technical aspect. Now regarding the often repeated "no bacteria no life phrase used in this thread". In a way this is correct. The ecosystem would collapse without bacteria (in fact the atmosphere was shaped by bacteria). Also, eukaryotes would not exist (mitochondria). However, sterile organism can live on without gut or other bacteria, provided that they are protected from infections.
Also the assumption that the present bacteria are the same as billions years ago is absolutely stupid. The first bacteria were likely to be anaerobic extremophiles which are now living for the most part restricted to certain niches. Now the majority of pioneer bacteria are aerobes, for examples, which of course did not exist since the first photosynthetic bacteria evolved.

In fact you can see the little bugger changing over time even if you freeze them for a prolonged time.

just my 2 cents.
 
Well yes but the only problem is life was never intended to be restricted to a lab or set conditions inorder to prove a point. Either way this is not in any way a diverse ecosystem.

lso the assumption that the present bacteria are the same as billions years ago is absolutely stupid. The first bacteria were likely to be anaerobic extremophiles which are now living for the most part restricted to certain niches. Now the majority of pioneer bacteria are aerobes, for examples, which of course did not exist since the first photosynthetic bacteria evolved.
Click to expand...

Evolved into what? stronger, more robust bacteria? They are still bacteria and they are providing the same exact function as when the first signs of life appeared on the planet. You may think it is stupid but since you used the term 'likely' then it is just your opinion. There was alway a variety of bacteria present, and the fact that they can adapt is still, in the larger scheme of things, a minor change.

Now regarding the often repeated "no bacteria no life phrase used in this thread". In a way this is correct. The ecosystem would collapse without bacteria
Click to expand...

Well it is correct. The question is: Why did these bacteria remain virtually unchanged? So at the end of the day we are left with bacteria remaining constant and humans coming from what exactly? If you ask me this is a big problem if you believe in evolution as it is commonly taught.

I appreciate your input Charon as i am certain you can add to this subject a great deal.

Edit: that last part is best to leave out.
 
Last edited:
Evolved into what? stronger, more robust bacteria?
Click to expand...

No, you did not get the point. Evolution just means change, essentially in the genetic make-up. Different species have evolved to adapt (and also create) to new ecological niches. Essentially one could argue that mammals have not changed during their evolution. Only because changes in mammalian morphology is more obvious to us (because, duh, they are bigger) does not mean that they have undergone larger changes than bacteria over the millenia.

They are still bacteria and they are providing the same exact function as when the first signs of life appeared on the planet.
Click to expand...
This is simply, purely wrong. One simple example (that I already gave above). Before photosynthetic bacteria evolved (here, I also give an example of what has evolved) there were no bacteria that could utilise oxygen. In fact when oxygen poured into the atmosphere most bacteria died out. How could bacteria living in completely different environments from today fulfill the same functions?
The situation is even worse for mutualistic or even symbiotic bacteria. They had very different functions before they met their respective partners. Or the ancestors of mitochondria. Today they are reduced to being an organelle, but before the first eukaryote their ancestor had to be free-living. So how one earth could one argue that they always fulfilled the same function?
 
Fair enough. Although I believe you are grasping at straws. I know that evolution means change, just as a rock changes, just as landscape changes or a rusty car door in the desert evolves. This is infinitely different than biological evolution when we want to get into specifics.

Essentially one could argue that mammals have not changed during their evolution. Only because changes in mammalian morphology is more obvious to us (because, duh, they are bigger) does not mean that they have undergone larger changes than bacteria over the millenia.
Click to expand...

Charon, the point is that we are talking about humans evolving essentially from a base material or not really much of anything. This is monumental change. YET these tiny essential organisms remained virtually unchanged. Does that make sense? And now we introduce symbiosis, where one organism absolutely depends on the other but really isnt it, in this case, in actuality Commensalism?

Charon, what you are saying is that all throughout the supposed evolutionary process the beneficial bacteria remained the same doing their 'job' but if they stayed the same than would it be safe to assume that so did humans? This just illustrates selective evolution where some things evolved and some did not. Yet at the end of the day humans had to start off as simple organisms. I am sorry but it is just not adding up.
 
John, I have now really no idea what you are talking about. I feel that you do not grasp the concept of evolution at all (or pretend not to), but at this point I do not really feel like tutoring (and if I see another what is evolution thread I am most likely going to scream). Sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CharonZ said:
John, I have now really no idea what you are talking about. I feel that you do not grasp the concept of evolution at all (or pretend not to), but at this point I do not really feel like tutoring (and if I see another what is evolution thread I am most likely going to scream). Sorry.
Click to expand...

Come on, a child can understand it. But to see that it could not happen as it is presented takes a lot of thought. I just see the problems with the theory thats all, and i dont mind pointing them out.

Look at it this way, you are building a puzzle by looking at the cover of the box. Making the pieces fit because you already know what they are and when they dont fit you use a hammer. But in the end you are left with a broken puzzle, put together with glue and tape. All it takes is one wrong piece and it is broken.
 
John99 said:
Fair enough. Although I believe you are grasping at straws. I know that evolution means change, just as a rock changes, just as landscape changes or a rusty car door in the desert evolves. This is infinitely different than biological evolution when we want to get into specifics.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Which is why your first statement, likening the change of evolution to changes in landscape, is nonsensical. You have set up your own strawman argument, then demolished it.
John99 said:
Charon, the point is that we are talking about humans evolving essentially from a base material or not really much of anything.
Click to expand...
More nonsense. Humans evolved from a human like ancestor that evolved from an ape like ancestor. You have to go through many intermdiaries, covering three and a half billion years of evolution before you get back to "not really much of anything". Do you see and understand the inaccuracy, the total wrongness of your statement?
John99 said:
YET these tiny essential organisms remained virtually unchanged. Does that make sense? .
Click to expand...
No it doesn't make any sense because that is not what happened. Evolutionary change can be assessed both in terms of behaviour and genome. The bacteria today - as CharonZ has pointed out - follow quite different behaviours from those remote ancestors. Their genomes have also changed substantially. Stating that they are virtually unchanged is a mistake. continuing to do so would be a lie.
John99 said:
Charon, what you are saying is that all throughout the supposed evolutionary process the beneficial bacteria remained the same doing their 'job' but if they stayed the same than would it be safe to assume that so did humans? This just illustrates selective evolution where some things evolved and some did not. Yet at the end of the day humans had to start off as simple organisms. I am sorry but it is just not adding up.
Click to expand...
If you take 3 + 4 and add them together in the base 10 number system you will get 7. You, however, are attempting to add :m: to Argonaut in the baseless number system and then complaining that the answer does not come out to be 42.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top