“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

He brought up this subject about a year ago using the exact same formula. He used the same 'science models' of making baklava and beta-blockers to 'prove' his position of 'terms found in nature'. It's a useless discussion. Honestly, it's best not to waste your time. I wasted three days last year in the attempt.
Why do I use the same formulas? Because they are true, and no Darwinist can come up with a scientific model. Your theory is science free.
And BTW we stopped discussing this not because you or I gave up, but because CARM crashed. Also, if you want to pick up where we left off, I did save your file.
 
Everything you just said is wrong, and for the third time you haven't answered anything I asked.

I don't think you're capable of discussing this topic.
Sorry, what I wrote is 100% correct. If it disagrees with your faith, I cannot help you there. Here I want to discuss science, not faith.
 
It is possible to have descent without modification if there are no changes to DNA. This can happen in some bacteria with small genomes.

Hence the "descent" part is separable from the "with modification" part.

Neither descent nor modification (if present) are dependent on there being a situation of resource constraint. With a resource constraint there is competition for resources and hence 'survival of the fittest'. If there is no resource constraint then everyone gets enough resources and everyone survives, not just the fittest.

Natural selection is dependent on some resource constraint being present. That dependency does not apply to either "descent" or "with modification".

There are three separate items with different properties. Your attempt to lump them together into one is in error.
How does any of this make sense? If there is a resource constraint such as food, water, shelter =something physical, how does that trigger the need for mutations [descent with modification]? Would the problem be better solved by something simpler, such as migration? Also, if a resource constraint is present, that would need immediate attention and response, waiting millions of years for a physical mutation to compensate for the ‘resource constraint’ seems too little too late. Your species would have been long dead by then.
 
Wrong.
Evolution is a combination of descent with modification and natural selection. Descent with modification is the evolutionary mechanism that produces change in the genetic code of living organisms. There are three mechanisms for such changes, genetic mutation, genetic drift and migration. The fourth mechanism, natural selection, determines which descendants survive to pass on their genes, based on environmental conditions. When people are aware of the four evolutionary mechanisms of evolutionary change, they can understand how evolution works and how humans and other animals have evolved from primitive living organisms.

To reprise:
Descent with modification consists of:
Genetic mutation
Genetic drift
Migration.
These three mechanisms ensure that there is a constant modification of genetic material throughout a population.

Natural selection is the fourth mechanism which weeds out genes that are poorly suited to the prevailing environment. It does nothing to modify genetic material. It changes the proportions of various genes in the population.
Wrong.

Evolution is the effect, descent with modification through NS is the cause. Darwinist always point to the “effect” as evidence for the existence of the cause but never can point to the cause in action. Rather silly since Darwinists claim that living creatures are evolving now.

Question: How does NS ‘determine’ which genetic mutation is passed on to the next generation? How many genetic mutations have to occur in order to have a ‘successful’ anatomical and physiological mutation that contributes to the ‘evolution’ of the species? Your explanation is very simplistic, and it fails due to its simplicity and lack of science.

It does not reflect reality.

Everything physical is the composite of form and matter. For your scenario to have happened every new variation has to overcome tremendous hurdles.

First, you have to have the right matter = to keep it simple = specific tissue made up of specific cells in a specific order or combination of. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, you have the problem of form = it has to be a specific three-dimensional shape. Physiological rule = form determines function. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, it has to be in the right location. The chances of any variation of cardiac tissue manifesting itself on the nose, leg, finger, heart, etc. are equal. If on the heart it again has to be the right location. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, the variations must accumulate or the new physical mutation will fail. Nothing in nature supports an accumulation process or guarantees this.

Next, it has to be ‘moved’. There is nothing in nature that guarantees, that once created, random variations can be ‘selected’ or ‘directed’ to reproduce. The appearance of a variation that brings about a mutation is no guarantee that that variation would be passed on to its offspring.

Calculate the probabilities, you have an endless series of possibilities when the product of the equation is based on material, form, location, accumulation, and reproduction. This all has to take place before your possibility could begin. Your ideas are not realistic, they are simplistic and unverifiable.

This is nonsense. There are vast numbers of papers on evolution, including some that are very technical. Studies of evolution, whether evolution in general, in specific species or groups of species, in geographical areas or ecosystems, in pathogens, in the fossil and genetic record, in behaviour, or any other area, use scientific terminology in order to be precise, and quantifiable data on order to be replicable. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, both in experiments and observations, in the lab and in the field. Yes, because the scientists who study and use evolution in their work (all biologists for example) are... duh, scientists, communicating science to other scientists in scientific journals. The arrogance you display in your complete ignorance of their work would be breathtaking, if it were not so commonplace amongst no-nothing creationists. No, what you have is a colossal amount of ignorance seasoned with an equal amount of arrogance.
This can be easily solved. Produce something that explains how species X evolved into species Y using such terms as I provided. One simple scientific model using terms found in nature explaining how descent with modification through NS operates. If you can produce one I am guilty of having a colossal amount of ignorance seasoned with an equal amount of arrogance; otherwise it is you.
Hint= I have been asking for a scientific model for approx. 10 years on this forum and others, and to this day no one has produced one.
Also, may I suggest you familiarize yourself with whatever you cite as support.
Thanks.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I am guilty of having a colossal amount of ignorance seasoned with an equal amount of arrogance
Yes, that sounds about right. Descent with modification through NS is a perfectly legitimate model, and all three components are found in nature.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Active member
If there is a resource constraint such as food, water, shelter =something physical, how does that trigger the need for mutations [descent with modification]?
Resource constraints do not trigger mutations. They select between the mutations that exist independently. You have a misunderstanding of how the mechanisms of evolution work.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Wrong.

Evolution is the effect, descent with modification through NS is the cause. Darwinist always point to the “effect” as evidence for the existence of the cause but never can point to the cause in action. Rather silly since Darwinists claim that living creatures are evolving now.
You are mistaken. All elements of descent with modification as well as natural selection have been shown occurring, in the field and in the lab, on multiple occasions. Your statement is simply false. Incidentally, your use of the term "Darwinists" may be an indicator of why you are so ill-informed. Biologists are not called this any more than physicists are called"Newtonists". Darwin lived 150 years ago. The science of evolution has moved on somewhat.

Question: How does NS ‘determine’ which genetic mutation is passed on to the next generation?
If the genetic mutation is neutral, as are most, then it may or may not be passed on. If it is deleterious, the next most frequent, then it will quickly disappear as the individuals carrying it are less likely to breed successfully. If it is beneficial (rare) it will multiply in each generation as the individuals carrying it are more likely to breed successfully. I am amazed that you can attempt to discuss this subject seriously without this basic school level understanding of how natural selection works as a filter.
How many genetic mutations have to occur in order to have a ‘successful’ anatomical and physiological mutation that contributes to the ‘evolution’ of the species?
One. A single beneficial mutation, by definition, produces a beneficial physiological, or psychological result, contributing to the evolution of a species. If you mean "How many mutations does it take to transform a fin into a leg?" then the question has no real meaning. The process is gradual, through many generations. Each generations will contain individuals which have limbs that are more leg-like than others. If the environment is such that leg-like limbs are beneficial, then those individuals will proliferate. At any time the environment may change and natural selection may take a different turn.
Your explanation is very simplistic, and it fails due to its simplicity and lack of science.
My explanation is simple for two reasons. Firstly, the basic concept of evolution is very simple and easy to understand, and that is what we are discussing here. Secondly, you have shown by your statements thus far that you have a woeful understanding of that basic concept. That is not an insult. Ignorance is only a fault when it is willful.

Everything physical is the composite of form and matter. For your scenario to have happened every new variation has to overcome tremendous hurdles.

First, you have to have the right matter = to keep it simple = specific tissue made up of specific cells in a specific order or combination of. Nothing in nature guarantees this.
Wrong. DNA guarantees this. DNA is a chemical molecule, complex to be sure, but the way it works is just chemistry. Different DNA sequences produce, via chemical reaction, a range of proteins, which form the "matter" to which you refer. Mutations are alterations in DNA, which in turn alter the proteins produced, altering the available "matter".

Next, you have the problem of form = it has to be a specific three-dimensional shape. Physiological rule = form determines function. Nothing in nature guarantees this.
"Specific three dimensional shape" is a perfect description of a protein. The proteins determine the way a cell differentiate, which in turn determines how the cells link together to form the parts of the body. Which leads to your next point.

Next, it has to be in the right location. The chances of any variation of cardiac tissue manifesting itself on the nose, leg, finger, heart, etc. are equal. If on the heart it again has to be the right location. Nothing in nature guarantees this.
I must admit, I laughed out loud at this nonsense. The chances are by no means equal. The way in which a cell "knows" where in the body it is located and how to develop is called cell differentiation. There are many descriptions of this process available on YouTube and via Google. If you have 20 minutes to spare, I suggest you browse a couple.

Next, the variations must accumulate or the new physical mutation will fail. Nothing in nature supports an accumulation process or guarantees this.
Rubbish. As explained above, a mutation is removed from the genome if the individual carrying fails to pass it on by breeding. It is either passed on or it isn't. Most are neutral mutations which linger on, or may even become fixed. Mutations naturally accumulate as only harmful mutations are actively removed. Every single gene in your body is a result of mutation, some recent, some ancient. Subsequent mutations to your genome may build on existing genes to form beneficial results, or harmful results, or most likely, no results at all. Only the rare beneficial results tend to increase in the gene pool. This is all an entirely natural and well documented process.
Next, it has to be ‘moved’. There is nothing in nature that guarantees, that once created, random variations can be ‘selected’ or ‘directed’ to reproduce. The appearance of a variation that brings about a mutation is no guarantee that that variation would be passed on to its offspring.
Indeed. Nothing in nature is guaranteed. If an organism with a beneficial mutation is eaten before it can reproduce, the mutation is lost. I'm sure it happens quite often. So what? Evolution isn't a mechanism that guarantees anything. There is no purpose or design. It is all just like a pattern in the sand produced by waves, beautiful, intricate and swept away in the next tide.

Calculate the probabilities, you have an endless series of possibilities when the product of the equation is based on material, form, location, accumulation, and reproduction. This all has to take place before your possibility could begin. Your ideas are not realistic, they are simplistic and unverifiable.
Calculate the opportunities, the fact that tiny movements in the "right" direction accumulate while those in the "wrong" direction are removed. Your criticisms are simplistic, unrealistic and frequently risible.


This can be easily solved. Produce something that explains how species X evolved into species Y using such terms as I provided. One simple scientific model using terms found in nature explaining how descent with modification through NS operates. If you can produce one I am guilty of having a colossal amount of ignorance seasoned with an equal amount of arrogance; otherwise it is you.
Hint= I have been asking for a scientific model for approx. 10 years on this forum and others, and to this day no one has produced one.
Also, may I suggest you familiarize yourself with whatever you cite as support.
Thanks.
Sure. Please define "terms found in nature". Examples are no good. Evolution is not like baking a cake. Just define the phrase and I will find you something.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Natural selection is not evolution
And a steering wheel is not a car.
Pepsi is not Coke.

How does that get you to 'Pepsi is not part of Coke?'
You either missed making your point, explaining your point, or understanding your point.
No. You brought up that pepsi is nt coke, as an attempted rebuttal I think. It failed due to missing the point.
A steering wheel is part of a car, just as sexual selection is part of evolution. One part, among many.
 
Yes, that sounds about right. Descent with modification through NS is a perfectly legitimate model, and all three components are found in nature.
What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]
 
No. You brought up that pepsi is nt coke, as an attempted rebuttal I think. It failed due to missing the point.
A steering wheel is part of a car, just as sexual selection is part of evolution. One part, among many.
We have observable evidence that a wheel is part of a car, anyone can point to one, as to sexual selection being part of evolution no one can point to it. What you have is a Darwinist bedtime story.
 
Resource constraints do not trigger mutations. They select between the mutations that exist independently. You have a misunderstanding of how the mechanisms of evolution work.
How do they "select". the ability to select requires consciousness. . NS may help explain the survival of the fittest but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. It cannot create only eliminate. Now here is the problem with your argument. The genetic information is the blueprint for life. ‘Descent with modification through natural selection’ necessitates that new genetic information that is beneficial to the organism accumulates through NS. This accumulation then becomes the blueprint for new body parts as they are being transformed through multiple generations. Unless you have all the components necessary to create a new X all the information it accumulates is useless and rather detrimental to the organism. Logically natural selection would consider these organisms less fit because they have an unproductive mutation in their genetic information. How does natural selection foresee the future to know that an insignificant mutation will be beneficial when combined with nonexistent mutations, therefore become beneficial to the organism multiple generations down the road? That would be omniscience, and that's an attribute of God.
 
You are mistaken. All elements of descent with modification as well as natural selection have been shown occurring, in the field and in the lab, on multiple occasions. Your statement is simply false. Incidentally, your use of the term "Darwinists" may be an indicator of why you are so ill-informed. Biologists are not called this any more than physicists are called"Newtonists". Darwin lived 150 years ago. The science of evolution has moved on somewhat.

If the genetic mutation is neutral, as are most, then it may or may not be passed on. If it is deleterious, the next most frequent, then it will quickly disappear as the individuals carrying it are less likely to breed successfully. If it is beneficial (rare) it will multiply in each generation as the individuals carrying it are more likely to breed successfully. I am amazed that you can attempt to discuss this subject seriously without this basic school level understanding of how natural selection works as a filter.
One. A single beneficial mutation, by definition, produces a beneficial physiological, or psychological result, contributing to the evolution of a species. If you mean "How many mutations does it take to transform a fin into a leg?" then the question has no real meaning. The process is gradual, through many generations. Each generations will contain individuals which have limbs that are more leg-like than others. If the environment is such that leg-like limbs are beneficial, then those individuals will proliferate. At any time the environment may change and natural selection may take a different turn.
My explanation is simple for two reasons. Firstly, the basic concept of evolution is very simple and easy to understand, and that is what we are discussing here. Secondly, you have shown by your statements thus far that you have a woeful understanding of that basic concept. That is not an insult. Ignorance is only a fault when it is willful.

Wrong. DNA guarantees this. DNA is a chemical molecule, complex to be sure, but the way it works is just chemistry. Different DNA sequences produce, via chemical reaction, a range of proteins, which form the "matter" to which you refer. Mutations are alterations in DNA, which in turn alter the proteins produced, altering the available "matter".

"Specific three dimensional shape" is a perfect description of a protein. The proteins determine the way a cell differentiate, which in turn determines how the cells link together to form the parts of the body. Which leads to your next point.

I must admit, I laughed out loud at this nonsense. The chances are by no means equal. The way in which a cell "knows" where in the body it is located and how to develop is called cell differentiation. There are many descriptions of this process available on YouTube and via Google. If you have 20 minutes to spare, I suggest you browse a couple.

Rubbish. As explained above, a mutation is removed from the genome if the individual carrying fails to pass it on by breeding. It is either passed on or it isn't. Most are neutral mutations which linger on, or may even become fixed. Mutations naturally accumulate as only harmful mutations are actively removed. Every single gene in your body is a result of mutation, some recent, some ancient. Subsequent mutations to your genome may build on existing genes to form beneficial results, or harmful results, or most likely, no results at all. Only the rare beneficial results tend to increase in the gene pool. This is all an entirely natural and well documented process.
Indeed. Nothing in nature is guaranteed. If an organism with a beneficial mutation is eaten before it can reproduce, the mutation is lost. I'm sure it happens quite often. So what? Evolution isn't a mechanism that guarantees anything. There is no purpose or design. It is all just like a pattern in the sand produced by waves, beautiful, intricate and swept away in the next tide.

Calculate the opportunities, the fact that tiny movements in the "right" direction accumulate while those in the "wrong" direction are removed. Your criticisms are simplistic, unrealistic and frequently risible.


Sure. Please define "terms found in nature". Examples are no good. Evolution is not like baking a cake. Just define the phrase and I will find you something.

Tall, big, long, time, short, are terms not found in nature. What is found in nature and used by true science are such terms as temperature [* F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years ], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. "Fitness" for example, is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.


This can be easily resolved. If your belief is true science there should exist a scientific model explaining how descent with modification through NS has occurred or is occurring now. It is that simple. Otherwise, your belief carries as much science as the Genesis account found in the Bible. The difference is that Christians and Jews are not passing off their faith as science, as the Darwinist do. But I will give you this, you do possess a tremendous amount of blind faith not seen among any Christians or Jews that I know, they demand scientific proof.
 
Last edited:

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
We have observable evidence that a wheel is part of a car, anyone can point to one, as to sexual selection being part of evolution no one can point to it. What you have is a Darwinist bedtime story.
Sexual selection observed.
Gazelle outmaneuvers lion, and lives to reproduce.
You were saying?
There are no Darwinist bedtime stories.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Tall, big, long, time, short, are terms not found in nature. What is found in nature and used by true science are such terms as temperature [* F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years ], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. "Fitness" for example, is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.
Tosh. The terms you mention here are used for comparison. X is heavier than Y. A has a larger lung capacity than B. C has a shorter bill than D. These can be expressed in measurements, grams, cubic centimetres, millimetres, but what is important in many studies are relative rather than absolute measurements. When competing for resources, the absolute measurements don't matter. What matters are the measurements of one individual compared with another. A cheetah capable of 35 mph is fitter than one capable of only 32mph. Yet a cheetah capable of 30 mph is fitter than one capable of 25 mph. To use a technical term, it is "faster". A hedgehog weighing 800 grams is "heavier" than one weighing 750 grams, so is more likely to survive the winter. To suggest that these terms are not found in nature is palpably absurd.


This can be easily resolved. If your belief is true science there should exist a scientific model explaining how descent with modification through NS has occurred or is occurring now. It is that simple.
There is. It uses terms such as "taller", "faster", "longer" and particularly "fitter" ; terms which you completely arbitrarily and unjustifiably have excluded as "unscientific". It may be that you don't know how the scientific term "fitness", as in organism X is fitter than organism Y, is actually defined.

Fitness is the quantitative representation of natural and selective selection within evolutionary biology. It applies to either a genotype or a phenotype in a given environment. It describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by the individuals of the specific genotype or phenotype.

You should note that fitness ( w ) is a probability rather than an actual number of offspring. It is a property of a class of individuals for example- homozygous for alleles at a particular locus.

Here is a selection from the surprisingly good Wiki entry on Fitness (biology) I'm sure that it will make this concept abundantly clear to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) I did try to copy and paste, but the formatting was too complex. I'm sure that you are capable of following the link.
Otherwise, your belief carries as much science as the Genesis account found in the Bible. The difference is that Christians and Jews are not passing off their faith as science, as the Darwinist do. But I will give you this, you do possess a tremendous amount of blind faith not seen among any Christians or Jews that I know, they demand scientific proof.
Assuming that you have read the above with honesty and humility, I'm sure that you will realise that your comments here are ridiculous. If on the other hand you feel your faith is threatened by truth, as heretofore, then you will learn nothing, ignore what is said to you, hide in a darkened room for a while, then emerge to spout the same nonsense over again.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Active member
How do they "select". the ability to select requires consciousness.
How does water select which direction is downhill? Does water have consciousness? How does a sieve select which size of grains to let through and which size to hold back? Does a sieve have consciousness? Consciousness is not required for natural selection.

NS may help explain the survival of the fittest but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. It cannot create only eliminate.
This is correct. Mutations create new variants. Natural selection weeds out the less effective variants, leaving only the more effective variants to pass on their genes. Natural selection reduces variation. Mutations increase variation. The tension between the two processes results in evolution.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
How do they "select". the ability to select requires consciousness. . NS may help explain the survival of the fittest but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. It cannot create only eliminate. Now here is the problem with your argument. The genetic information is the blueprint for life. ‘Descent with modification through natural selection’ necessitates that new genetic information that is beneficial to the organism accumulates through NS. This accumulation then becomes the blueprint for new body parts as they are being transformed through multiple generations. Unless you have all the components necessary to create a new X all the information it accumulates is useless and rather detrimental to the organism. Logically natural selection would consider these organisms less fit because they have an unproductive mutation in their genetic information. How does natural selection foresee the future to know that an insignificant mutation will be beneficial when combined with nonexistent mutations, therefore become beneficial to the organism multiple generations down the road? That would be omniscience, and that's an attribute of God.
Rossum has answered the first part.

You have misunderstood the "problem". There is no accumulation of hidden traits which then burst forth as a brand new organism. The traits accumulate openly, in the population as a whole. If a mutation occurs that would lead in future to a benefit in combination with others, but has no immediate benefit, then it may well be lost. If it is deleterious in the meantime, it probably will be lost. A new X arises gradually. If it cannot arise gradually, it doesn't arise. Evolution works on what is present already. Forelimbs become wings gradually, because yes, half a wing is better than no wing. It permits gliding for short distances, or may assist the organism to climb steep obstacles such as tree trunks. If the slight change is beneficial, it is kept. If it is not, it disappears. Natural selection foresees nothing, which is why we observe some shockingly bad design faults that no competent conscious designer would allow. The vagus nerve in mammals for example.
 
Sexual selection observed.
Gazelle outmaneuvers lion, and lives to reproduce.
You were saying?
There are no Darwinist bedtime stories.
There are plenty of Darwinist bedtime stories. What you have cited = how does that explain descent with modification through NS? And again using terms found in nature? At best it is a story of how a gazelle outmaneuvered a lion.
 
Tosh. The terms you mention here are used for comparison. X is heavier than Y. A has a larger lung capacity than B. C has a shorter bill than D. These can be expressed in measurements, grams, cubic centimetres, millimetres, but what is important in many studies are relative rather than absolute measurements. When competing for resources, the absolute measurements don't matter. What matters are the measurements of one individual compared with another. A cheetah capable of 35 mph is fitter than one capable of only 32mph. Yet a cheetah capable of 30 mph is fitter than one capable of 25 mph. To use a technical term, it is "faster". A hedgehog weighing 800 grams is "heavier" than one weighing 750 grams, so is more likely to survive the winter. To suggest that these terms are not found in nature is palpably absurd.


There is. It uses terms such as "taller", "faster", "longer" and particularly "fitter" ; terms which you completely arbitrarily and unjustifiably have excluded as "unscientific". It may be that you don't know how the scientific term "fitness", as in organism X is fitter than organism Y, is actually defined.

The point you are missing is that Darwinist accounts of descent with modification through NS are totally absent of any terms. Why is that? If descent with modification through NS is a scientific fact there should exist one account of how X evolved into Y using such terms. There exist zero accounts.
Since the Origin of Species Darwinian claims take the form of most major religions. As you read them you will encounter, ‘if’, ‘I believe’, ‘I think’, ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’, ‘I suspect’, ‘on this view’, along with personifications, correlations, extrapolations, analogies, and metaphors –none of which is science. Descent with Modification through Natural Selection and Creation as any causal model stands or falls on its own merits, especially if it is a science model. Both failed as a science model because they both have nothing of nature in it. Both are testimonial links between cause and effect, operate by testimonial attributions made to it, cannot be used to do anything in nature, contain no science, and are an exercise of faith.

 
Top