Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

I wish I could post this in the next evo thread (part 2)

I finally got this typed up to use in the future when I can't post pictures. As before, it's from a user on Fark -- one of the biggest and best time wasters I know of-- named abb3w.

VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
SELECTION:
6) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
8) "Sampling errors" can occur in populations that alter the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages.
9) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
10) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
SUFFICIENCY:
12) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms; over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.

That's What Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living".

Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... but without evidence, they aren't science.There are no substantive competitors to Evolution in the realm of Science at present, merely competing variants on the same theme.

Other people's opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.

9 comments:

  1. One of the problems with trying to explain the inner workings of evolution to Raytards is that they're not serious investigators. That is to say, they are not really interested in what the evidence for evolution is.

    I remember one thread in which Mike and Lizette kept insisting there was no evidence for evolution, and predictably I replied with a summary of the evidence for common ancestry provided by common HERV infections as found in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees.

    Their reply to this was "I'm not interested in HERVs."


    I had spent quite a bit of time laying out this case, and their reply was "Not interested."


    You can educate the ignorant. You cannot educate a religious fanatic.
    These people just want to pass out tracts and save souls. They don't give a hoot in hell about the evidence for evolution.

    But then again, what would you expect, really? These are people who insist there are no transitional fossils, but fervently believe in the literal existence of invisible monsters that hiss temptation at people instead.

    After this experience, my approach to rapture-bait like Mike and Lizette has changed. I accept the importance of making an honest effort to show these folks not only that they are wrong, but why. I likewise support efforts to show why it's not un-Christian to accept the scientific view of the world. But when you get replies like I got from Mike and Lizette, then patiently trying to reason with them becomes a fool's errand, and savage ridicule is called for at that point. I have no patience or sympathy for religious fanatics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello, all,

    First time poster here...hope I'm not crashing a private party, but if the price of admission is disgust with Ray Comfort and his acolytes, I've got enough for a lifetime membership. c^_^ɔ

    From the post:

    That's What Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

    As I said yesterday on reddit, a vital prerequisite to winning over a theist with a well-reasoned argument is that the theist must at least consent to be bound by the fundamentals of logic. Many of them do not so concede, but instead say something like "sure, your argument sounds good, but this isn't a question of logic...it's a question of faith, and faith is more important than logic, so it doesn't matter".

    To wit, here's what our good buddy Sye TenB replied to my assertion that the Bible contains factual errors and internal inconsistencies:

    ...just please tell us, why factual errors and internal inconsistencies in reasoning are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.

    This is the sort of raving lunacy we're up against, folks. Don't think that people like these can ever be swayed by mere reason...they've forsaken that quality entirely, in favor of mindless superstition and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sweet Zombie Jesus...a post here shows up immediately. =) A post over at "Atheist Central" can take anywhere from hours to days to show up.

    Wow...one could actually have a discussion here. It's too bad the theists won't come here to debate, but then again, they're not particularly interested in debate to begin with, are they?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You made a typo on this. What you meant to write was:

    First, there was nothing. Then, there was a rock. That rock became a monkey, and that monkey became us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. First time poster here...hope I'm not crashing a private party, but if the price of admission is disgust with Ray Comfort and his acolytes, I've got enough for a lifetime membership.

    You're not just welcome to comment, you're welcome to become a member! Email McGyver Jr. (or me, even) for an invite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow...one could actually have a discussion here. It's too bad the theists won't come here to debate, but then again, they're not particularly interested in debate to begin with, are they?

    Oh, a few show up from time to time. Read the ass-spanking that Sye got here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Capt. Howdy,

    I remember the discussion you are talking about because I was watching it to see if Mike and Liz were finally going to get the glimmer of light in their eyes that means they might have finally learned something. I was really disappointed with the whole 'I'm not interested' brush off.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lance Christian Johnson sez:

    You're not just welcome to comment, you're welcome to become a member! Email McGyver Jr. (or me, even) for an invite.

    Thank you! I'll do so straightaway!

    Oh, a few show up from time to time. Read the ass-spanking that Sye got here.

    Wow....just got done reading through all the comments. Now my brain itches.

    I, for one, find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone with such shoddy thought processes as Sye could be an engineer (even the kind that wear striped caps and drive the trains). If he does have a job that requires him to even fake critical thought, his level of compartmentalization must be immense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LAnce said:
    "First, there was nothing. Then, there was a rock. That rock became a monkey, and that monkey became us."

    I almost fell out of my chair. Man, reading your posts is way funner than trying to explain to Sye why saying that god feeds him knowledge is insane.

    And this post is a wonderful summary - is it available for stealing?

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.