Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,837 Year: 4,094/9,624 Month: 965/974 Week: 292/286 Day: 13/40 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate - mindspawn and RAZD only
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 1 of 6 (688522)
01-23-2013 10:50 AM


The evolution of novel features\functions
mindspawn has stated a concern that:
"... recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)."
and
"I have been looking ... for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity."
My response is that this misrepresents or misunderstands how evolution works.
These two positions will be the focus of this debate,
mindspawn has agreed to a Great Debate on this topic (for the background see Message 3.

Beginning the Debate:

So here we are.
Let's start with these statements of yours:
  1. I find the scientific community is unfortunately biased through accepting the theory of evolution too early when
  2. recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution.
  3. I have been looking around the internet for over a year, hoping for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and
  4. then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene
  5. that adds fitness.
  6. this basic process of evolution remains unproven.
  7. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity.
First off, I basically agree with #7, although I would word is a little differently: without speciation we would only have one species on earth.
Second, we have a number of terms here that we should define and agree on so that we are talking about the same thing:
  1. evolution (process)
  2. theory (scientific)
  3. hypothesis (scientific)
  4. the theory of evolution
  5. novel feature\function
  6. complexity
  7. speciation
For me, basic evolution is a process, the theory of evolution is a theory involving the process, and the science of evolution is the study of the process and testing of the theory. These are three different things\aspects that the word "evolution" is used for in biology (so we are not even considering non-biological use of the term).
For this thread I would propose using this definition for the process of evolution:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This is my wording, however references for this definition can be found at
  1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
    An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
  2. U. of Michigan on-line course material
    The Process of Speciation
When you say "evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function" you are talking about the process of evolution, yes?
A scientific hypothesis proposes an explanation for observations and objective evidence, and it proposes tests that distinguish it from fantasy or other hypothesis. Once an hypothesis has be adequately tested it becomes a (scientific) theory.
Thus a scientific theory is a tested scientific hypothesis. Theories are never proven, just validated or invalidated (by testing). Invalidated hypothesis are discarded or modified, while validated ones continue to be tested.
Forgive me if this seems a little pedantic and covers stuff you know, but I find ensuring a common basis for understanding and terminology benefits the debate by reducing confusion.
Your turn: I'd like to see your definition for the theory of evolution:
The Theory of Evolution (T0E) is ....
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : splg
Edited by RAZD, : per admin comments
Edited by RAZD, : title tweak
Edited by RAZD, : hypother mix

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-23-2013 2:34 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-24-2013 6:54 AM RAZD has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 6 (688559)
01-23-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2013 10:50 AM


Three things:
  1. The thread's title should identify a specific topic.
  2. The participants names should be spelled properly in the thread's title.
  3. The opening post should delineate the topic more clearly than just in effect, "Continuation of something Mindspawn and I started discussing somewhere else."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 10:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 8:54 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 6 (688606)
01-23-2013 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-23-2013 2:34 PM


background
See changes to Message 1.

Background

This started on Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo when midspawn posted Message 497 with this comment:
Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. I find the scientific community is unfortunately biased through accepting the theory of evolution too early when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)
I copied this post to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, Message 224, to discuss the issues of age measurements and the correlations. Unfortunately I included the whole post and not just the portion pertaining to participation on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, and further aggravated the situation by commenting that:
... when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)
Which, curiously, is caused more by your misinterpretation\misrepresentation of what evolution actually says should happen than by any real problem in evolution. Feel free to start a thread on this topic if you want to get straightened out on this.
Mea Culpa, as this started several off-topic comments.
Message 226: I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm just interested.
I have been looking around the internet for over a year, hoping for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity.
Message 248: I based it on the statement that you made.
But this is not a topic for discussion on this thread: please start a new thread to discuss this.
Message 250: And I would prefer that you don't respond so that this thread can stay focused on the issues of correlations.
I will be marking ALL off-topic posts with jeers to emphasize this point.
Please start another topic if you want to pursue this issue.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Message 254: I would love to continue this discussion with you, I see you have already made some good points and I really enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately I have too much self esteem to put myself through the rudeness of your peers on this site. This site should be better moderated to encourage good discussion.
Message 256: One alternative is a Great Debate thread -- two people debate a topic, other people participate through messaging or a peanut gallery thread.
See The Great Debate forum for some existing debates.
If you want I can set it up.
Message 258: Good idea, let's do it..
Edited by RAZD, : link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-23-2013 2:34 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 6 (688647)
01-24-2013 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-23-2013 10:50 AM


Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
RAZD writes:
A scientific theory is an untested scientific hypothesis...
Maybe you meant, "A scientific theory begins as an untested scientific hypothesis..."?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 10:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 9:26 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 6 (688650)
01-24-2013 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
01-24-2013 6:54 AM


Re: The evolution of novel features\functions
wow, did I ever mix that up. thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-24-2013 6:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 6 of 6 (688661)
01-24-2013 10:51 AM


Thread Copied to The Great Debate Forum
Thread copied to the Evolution Theory Issue - Great Debate -mindspawn and RAZD onlymindspawn and RAZD only[/color] thread in the The Great Debate forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024