Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ozymandias]

It is no different than a mythology!

Other than that whole "it's science, and has evidence to back it up' minor detail.

A scientific theory makes predictions.

Just like the theory of evolution does. Check.

Evolution is a historical narrative.

Among other things, yes. Any scientific theory or law can be used on events that occurred in the past, just as well as the future. That's actually one of the ways to test them.

We can't use evolutionary theory to come up with a cure for aids, or for genetically modifying babies to have 300 I.Q points. Nor can we manipulate nature into producing a species of organisms that would our garbage, or produce the energy we require to run our economies.

And we can't use the Law of Gravity to win the lottery. What's your point? Of course you cannot use the Theory of Evolution to do something *completely outside the scope of the theory*.

Mutations do no lead to beneficial traits!

False. We already looked at drug-resistant bacteria.

There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation!

False. Quite the claim you are making. Care to cite evidence?

Whenever a mutation does happen, it is a defect! A loss-of-function.

Except when it is not. There are many documented cases of beneficial mutations, sorry. I even cited many of them when I pointed out the new species we have observed.

I have already. But you don't have the knowledge base to understand what I am saying to you.

Actually, you have presented opinions and 'bad science'. You have yet to cite a single valid argument.

So much for your grasp of the english language, Mr. Native Speaker.

The key to understanding the evolutionary theorizing in biology is to understand how it relies on an unexplicated notion of "selection-for".

Except that natural selection is very well explained.

Phenotypic traits evolve in the direction of increased fitness. But then what about phenotypic traits that are not adaptations? Once you understand the problems associated with "Selection-for", you will see then adaptationism simply cannot do what an evolutionary theory is supposed to do: explain how phenotypic traits are distributed in populations of organisms. The theory of natural selection cannot predict/explain what traits the creatures in a population are selected-for.

.... so?

"Selection for a trait" is the pivotal notion in adaptationism; the central idea of adaptationism is that it provides for an entirely naturalistic mechanism of selection for phenotypic traits. Darwin assumed a mental cause, as he started out his discussion by eluding to artificial breeders who had an idea of what they were selecting for. So we should say that natural selection selects for whatever it has in mind in selecting. Going back to our discussion on Neanderthals and homo sapians...what made them go extinct and us flourish?

The simple fact that we are better adapted -- exactly as evolution states. If you understood evolution, you would have no need to ask.

You can't really say for certain what phenotype gave them the advantage for certain but only presume that your race is 'the selected one" for some obscure reason. The values of a trait parameter that are viable for one kid of creature can differ radically from the values that are viable for another. Consider size for instance.

When we debunked your example or resistant bacteria, I already pointed this fact out to you. Optimization for one creature or location does not ensure optimization for everyplace or situation.

[quote]

Phenotypes aren't bundles of traits, they are mostly like fusions of traits. Same is true for ecological variables with which phenotypic variables interact. There may be a law to selection, but we don't have any, simply because in the real world phenotypic traits are coextensive and we don't observe in the real world a chance in on trait with everything else left intact.


Understanding the difference between select/select-for is a difficult one. You need to have an indepth knowledge of the "assumed" mechanism that performs the selection.

There is no assumed mechanism. The mechanism is what survived and created the most off spring. It's well understood.

Look up -free rider problems.

....?

[Alchemist]

You are idea of countering a debate is just to counter. However meaningless and trivial your argument maybe.

Cite the evidence for a beneficial mutation.

Go ahead. Smart ass.

And no drug resistance is not a "mutation" ...its an already existing variation! DumbASS!

[ozymandias]

You are idea of countering a debate is just to counter. However meaningless and trivial your argument maybe.

Cite the evidence for a beneficial mutation.

Already done.

Go ahead. Smart ass.

And no drug resistance is not a "mutation" ...its an already existing variation! DumbASS!

What the heck do you think a mutation is? It is variation among living creatures. That's EXACTLY what it is.

[Alchemist]

Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance?

Dan I. Andersson & Diarmaid Hughes

Abstract
Most antibiotic resistance mechanisms are associated with a fitness cost that is typically observed as a reduced bacterial growth rate. The magnitude of this cost is the main biological parameter that influences the rate of development of resistance, the stability of the resistance and the rate at which the resistance might decrease if antibiotic use were reduced. These findings suggest that the fitness costs of resistance will allow susceptible bacteria to outcompete resistant bacteria if the selective pressure from antibiotics is reduced. Unfortunately, the available data suggest that the rate of reversibility will be slow at the community level. Here, we review the factors that influence the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance, the ways by which bacteria can reduce these costs and the possibility of exploiting them.
Access : Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance? : Nature Reviews Microbiology

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

[ozymandias]

Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance?

Dan I. Andersson & Diarmaid Hughes

Abstract
Most antibiotic resistance mechanisms are associated with a fitness cost that is typically observed as a reduced bacterial growth rate. The magnitude of this cost is the main biological parameter that influences the rate of development of resistance, the stability of the resistance and the rate at which the resistance might decrease if antibiotic use were reduced. These findings suggest that the fitness costs of resistance will allow susceptible bacteria to outcompete resistant bacteria if the selective pressure from antibiotics is reduced. Unfortunately, the available data suggest that the rate of reversibility will be slow at the community level. Here, we review the factors that influence the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance, the ways by which bacteria can reduce these costs and the possibility of exploiting them.
Access : Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance? : Nature Reviews Microbiology

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Do you ever get dizzy spinning in circles? Not only did I agree to this, I have repeatedly pointed out that this is exactly what evolution predicts, so I don't see why you repeatedly present this as if it proved your point -- it doesn't. It disproves it.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Ozy...do you feel stupid now?

Yep precisely taking me out of context, I was making hyberole on terms you were using, indicating that they were not merely "different races" but different species.

Perfect example of quote mining and straw grasping.

[Alchemist]

When you have such shallow understanding of what evolution is, you can easily fool your self into believing every evidence brought up against is actually proof for it!

If your only proof of evolution is anti-biotic resistance, then it doesn't fulfil the hypothesis for natural selection.

Bacteria did not "mutate" after it got exposed to anti-biotics! The "mutations" conferring anti-biotic resistance existed before the discovery or use of antibiotics! The specific chemical required for resistance was inherent in the bacteria.

What I was trying to get across to you was that this type of mutation comes at a "fitness" cost. And according to the theory evolution, the trait in question ought to help the organism as a whole! Another example of a mutation that appears helpful but only in specific situation is - having sickle cell anaemia in a malaria ridden region.

This is the exact type of problem I had with scimitar dull edge when I was trying to "Debate" with him on the subject of evolution. You both have a very weak background in biology and do not understand the complexities of organisms to have an appreciation for the scope of what it is we are actually debating. You probably don't even know that unlike eukaryotic cells, prokaryotic cells are very bad at replicating their DNA. So within hours of a day the same bacteria will have had every single nucleotide in it's DNA changed! Yet E.coli bacteria has been the same species over a billion years!

This is NOT an example of vertical MACROevolution! But an example of horizontal microevolution = adaptation.

Yet, somehow I know you will manage to spin this around as something that proves evolution...clearly you two are delusional. Scimitar dull edge doesn't even have the shame and honor to man up to his mistake but throws a hissy fit as usual and goes straight into denial. Bravo!

[ScimitarXEdge]

It's funny that you accuse others of merely countering baselessly, when this is exactly what you did through out the debate.

and when you cite evidence, it's usually just highlighting parts which don't indicate anything in your argument.

[Alchemist]

yeah ..sure buddy..


excellent "counter" ...full of evidence...not baseless at all.. Thanks for your post. I clearly learned a lot from that one. Now I will have to rethink my position or at least study more on the subject before I form an opinion about it. Otherwise, I would just be ego masturbating.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That was intended to show that you have not provided a refutation against evolution.

merely making a theatric display and haughty rhetoric is not a refutation of anything.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Alchemist, you do realize that all of Michael Behe's "evidence" that you've been posting here has been refuted by scientists many times over, right? Whether it's irreducible complexity or mutations not bringing useful changes, everything has been scientifically refuted.

Since creationists have no scientific theories of their own, all they do is hunt for the gray areas or gaps in our understanding of biology and claim small victories for themselves. You can do that with just about any field of science. Needless to say, this worship of gaps is only effective on ignorant audiences such as Michael Behe's fundamentalist Christians.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I think what Alcumlust fails to recognize is gaps doesn't mean that there are deficiencies exist about Evolution, but rather we're learning more about how those evolutionary processes actual work.

[Afghanistan2010]

alchemist is clearly winner of this debate.

[ScimitarXEdge]

according to the guy who photoshopped a picture of Taliban members to make it look like they're united


and who confused Isomers and Isotope LOL

[Afghanistan2010]

according to the guy who photoshopped a picture of Taliban members to make it look like they're united


and who confused Isomers and Isotope LOL

yes according to the guy , who owned you in not one than 10 threads,and you came always with the same bullshiIt to show that you are right while non of the people understands your bullshiIt except for yourself,to me stil you remain a retard,desperate and lost person with no friends and looking for cyber attention because no one pays attention what comes out of ta gueule,
who shared a picture that he found on islamic forums and cleafyd you about isoptops and isomers which you dont know , and you came up with alkane and alkene from google searchs, you could not explain until now eulers imaginary numbers,you believe in a sect that teachs you insulting,raping,and believing that your forefathers enjoyed sex with monkies.....and and



au revoire ma fille