Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class

Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

[exDemMom]

Would that be in a controlled environment — i.e., in a laboratory setting? Is what goes on in a laboratory setting necessarily indicative of what goes on in nature (i.e., in an uncontrolled environment)?

We look at these things in a laboratory environment because it allows us to disregard all of the confounders that one finds outside of a lab. But yes, for the adaptation experiment allmendream described, what happens in the lab would be what we would expect to happen outside of the lab.

Are you using bacteria — microscopic, single-celled organisms which do not have either a membrane-enclosed nucleus or other membrane-enclosed organelles like mitochondria — as a proxy for all biological systems in nature, in particular of the most highly complex one we know about, human beings?

It is often very insightful to examine processes in simpler organisms before we look at the process in a more complex organism. We can disrupt processes in simpler organisms that we simply cannot do in higher organisms; we do this because often, the purpose of a metabolic function does not become apparent until we can see what happens when it is absent.

It is not the case that humans are the most complex organism we know about. The respiratory system of birds, for example, is far more complex and efficient than the mammalian system. Plant reproduction is far more complex than animal reproduction.

It appears from what you wrote that the "marching order" signals are all triggered locally. I.e., they are the effects of local causes. For a bacterium, this may be good enuf.

I recall discussing this some time back. All organisms respond to signals. Those signals can be anything, from any source--environmental, from within the organism, or from other organisms of the same or different species. The signals cause a response. The signals should not, in any way, be interpreted as indicative of intelligent involvement. The sun doesn't decide to irradiate you with UV rays; you don't decide to tan or burn or make vitamin D in response. Those processes all happen spontaneously and without thought.

But what happens with the astronomically more complex higher life forms? Do you believe that the behavior of bacteria really sheds light on the organization of these higher life forms? It seems clear to me that such organization can only be accomplished by a non-local cause, one that coordinates and governs the entire system, not just the behavior of the system's components.

Yes, the functions of bacteria behavior do shed light on human functions. In some cases, the functions are the same (respiration of aerobic organisms, for example). In the case of some organelles, studying bacteria is superior to studying eukaryotes: both mitochondria and chloroplasts are bacteria that took up residence inside eukaryotic cells many millions of years ago. They have their own DNA, arranged in a chromosome that still looks more like a bacterial chromosome than a eukaryotic chromosome. Their proteins resemble bacterial proteins.

As for the control of a multicellular system, it occurs at all levels, from the single cell up to the entire body. If a cell needs more energy, it acts to acquire more energy without involving other cells. If an organism perceives danger, the entire organism reacts.

In short, assuming you can do as you claim in the above italics — and I really don't doubt this — what relevance does it have for the understanding of complex biological systems in nature? All the bacteria studies can do is to demonstrate local-cause behavior. It sheds no light on the complexities involved in the organization and governance of higher-order biological systems in nature.

Bacterial studies do far more than that. Metabolic pathways that are similar between bacteria and multicellular organisms can be studied without complicating factors. Bacteria talk to each other and coordinate with each other. Bacteria can be used to produce proteins of higher organisms for in vitro studies that wouldn't be possible otherwise. And so on. When I was doing my PhD research, I was interested in the function of a human metabolic pathway, but I used bacteria, yeast, human, mouse, monkey, and hamster cells, as well as protein extracts from a variety of organs from different species. That is because many approaches are needed to find answers.

[Moseley]

Only the dominant ultimately are valuable.

This is exactly the conflict. In Christianity , EVERYONE is valuable and is loved 100% equally by God.

How then can you reconcile evolution with a belief in the Christian God? How can you call yourself a Christian and say you believe in evolution, when the heart and soul of evolution (in addition to being factually absurd, superstitious pseudo-science) 100% in contradiction to God?

The very meaning of evolution is a 100% contradiction and negation of everything that the Christian God is, wants, and teaches about humanity. It is impossible to reconcile Christianity and evolution.

[Moseley]

Genetic diversity is a good thing in evolution.

No, that is a false assertion, or rather atrociously vague for scientific analysis. Genetic diversity is good for the helath of a population.

But in terms of natural selection, certain characteristics are asserted to be BETTER (more adaptive) than others.

By no means does the evolutionary hypothesis of natural selection -- that is mate selection preferring "better" characteristics - SEEK diversity.

If certain characteristics are more advantageous for survival, diversity is *BAD* because diversity means that some specimens have disadvantageous characteristics. If mating specimens are choosing a mate based upon the selection of "better" characteritics, to select for diversity is to promote WORSE characteristics.

There is absolutely nothing in the hypothesis of evolution or any of its dicussion that supports or even mentions mate-selection to SEEK diversity.

[allmendream]

“I can't say that I have spent a whole lot of time working on a “scientific” alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.” betty boop

Neither you or any other Creationist.

Yet you seem to insist that SOME element of the evolution you claim to accept has a physical basis - yet you have absolutely no idea, nor do you care to make a conjecture, as to what the physical basis is.

Is it intellectual laziness?

You have been discussing an issue you don't really understand for many years now. You don't understand the scientific basis for Darwinian evolution or the scientific physical basis for the evolution you claim you believe in either.

Heck, you don't really even understand what DNA is or what it does - yet are quite certain, somehow, that is isn't able to do it on its own.

Would you take the word of someone who doesn't understand an internal combustion engine that burning gas alone was not necessary and sufficient to provide the energy required to make the car go - that there must be some outside force acting upon the car?

I sure wouldn't. Thus I take your conjecture that DNA, which you don't understand, is not necessary and sufficient to producing a living organism without external and somewhat miraculous “marching orders” - with about the same level of confidence - that being zero.

[Moseley]

Okay, which ever one of you dominates the debate gets to mate with Ms. Fluke without using contraception.

But you are deeply buried in evolution when you think this way.

Who "gets" to mate with Ms. Fluke has nothing to do with any such thing. No person is a "prize" to be won or lost in an evolutionary "Final Four" play-off. Who "gets" to mate with a woman is whom makes the woman happy, and spiritually whom God in His plans leads her together with.

You assume your conclusion -- circular reasoning -- by believing that who "gets" to mate with a woman is the result of winning some competition.

You in fact confirm the thesis of the post that evolution perverts God's view of everyone being equally valuable to a ruthless, nasty, despicable view in which some people are valuable and others are evolutionary trash.

Are you surprised that the Florida Black student lashes out with anger? The more I think about it, Jonatha Carr is the most sane person in this entire discussion. Her reaction of being deeply insulted by evolution is the most accurate, honest, sincere, genuine reaction possible. Everyone else is playing games and hiding from the truth.

[Moseley]

You seem to have an almost religious reverence for DNA. But can you tell me what you think DNA IS?

I don't understand his discussion of God creating humans out of dust AND THEN SEPARATELY through DNA -- as if these are two different things.

If God created Adam out of dust -- the dust INCLUDES the DNA. The DNA is part of the dust that God fashioned into a human being.

[Moseley]

A greater challenge for those who would provoke evolution by environmental changes would be to provoke a single cell organism to become multi-cellular, differentiating cells by function or system (e.g. endocrine, cardiovascular). Better yet, provoke the organism to create a new body plan or new system. Even so, if the organism always responds in the same way to the same provocation it would be more appropriately called an adaption - speaking to the robust capability of the genetic code itself, i.e. to adapt to environmental changes, rather than a novel mutation that happened to work well.

This is the difficulty: Proponents of evolution keep CHANGING the definition of evolution like playing rhetorical dodgeball. When faced with a tough question, they simply shift the ground and start pretending that evolution means something entirely different.

How can we show conclusively that evolution has never been proven? By the fact that there is no clear definition of what evolution is. It is impossible to scientifically prove something without first precisely defining it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear Moseley!

As Sir Karl Popper said, the ability to falsify a theory makes it valuable - not its "explanatory power."

When a theory is generalized so that it can explain most anything - and especially thereafter revised to accommodate new evidence (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) - the theory is more like dogma than a scientific theory. See my post over on this thread for more.

[xzins]

Looking back, we know all that begetting of baby pigeons would end up on the scrapheap of history.

“Failures!”, I say, “Everyone of them useless!”

God, on the other hand is concerned when any sparrow falls.

And about you, too, TL.

[xzins]

Looking back, we know all that begetting of baby pigeons would end up on the scrapheap of history.

“Failures!”, I say, “Everyone of them useless!”

God, on the other hand is concerned when any sparrow that falls.

And about you, too, TL.

[xzins]

Yep, that’s what I said.

[tacticalogic]

Love God, but hate his Creation (or at least parts of it)?

Sounds an odd theology to me.

[betty boop]

Yet you seem to insist that SOME element of the evolution you claim to accept has a physical basis — yet you have absolutely no idea, nor do you care to make a conjecture, as to what the physical basis is. Is it intellectual laziness?

I sketched out this model a few years ago:

You'll note the model contains a "physical basis" and an informational component that looks at the algorithmic complexity of each of the five levels.

This model is based on Alex William's work, fleshed out with a bit of Grandpierre and Chaitin. The proposal of quantum and biological vacuum fields (Fig. 3) is my hypothesis.

But of course, the model does not deal with evolution per se, only "self-making," irreducibly complex biological systems in nature. In short, what biological systems are, not just what they "look like."

I hope you'll find the model interesting.

[allmendream]

The chart does nothing to explain the physical basis of the evolution you claim to accept.

It does nothing to differentiate the evolution you claim to believe in from the mechanism Darwin outlined.

So I guess the answer to if you could explain the physical mechanism behind the evolution you claim to believe in is still a resounding “No”.

So how would a population “evolve” via a physical mechanism in the evolution you claim to accept?

Can you explain it in a non-”Darwinian” fashion?

Apparently not.

Very amusing.

[xzins]

???

You’re gonna have to explain that one. I don’t understand.

[betty boop]

So I guess the answer to if you could explain the physical mechanism behind the evolution you claim to believe in is still a resounding “No”.

Natural selection is not a "physical mechanism."

[allmendream]

Sure it is.

When I subject a bacterial population to an antibiotic that targets their ribosomes - the antibiotic is a physical mechanism that will kill the vast majority of that population.

The difference between those that died and those that did not was a physical difference. Variations within some of that population in the relevant DNA for the ribosomes will make the antibiotic not able to physically bind and physically stop protein production resulting in physical death.

How would one attempt to divorce that from being physical? It certainly isn't magical miraculous or metaphysical.

[tacticalogic]

You’re gonna have to explain that one. I don’t understand.

I believe that evolution happened, and I believe in God. It's all just part of the design, and there's no reason to hate the design or anything to be gained from it.

[xzins]

Got it. It’s a theological difference.

Apparenlty, you believe God made humanity with death already on the books for him. I don’t believe that.

[tacticalogic]

There you go. I don’t “hate” eveolution because I have a different theology. In order for the arguments presented to cause me to want to hate evolution, I’d have to change my religious beliefs.