Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[cyghost]

Doesn't answer the OP but I am sure you'll give those to us just now anyway, right? I mean you won't make a post saying you have arguments and then not actually making any arguments would you?

 

[rwenzori]

I think there are good logical arguments for the case that variation is not random with regards to fitness (whatever your definition) but merely indeterminate.

Somebody should get determining then. Or do you mean indeterminable, in which case your claim about randomness is guesswork.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

This thread will not get anywhere as the question it's posing is asking for something that simply doesn't exist. If valid logical and scientific reasons did exist rebutting the theory of evolution then we most definitely would of heard about it because it would be massive news.

Pro-creationist/ID folks also would be having a field day if these objections existed as they would actually then have a case against evolution which thankfully they do not have.

I know a lot of people on this forum think of themselves as smart informed people, but trying to come up with valid objections to a theory that has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny is not going to happen here. Let's leave the science to the scientists and rather try our hands at philosophy when discussing evolution.

 

[DJ...]

The bottom line here is that until the likes of swa can actually contribute anything of substance to this thread, there really is no need to involve herself in all of the other evolution-related threads. Yay...

 

[Unhappy438]

The bottom line here is that until the likes of swa can actually contribute anything of substance to this thread, there really is no need to involve herself in all of the other evolution-related threads. Yay...

I thought Swa was a dude..

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I thought Swa was a dude..

Nobody is ever female on the internet, they should know that by now

 

[DJ...]

I thought Swa was a dude..

All of the pent-up emotional outbursts convinced me...

 

[Swa]

So for semantics sake you're not going to call it evolution but will accept that genetic change takes place. Your issue is with speciation, not evolution as a process...

Where is the genetic change? It's simply shuffling of ALREADY existing genes between individuals. The very wiki article on gene flow states it "strongly acts against speciation" and therefor must act against evolution.

This thread will not get anywhere as the question it's posing is asking for something that simply doesn't exist. If valid logical and scientific reasons did exist rebutting the theory of evolution then we most definitely would of heard about it because it would be massive news.

Pro-creationist/ID folks also would be having a field day if these objections existed as they would actually then have a case against evolution which thankfully they do not have.

You're assuming that because the theory hasn't been rejected that there are no valid objections. The objections have been raised in almost every forum nut "lalalalala we don't hear anything..."

I know a lot of people on this forum think of themselves as smart informed people, but trying to come up with valid objections to a theory that has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny is not going to happen here. Let's leave the science to the scientists and rather try our hands at philosophy when discussing evolution.

Is this an admission that it's NOT science?

 

[Techne]

Where is the genetic change? It's simply shuffling of ALREADY existing genes between individuals. The very wiki article on gene flow states it "strongly acts against speciation" and therefor must act against evolution.

What do you understand about the concept of "species"? There are at least 24 different definitions and not one of them can be applied to all living forms in a consistent manner.

It is simply trivially true that without a coherent and consistent definition of the concept of "species", the term "speciation" merely turns out to be a subjective made up term that does not even describe something objectively real.

 

[Swa]

What do you understand about the concept of "species"? There are at least 24 different definitions and not one of them can be applied to all living forms in a consistent manner.

It is simply trivially true that without a coherent and consistent definition of the concept of "species", the term "speciation" merely turns out to be a subjective made up term that does not even describe something objectively real.

I don't understand your question. Yes there is confusion as to what constitutes a new species. That is evolution's problem though.

In the context I think it's safe to say that speciation would be marked by differentiation in all definitions. Gene flow prevents differentiation and therefor speciation whatever your definition of it is.

 

[Techne]

I don't understand your question. Yes there is confusion as to what constitutes a new species. That is evolution's problem though.

In the context I think it's safe to say that speciation would be marked by differentiation in all definitions. Gene flow prevents differentiation and therefor speciation whatever your definition of it is.

That is the thing, you can't claim that something prevents or promotes speciation if you don't even know what a species is or at least provide a coherent and consistent definition of what species means.

In some instances (depending on your definition of species, in this case, the "biological species concept") gene flow may promote speciation. For example, gene flow can occur between two different species which may result in the formation of a new species, different from the other two.

 

[Slootvreter]

Intentionality, teleology, defining each and every word and still not an ounce of on-topic discussion, phrony. You really do go out of your way to fsck up threads. This is why you have been banned on at least three occasions from this forum and from PD.

Please remove yourself...

LOL, true story! They are throwing words around, and being as vague as humanly possible.

You had a simple request: State the evidence that disprove evolution.

 

[alloytoo]

The very wiki article on gene flow states it "strongly acts against speciation" and therefor must act against evolution.

um no.

It merely means that population isn't likely to develop into two different species, not that the popuation as a whole cannot evolve.

 

[Techne]

LOL, true story! They are throwing words around, and being as vague as humanly possible.

You had a simple request: State the evidence that disprove evolution.

What appears to be vague to you may be crystal clear to others. Don't generalize like this .

Also, you don't prove or disprove something with evidence, you confirm or doubt a certain hypothesis with evidence. If you want to disprove or prove something, use deductive logic.

 

[Swa]

That is the thing, you can't claim that something prevents or promotes speciation if you don't even know what a species is or at least provide a coherent and consistent definition of what species means.

I don't know what you mean. The species problem is one for evolution. The whole premise is that differentiation leads to speciation. Well fine but without a proper definition of species it's hard to say when a new species arises and therefor impossible to prove.

It's not a problem when arguing against it! Gene flow prevents speciation because it prevents differentiation. But more than that if existing genes are simple exchanged then the species (whatever your definition of one is) as a whole stay constant.

In some instances (depending on your definition of species, in this case, the "biological species concept") gene flow may promote speciation. For example, gene flow can occur between two different species which may result in the formation of a new species, different from the other two.

I don't see how that can happen. The offspring would need to be separated from the other species in order to prevent gene flow back to the other two species. Yet gene flow implies no separation between two species and therefor not between them and their offspring either.

 

[Swa]

um no.

It merely means that population isn't likely to develop into two different species, not that the popuation as a whole cannot evolve.

And there's that word again. In order for something to evolve there needs to be new genetic information added. Gene flow does not create new genes or alter existing ones.

 

[Techne]

It's not a problem when arguing against it! Gene flow prevents speciation because it prevents differentiation. But more than that if existing genes are simple exchanged then the species (whatever your definition of one is) as a whole stay constant.

Gene flow does not necessarily prevent differentiation. A simple example would be hybridization of wild crops with agriculturally modified crops. The hybridization may result in increased differentiation.

I don't see how that can happen. The offspring would need to be separated from the other species in order to prevent gene flow back to the other two species. Yet gene flow implies no separation between two species and therefore not between them and their offspring either.

Gene flow may happen between say, chimpanzees and humans via horizontal gene transfer. A simple example would be a retroviral virus infection in chimpanzees resulting in the the formation of endogenous retroviral elements in the chimp genome. These incorporated retroviral elements may undergo various sequence change over a few generations (since they are part of the chimp genome) and then form active retroviruses (due to their expression in the chimp genome) and this may be transferred and incorporated into human DNA via retrotranpostition.

 

[Techne]

And there's that word again. In order for something to evolve there needs to be new genetic information added. Gene flow does not create new genes or alter existing ones.

No, evolution just means change. In order for something to evolve it just has to undergo some sort of change. It may be epigenetic (not genetic) or even something else without necessarily being a genetic change.

 

[Slootvreter]

What appears to be vague to you may be crystal clear to others. Don't generalize like this .

Also, you don't prove or disprove something with evidence, you confirm or doubt a certain hypothesis with evidence. If you want to disprove or prove something, use deductive logic.

There you go again. LOL All about the words.

 

[Slootvreter]

DJ... as asked the impossible question.

Techne and Swa will argue about the meanings of words, and this will carry on until many of us lose interest in this thread, like me...