Evolution

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The textbook in question was A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, authored by George William Hunter, which espoused the then popular beliefs regarding eugenics.

In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. Hunter also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

As such, the section in question was a gross misinterpretation and unsupported extrapolation of Darwin's work and the resulting theory of evolution.

We know Darwin himself avoided the word evolution until the 6th edition of Origin of Species in part because of the baggage of Spencer's "evolution" (and his dislike of Spencer.) But he also benefited mightily by the moods sweeping intellectual circles of the time; after all the Origin of Species is a rather dry tome and that it so suddenly swept up and invigorated popular imagination as it did would be a real curiosity if we didn't know the context of the milieu it was published. Which is why it is one of most seminal texts of 19th century, but along with Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik; provided a rationalization for a rather dark kind of humanism.

Ultimately like a lot of ideas floating in the aether, you can't control who picks what up and how ideas are organized.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

What does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Everything

DNA by itself is negligible- it's not the be all and end all of what we know about replicating biochemical information systems.

And we don't get to anything we'd call life without addressing RNA and proteins and microorganisms or the ecology of all of these things combined.

You want to see free strands of dna and rna floating out there, take a look at viruses.

That's "life" with the premium set on DNA

Great stories. So no science showing the origin of DNA? My research shows it is impossible, yet you seem to believe in it. Am I wrong?

It must hurt your back moving the goalposts all day long. Are you looking for spontaneity or origins or just free radical dna adrift, free of a animated type?

[Mr. Perfect]

Same as question as we started. You guys have gone all the way around the barn but there is only one door.

[Mr. Perfect]

Same goalpost as before. Someone please just kick the ball.

I have a problem. I have been learning too much. My science education centers around Physics but due to certain factors I have been learning A LOT of biology. A LOT.

I have a non trolling question. I bring it here because if you go to forums specializing in this field it's a shouting match of word sophistry.

So it goes as follows.

1. Can a key fob randomly and spontaneously generate in nature? No
2. Can a blank sheet of paper generate E=MC^2 in writing randomly and spontaneously? No
3. Can a blank hard drive randomly and spontaneously generate an operating system? No
4. Can a chemical structure that is more complex than any computer operating system (DNA) spontaneously and randomly generate itself in nature? No (and this is before we get to the complexity of a cell)



It seems that the religion of Sam Harris/Dawkins/de grasse Tyson is as fake as any other.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

You talk about dna as if it were hydrogen atoms. And what you are really searching for are novel 'types' of organization with the assumption that if dna is self-organizing or organized by nature than it must occur at a high frequency.

Why that assumption would be correct, God only knows, but that's where we are at. And everything is invalid until you see a horse-like creature with mole claws pop in and out of existence.

[Mr. Perfect]

So are you saying a guitar string could randomly form in nature.

[Mr. Perfect]

You talk about dna as if it were hydrogen atoms. And what you are really searching for are novel 'types' of organization with the assumption that if dna is self-organizing or organized by nature than it must occur at a high frequency.

I'm looking for one example.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

So are you saying a guitar string could randomly form in nature.

I am saying we suppose the guitar string has a maker because we already know that guitar strings are a sort of thing that men make. We also know the end purpose of a guitar string.

What's the end purpose of a warthog?

Where's the boundary on the intelligibility of our universe? Is it bothersome what earthlings share in star dust? Why shouldn't new types of celestial objects pop in and out of existence?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

You talk about dna as if it were hydrogen atoms. And what you are really searching for are novel 'types' of organization with the assumption that if dna is self-organizing or organized by nature than it must occur at a high frequency.

I'm looking for one example.

I gave 'one example' to you: spontaneous on-the-fly editing of complex RNA sequences as seen in cephalopods. I also provided one months ago with a wall lizard in the Mediterranean who grew a whole new organ within 20 years when it migrated (and became isolated) on another island. We can also point to mosaicism in non-mendelian inheritance.

These all arise from spontaneous novelties at a genetic level; mutations filling a new niche (or making an attempt in the abstract).

[noddy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus make the neat seperation between birds and mammals that some folks are attached to.. quite complicated.

any creation story without platypus in it is definately on the wrong path.

[Mr. Perfect]

I am saying we suppose the guitar string has a maker because we already know that guitar strings are a sort of thing that men make. We also know the end purpose of a guitar string.

What's the end purpose of a warthog?

Where's the boundary on the intelligibility of our universe? Is it bothersome what earthlings share in star dust? Why shouldn't new types of celestial objects pop in and out of existence?

Sorry, I was looking for a scientific explanation. Do you have a scientific explanation?

[noddy]

So far we have gotten some predictable responses.

Noddy was probably the most responsible, "billions of years anything can happen (except key fobs ) and while you have a point if you don't agree with me you are ignorant" which we see in cases like MMGW (also happens in evolution arguments all the time when dealing with those impossibilities).
.

on this topic you are ignorant, its no big thing, which isnt to say evolution is right but if you are going to criticize it you should at least be more accurate about what it is.

coils of copper wire dont have jack todo with the arguments about self replicating chemistry.

natural selection is about having the right traits at the right time, sometimes being simpler is better, sometimes being more complex - nature doesnt care, you either survive to breed successfully or you dont.

--

keyfobs probably do form accidently - all thats required is that the thing resonates at the right frequency when an electrical current is applied, its bound to have happened somewhere, the only problem being that nobody has scanned enough lumps of crap to find an example yet

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

...and when making hash of animated materials- those self-replicating biochemical information systems- it isn't more revealing if we credit God for it, unless we are making a theological or philosophical point.

We write a^2+b^2=c^2 not a^2 (as God says it is) + (as God determines) b^2 (as God says it is) = (as God reveals to us) c^2 (unless God determines otherwise)

[Mr. Perfect]

I gave 'one example' to you: spontaneous on-the-fly editing of complex RNA sequences as seen in cephalopods. I also provided one months ago with a wall lizard in the Mediterranean who grew a whole new organ within 20 years when it migrated (and became isolated) on another island. We can also point to mosaicism in non-mendelian inheritance.

These all arise from spontaneous novelties at a genetic level; mutations filling a new niche (or making an attempt in the abstract).

These are not examples​. An example would be you showing me a video capture of DNA self generating. You are using the fallacy of "this complicated thing happened so that complicated thing could happen", which explains nothing yet reveals everything. The generation of DNA must stand on it own merits. And you can't do it.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I gave 'one example' to you: spontaneous on-the-fly editing of complex RNA sequences as seen in cephalopods. I also provided one months ago with a wall lizard in the Mediterranean who grew a whole new organ within 20 years when it migrated (and became isolated) on another island. We can also point to mosaicism in non-mendelian inheritance.

These all arise from spontaneous novelties at a genetic level; mutations filling a new niche (or making an attempt in the abstract).

These are not examples​. An example would be you showing me a video capture of DNA self generating. You are using the fallacy of "this complicated thing happened so that complicated thing could happen", which explains nothing yet reveals everything. The generation of DNA must stand on it own merits. And you can't do it.

It's not a hydrogen atom.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's amazing that your first instinct is to attack god instead of support your own theory, despite the fact that I haven't brought up god.. I sense a deep insecurity.

[Mr. Perfect]

I gave 'one example' to you: spontaneous on-the-fly editing of complex RNA sequences as seen in cephalopods. I also provided one months ago with a wall lizard in the Mediterranean who grew a whole new organ within 20 years when it migrated (and became isolated) on another island. We can also point to mosaicism in non-mendelian inheritance.

These all arise from spontaneous novelties at a genetic level; mutations filling a new niche (or making an attempt in the abstract).

These are not examples​. An example would be you showing me a video capture of DNA self generating. You are using the fallacy of "this complicated thing happened so that complicated thing could happen", which explains nothing yet reveals everything. The generation of DNA must stand on it own merits. And you can't do it.

It's not a hydrogen atom.

Ok so show me a scientific basis for it's origin.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's amazing that your first instinct is to attack god instead of support your own theory, despite the fact that I haven't brought up god.. I sense a deep insecurity.

Evolutionary Psychologists would call this sentence projection

[Mr. Perfect]

Cool story. Where is your science.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I gave 'one example' to you: spontaneous on-the-fly editing of complex RNA sequences as seen in cephalopods. I also provided one months ago with a wall lizard in the Mediterranean who grew a whole new organ within 20 years when it migrated (and became isolated) on another island. We can also point to mosaicism in non-mendelian inheritance.

These all arise from spontaneous novelties at a genetic level; mutations filling a new niche (or making an attempt in the abstract).

These are not examples​. An example would be you showing me a video capture of DNA self generating. You are using the fallacy of "this complicated thing happened so that complicated thing could happen", which explains nothing yet reveals everything. The generation of DNA must stand on it own merits. And you can't do it.

It's not a hydrogen atom.

Ok so show me a scientific basis for it's origin.

sure, as soon as you can demonstrate you know the difference between a theory and a fact.

[Parodite]

Will add that asking why nature (nature minus human nature) doesn't produce keyfobs is like asking why philosophers don't produce hurricanes or fish don't bark at night. And then claiming that to make a snail playing the violin you need a miracle.

This whole thing is just the result of the misguided notion of a God that once upon a time created all things and then took a day off contently smoking his pipe overlooking the results of his creativity. Mr. P., you are of course free to take that tale literally but it is at your own peril. So I just dropped God a line and here is what he had to say.

Thusly spoketh the divine during full moon:

Being timeless, eternal, for Me there is no "once upon a time". I told you so later on, or should I say: it was said from the start. Only through poetry will you glimpse what I am saying to you: a thousand years are like a day for me, and a day are like a thousand years. Look it up in my Book.

The above also means that life is not a creation, but a creativity. Evolution theory only revealed glimpses of My creativity with some of the hows and very little of the why's. For you the how is something different from they why, but for Me the distinction is meaningless. They combine and from them emerges new meaning. And from that meaning emerges again new meaning and so on. You are all in the middle of My creativity as co-creators. But so are other animals, plants and everything else in the universe from galaxies to subatomic particles. Don't you ever assume you are more, or less important than anything else. Everything that is, is indispensable and cries the fury of Creation! Have you loved your neighbor like thyself, good for you. How about loving a solemn piece of dog poo, dismissed and forgotten, hidden under some autumn leaves close to the old bridge rusting and falling apart. That is your challenge.

It was asked how DNA emerged. This only seems unlikely because you weren't there to witness it and because it can't be repeated in a lab. But how likely was it that you would be born having the unique exact features you now easily take for granted? Really, statistically you are an impossibility and yet... here you are. Of course in the same way,everything that happens is an impossibility. But impossibility is tied to the very act of creation: it is not possible to know what you will create exactly. If that were possible, the thing would exist already before it was created. That would negate the principle of creation because a creation would then be a pale copy of some original. Creation through creativity, forever new emergence on all scales, can be called evolution. What's in a name. Predict what will be next and failure is already there.

So did I know how exactly I would create DNA or anything else for that matter? No! The secret is that possible things never happen, only impossible things. Keep that in mind when occasions appear somewhat strange and unlikely at times.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The textbook in question was A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, authored by George William Hunter, which espoused the then popular beliefs regarding eugenics.

In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. Hunter also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

As such, the section in question was a gross misinterpretation and unsupported extrapolation of Darwin's work and the resulting theory of evolution.

We know Darwin himself avoided the word evolution until the 6th edition of Origin of Species in part because of the baggage of Spencer's "evolution" (and his dislike of Spencer.) But he also benefited mightily by the moods sweeping intellectual circles of the time; after all the Origin of Species is a rather dry tome and that it so suddenly swept up and invigorated popular imagination as it did would be a real curiosity if we didn't know the context of the milieu it was published. Which is why it is one of most seminal texts of 19th century, but along with Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik; provided a rationalization for a rather dark kind of humanism.

Ultimately like a lot of ideas floating in the aether, you can't control who picks what up and how ideas are organized.

Follow this up with another unintended battleground:

It is my understanding that the original target of Dawkins & crew was the nascent environmentalist movement preaching cosmic harmony amongst all. 'The Selfish Gene', by my understanding, is a ruthless tyrant out to conqueror and keep- red in tooth and claw & only settling for an uneasy detente, at least on the molecular level.

Even when he went into apologetic full time, the summation of his argument from him and his acolytes riffed along the lines that religions and gods promise harmonious orders which are not found in nature.

With such a focus on disharmony, I am curious what he really thinks of climate change beyond the *famous scientist* lip service, as it has adopted a lot in regards to harmonious ecologies which must be protected.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

The textbook in question was A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, authored by George William Hunter, which espoused the then popular beliefs regarding eugenics.

In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. Hunter also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

As such, the section in question was a gross misinterpretation and unsupported extrapolation of Darwin's work and the resulting theory of evolution.

We know Darwin himself avoided the word evolution until the 6th edition of Origin of Species in part because of the baggage of Spencer's "evolution" (and his dislike of Spencer.) But he also benefited mightily by the moods sweeping intellectual circles of the time; after all the Origin of Species is a rather dry tome and that it so suddenly swept up and invigorated popular imagination as it did would be a real curiosity if we didn't know the context of the milieu it was published. Which is why it is one of most seminal texts of 19th century, but along with Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik; provided a rationalization for a rather dark kind of humanism.

Ultimately like a lot of ideas floating in the aether, you can't control who picks what up and how ideas are organized.

A nice and clean way to state it over the muddled response I was going to make. Well done......

In the first edition of Origin Darwin didn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest". He was induced into it by Spencer, who along with other members of Chapman's Salon wanted to push a positivist ideology of social darwinism and structural functionalism. Darwin later published this book, which proved to be the real punch behind everything emotional and contentious in the term 'evolution', though the psychological bits were disastrous and had to be sorted out later by C.G. Jung.....

[Typhoon]

What does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Everything

DNA by itself is negligible- it's not the be all and end all of what we know about replicating biochemical information systems.

And we don't get to anything we'd call life without addressing RNA and proteins and microorganisms or the ecology of all of these things combined.

You want to see free strands of dna and rna floating out there, take a look at viruses.

That's "life" with the premium set on DNA

Great stories. So no science showing the origin of DNA? My research shows it is impossible, yet you seem to believe in it. Am I wrong?

It must hurt your back moving the goalposts all day long. Are you looking for spontaneity or origins or just free radical dna adrift, free of a animated type?

The goalposts are . . . evolving.

[noddy]

sand can form mountains and it can form beaches.

is sand driven towards bigger complexities, is it essential for sand to become a mountain ?


it sounds like gibberish to put a moral destiny on the various formations.