Evidence for Evolution

[Falco Knotwise]

Anyone interested how genetic codes can be changed in real time, partly as a result of chosen behaviors, and not by natural selection over long periods of time, this article, as best as I can make out, makes that case pretty well.

https://voegelinview.com/evolution-2-0- ... /#_ftnref7

[ohio jones]

We can talk all we want about Darwin but honestly he did his work 200 years ago, before we had any notion of modern molecular genetics. He didn't set down some inviolate gospel. He just proposed a theory of evolutionary change that has been expanded and developed in the intervening 200 years by countless subsequent scientists.

200 years ago, Darwin was 14 years old.

Is it any wonder that some people think the evolutionary timelines might be slightly exaggerated?

[Ken]

We can talk all we want about Darwin but honestly he did his work 200 years ago, before we had any notion of modern molecular genetics. He didn't set down some inviolate gospel. He just proposed a theory of evolutionary change that has been expanded and developed in the intervening 200 years by countless subsequent scientists.

200 years ago, Darwin was 14 years old.

Is it any wonder that some people think the evolutionary timelines might be slightly exaggerated?

The voyage of the HMS Beagle upon which Darwin did his famous studies in the Galapagos was from 1831 to 1836 meaning his work began 193 years ago.

So I rounded it to 200 years as people are wont to do when talking about events multiple centuries ago. If you think that negates my point then so be it.

[ohio jones]

The voyage of the HMS Beagle upon which Darwin did his famous studies in the Galapagos was from 1831 to 1836 meaning his work began 193 years ago.

Still rounding up, I see.

[Ken]

The voyage of the HMS Beagle upon which Darwin did his famous studies in the Galapagos was from 1831 to 1836 meaning his work began 193 years ago.

Still rounding up, I see.

Not really. Darwin entered university in 1825 as a a 16 year old med student but quickly tired of medicine and by his second year was shifting into natural science and by 1827 was conducting and presenting research on marine invertebrates. And his previous work as a young naturalist was what gained him recommendations for the position of naturalist on the HMS Beagle in the first place. At a minimum one could say his work as a naturalist started in 1826 at the age of 17 when he abandoned his medical school studies. Apparently he was quite precocious. So that was 197 or 198 years ago depending on how you round.

[Ken]

Anyone interested how genetic codes can be changed in real time, partly as a result of chosen behaviors, and not by natural selection over long periods of time, this article, as best as I can make out, makes that case pretty well.

https://voegelinview.com/evolution-2-0- ... /#_ftnref7

I took a look. The first thing I noticed was Marshall's repeated insistence that "RANDOM MUTATION + NATURAL SELECTION + TIME = EVOLUTION" When any basic biology class will tell you that Evolution involves Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Recombination and Gene Flow. In addition, mutations are not necessarily random. There is a natural background rate of mutations in most species. But mutations can also be caused by a wide variety of mutagens including a wide variety of types of radiation as well as many chemicals. Which are anything but random. Nevertheless, only mutations to sex cells will actually get passed on to offspring. A mutation in skin cells caused by UV radiation might cause mutations and skin cancer. But it isn't going to be passed on to one's offspring.

In any event, Perry Marshall is not a biologist. He is an engineer and business consultant. I find it curious that every author I come across who promotes some alternative theory of intelligent design is not actually a biologist and isn't writing peer-reviewed work. Which means there is every reason to be skeptical. And also means there is little reason to read the work since it is likely to be riddled with errors and unsupported conclusions.

[Josh]

Ah, yes, Darwin.

Who wrote the book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871).

Could we please consign this man’s views to the dustbin of history?

[NedFlanders]

Ah, yes, Darwin.

Who wrote the book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871).

Could we please consign this man’s views to the dustbin of history?

Nah, Darwin is just too easy of an example of what the evolutionary mindset is about at its core in your quote. Evolution believers should be reminded of Darwin regularly - the man who married his cousin causing sadly and ironically genetic issues with their children that they didn’t have many children that survived into adulthood…

[Josh]

Nah, Darwin is just too easy of an example of what the evolutionary mindset is about at its core in your quote. Evolution believers should be reminded of Darwin regularly - the man who married his cousin causing sadly and ironically genetic issues with their children that they didn’t have many children that survived into adulthood…

He was also a notorious eugenicist, and like most eugenicists, failed to practice what he preached.

[Falco Knotwise]

Anyone interested how genetic codes can be changed in real time, partly as a result of chosen behaviors, and not by natural selection over long periods of time, this article, as best as I can make out, makes that case pretty well.

https://voegelinview.com/evolution-2-0- ... /#_ftnref7

I took a look. The first thing I noticed was Marshall's repeated insistence that "RANDOM MUTATION + NATURAL SELECTION + TIME = EVOLUTION" When any basic biology class will tell you that Evolution involves Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Recombination and Gene Flow. In addition, mutations are not necessarily random. There is a natural background rate of mutations in most species. But mutations can also be caused by a wide variety of mutagens including a wide variety of types of radiation as well as many chemicals. Which are anything but random. Nevertheless, only mutations to sex cells will actually get passed on to offspring. A mutation in skin cells caused by UV radiation might cause mutations and skin cancer. But it isn't going to be passed on to one's offspring.

In any event, Perry Marshall is not a biologist. He is an engineer and business consultant. I find it curious that every author I come across who promotes some alternative theory of intelligent design is not actually a biologist and isn't writing peer-reviewed work. Which means there is every reason to be skeptical. And also means there is little reason to read the work since it is likely to be riddled with errors and unsupported conclusions.

Ok Ken, thanks for the debate! I enjoyed it.