Evolution by Blind Guidance Is Really Just Unguided Evolution

More from Evolution News.

In this short piece there is:

  1. Evolution by Blind Guidance
  2. Unguided Evolution
  3. Theistic Evolution
  4. Darwinian evolution
  5. evolving “in the wild,”
  6. evolved by natural means.

But never just evolution. Why is that?


@DaleCutler see anything missing?

Providential Evolution

1 Like

Psychological projection.

The DI is motivated by religious beliefs, so they try to project that onto others. If they can set up Darwin as a faux prophet then they can attack a person instead of the science. They feel they can win if it is about theology instead of biology. Also, they are preaching to the choir, not presenting science to scientists.

1 Like

Definitely. :slightly_smiling_face:

“Just evolution” does not explain how change occurs especially innovative change.

How many times have we given you this explanation? The explanation is mutation.

Are you asking for the specific biochemical reactions that give rise to mutations? If not, this subject has been beaten to death in multiple other threads and it won’t be continued in this thread (speaking as moderator).


Real question forthcoming. But there is always something that precedes mutation, isn’t there. In the prokaryotes we find mitosis for instance. We also find that if there is no mitosis, there is no survival. Now consider mitosis - that it is orderly and periodic in nature. But also consider that it precedes any kind of mutation that may occur in a replicated member.

Please discuss for a moment why mutation may not be the best starting point for the discussion, but rather, what occurs before mutations arise. Real inquiry. Real question. If possible, please give a slow and considered answer.

edit. And like a dummy I forgot the important point --> no mitosis, no mutation.

Within the theory of evolution this is the case. The theory states that life evolved from a common ancestor. There are other theories that try to explain the origin of the first life. If you accept that all life evolved from a universal common ancestor and are simply disagreeing with how the first life came about then I have to wonder why you are arguing against evolution.

If you agree that all life evolved from a common ancestor, then I would be happy to move on to abiogenesis.

That’s not entirely true since mutations can occur through DNA damage and subsequent repair. However, this mutation will only exist in a single cell and won’t impact the evolution of species if it isn’t passed on to subsequent generations.

What? Don’t you know me? I cannot ever, ever endorse such a thing. Never, ever misconstrue anything I say as any kind of even shred of support for evolution…Please do not do this. I make it clear in no equivocal terms to all here - I repudiate your paradigm and will face the flame before it ever would even have the chance of escaping my lips

Now, let me think at what point it was that you misunderstood what I said and I will try to respond.

You’re so brave in the face of the Evolutionary Inquisition (which nobody expects). I’m sure your ability to withstand being poked with the soft cushions is phenomenal.

Tell me: what is a created kind? Is every species a kind?

Besides the point. My point was simply to say that order and periodicity found in mitosis precedes any kind of randomness you may claim. In other words, mutations is not the starting point of the discussion. I see
Order --> (then what you call randomness in mutation but really is predictable so “randomness” is highly questionable) --> Order again.

I try to make allowances for English not being your first language. You mean “beside the point”. But no, it isn’t. We’re trying to see how much common ground for discussion we have. You reject common descent of all life, but do you reject common descent within less inclusive taxonomic groups? At what point do our opinions diverge on this subject? If you tell us, we could try to keep the discussion within the limits of agreement.

I think I can safely say that nobody gets your point about mitosis. Randomness is predictable, just as the frequency of heads is predictable in a coin flip, as long as you count enough flips. (Mitosis, strictly speaking, is something only eukaryotes do.)

Then I’m not sure why you are using this line of argumentation which accepts common ancestry to be true. If you reject common ancestry then abiogenesis is irrelevant to your line of argument.

How so? Mutations precede mitosis all of the time. For example, ionizing radiation can break DNA which results in DNA mutations after DNA repair. When the cell divides this passes on the mutation. DNA methylation can be followed by deamination which mutates a C into a U, and then ultimately into a T once mitosis occurs. The process of mutation precedes mitosis in many cases.

Discuss these. I am led to believe that outside influence or some otherwise form of interruption to normal DNA function initiates these kinds of mutations.

DNA function includes the production of mutations. Every person is born with 50 to 100 substitution mutations. Most of these are due to enzymes making an imperfect copy of DNA during the process of replication. DNA can loop around and bind with itself which results in chunks of DNA moving around the genome, a process called recombination.

Us humans can label things as normal or abnormal, but labels don’t change the reality. Mutations happen naturally due to the physical and chemical properties of the biological processes involved. This is exactly what I discuss in my other thread on mutations being consistent with biochemistry:

Not relevant to the discussion at hand. You did not answer my specific question about bacteria. The current discussion is about mitosis and bacteria. I said mitosis precedes mutation. You said “wrong”. I said, "no, you are invoking external sources [that seem to make mutations precede mitosis] " and I asked for clarification about what you mean and why you are doing that.

There are several types of mutations that occur before mitosis. This can include recombination and imperfect DNA repair. Other mutations happen during DNA replication when the proteins copying the DNA add the wrong base.

Is there anything about these processes you have questions on?

Bacteria don’t do mitosis. Mitosis is a eukaryote thing. Mutations don’t happen during or after mitosis, as the replication of the genome precedes mitosis, and most mutations are the result of replication errors.