This speaks of goals and direction.
Not difficult for me at all because I believe the Scripture which states, “God gives life to all living things,” but very difficult for the evolutionist to explain. And nothing in your statements has overcome the contradiction this poses for evolutionary philosophy. Sorry.
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but I also believe in God as Creator of all things. The evidence God has left us quite clearly supports evolution as a tool of His creation. The two things are not necessarily at odds.
You never explained why there is a contradiction in the first place. I think I know what you mean, but you leave me having to guess. I think what you mean is “Modern science says that evolution does not follow prescribed series of goals for survival, but survival itself is a goal. So there is a contradiction”. If that is what you are trying to say, then the answer is - Of course survival is the ultimate goal. What modern science tells us is that the specific pathways toward that goal are not predetermined. My personal belief is that God set those paths in motion, but we do not have the experimental tools to show this. I take it on faith.
Organisms, for the most part, don’t ‘want’ to survive. They behave on instinct in ways that benefit survival, because those that lacked such instincts weren’t as reproductively successful.
Differential reproductive success. Those individuals with antibiotic resistance have more offspring than those that don’t in environments with antibiotic.
“Then please explain how your next phrase, “Evolution has no specific goal or direction” does not undo and contradict everything you just said?”
Evolution ‘wants’ those individuals with greater reproductive success to have more offspring in the same way that gravity ‘wants’ massive objects to attract one another. Which is to say, it doesn’t, because it doesn’t ‘want’ anything.
Humans lacking the ability to synthesize the other amino acids are not at selective disadvantage, so there is nothing to be ‘fixed’.
Same answer.
You predict a perfect God would have included the same worthless thing in two unrelated organisms, broken in the precise same way? That doesn’t follow.
This is obviously not a loss of function. The novel protein represent novel functionality, which is by definition a gain of function.
if this reduce the membrane potential, isnt this a kind of function reduction?
It sounds like he’s interpreting the phrase about “reduction of membrane potential“ as meaning “reduction of function”, which is pretty funny.
Prior to HGT, that membrane had potential. It coulda been a contender!
No, it is not.
From where does this “instinct” arise and why should survival be a “benefit”? How do you know that extinction is not a better benefit? You are still not out of the woods here. Your answer still invokes “direction” at play in evolutionary processes.
I totally agree because I believe this is how God created the human. My point was, “But why should evolution agree?” You glibly say there was no “selective disadvantage” but clearly there is - namely, we come up short in amino acids. Hence my question to the evolutionist: When is your theory going to get this fixed?
Same response to the Vitamin C claim. How is the human not disadvantaged in that regard? You have to be wrong. Is your response an evolutionary consensus or are you just giving your single opinion. I think it is a problem that selection needs to fix, that is, if one believes in your paradigm.
You misunderstand or are you just feigning ignorance? You know full well that I do not consider humans to be “broken” at all. I am a creationist, remember? I am actually the one making the claim that it is the evolutionist who is bound to consider the human and primate as “broken” regarding amino acids and Vitamin C. You are the one who brought up the overarching “problem” in humans and primates to begin with. I personally do not care because I personally know humans and primates are not related.
Hence the question to the evolutionist. Since you think both are related because of the inability to demonstrate 1) the possession of all amino acids and 2) the biological synthesization of Vitamin C,
“When is natural selection going to get this problem fixed”? You should have an answer beyond “it is not a disadvantage”, because clearly, it is a selective disadvantage. Or bring proof of other evolutionists who agree with you. I need more than your personal opinion. Because, right now, to me, it looks like evolution is “not working like it should”.
Of course I meant that. It was apparent what I meant, and you got it exactly right. Why? Because it was apparent. And also, the contradiction is patently clear.
So evolution has an “ultimate goal”, but no “specific pathways” to that goal. Impossible. One cannot hold to a philosophy that confused and be considered a logically consistent individual.
Please show me anyone anywhere that has claimed that survival was not a goal. This is a wildly constructed strawman invented in your imagination.
so or so this is a simple function and thus doesnt show evolution but only a variation of existing creature. bump on forehead is also a new structure. but i guess that we both agree that it isnt evidence for evolution. at least not at the level of new “kind”.
Sure. You aren’t interested in anything that contradicts what you already believe. And you’ve already admitted that empirical evidence has no value for you. Why do you even bother?
I don’t need to do that because I think you are making it up. I don’t think you will have any agreement with your idea that evolution considers survival a goal.
First, that isn’t an element of Darwin’s theory; Darwin said “one or a few”, not one. Second, it isn’t an argument; it’s a claim. Third, there are two main claims of Darwin’s theory, if you’re talking about the Origin: common descent (not necessarily universal) and natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation. The two are separable.
Yes.
It doesn’t. You just don’t understand what the term “evolution” means, and nobody is equivocating except you. Does Wikipedia present evidence of selection as evidence of common descent? If so, quote the claim.
Protein expression can be modulated by chemical gradients, and differing expression patterns will alter behavior. This gives you changes in behavior in response to external stimulus. Protein expression patterns are heritable, and therefore open to selection.
To quote a friend of mine, because dead things don’t breed.
Gravity also invokes a direction. Asked and answered.
There clearly isn’t, because selective disadvantage is measurable and there isn’t one for humans not making those amino acids. But thank you for demonstrating you don’t understand the words you are using.
Because vitamin C is extremely common in the human diet.
Then you don’t understand selective benefit.
The GULO gene is demonstrably broken. If you reject this, you are wrong. If your YEC ideology demands this be rejected, then YEC is wrong. Thanks for playing.
It’s not that we ‘must’, it’s just that we do because it’s clearly true.
You’ve admitted that you believe that humans and primates are related, you just think it is by design rather than descent. It makes no difference, they are still related, they still all have a broken gene, broken in the same way. Still a problem for you, and not for me.
If it is your understanding that I believe that humans and other apes are related because neither can make vitamin C or certain amino acids, you are wrong. These things are consistent with common descent, but I believe humans are apes from the parsimony of a broad collection of fields.
In the future, you may want to confirm the ‘since’ in your question before asking the question based on it.
Wrong.
The absence of a selective disadvantage isn’t a matter of opinion. It is clearly true.
The novel proteins are new, so not existing variation.
You mean from getting hit, or an actual protrusion of bone? Because the former would not be a new structure, while the latter would. And the frequencies of the alleles responsible would be examples of evolution.
Let me check for understanding - you believe that I am making it up that scientists know that survival is the ultimate goal of evolution? Darwin and Wallace and everyone since agrees that survival is the goal - thus “Survival of the Fittest”. Even YEC scientists know that evolution occurs to favor survival. They just call it “adaptation” to avoid using the term. This argument is complete nonsense.
so basically you consider any kind of change (big or small) as evolution. but it tell us nothing about how we can get a new complex trait or new “kind” of creature.
This is a diversion, not an answer. I asked why survival is more of a benefit than extinction and your reply does not even begin to address the question.
Stop for a minute and think about what you are arguing, rather than just blurting out the stream of consciousness. How would it possibly benefit a population to go extinct?