Darwin

[Wayward Son]

The problem is, your source has no credibility - it lacks the up-to-date basic knowledge of science. If a source cannot grasp the basic, how can it be expected to explained the detailed of the said phenomenon?

The problem with what you say is that people, with any intellectual integrity, who grasp the basics dismiss creationism and ID for the stupidity that it is. But dismissing creationism and ID makes one an evolution fanatic and extremist to the person you are arguing with. I encourage you to carry on, but your time would be better spent trying to punch a cloud.

[cybercoma]

Please take care- the thread is veering towards personal comments now.

What post concerns you? I can't tell.

[cybercoma]

Thanks for the reminder. I've edited mine and toned it down.

This must be what I was missing.

[WIP]

Here's the quote again from the CHURCH OF GOD. Please take note:

I try to ignore these threads, but every so often, curiosity gets the best of me! Your antievolution source doesn't bother to explain that symbiosis is alternative evolutionary theory to natural selection, not a contradiction of the process of evolution itself!

It's been pointed out, time and time again, through one thread after another, that attacking Darwin, or even Darwinism, does not equal proof that evolution has not occurred. There were evolutionary theories prior to Darwin...most notably from Lamarck - who proposed that animals could develop traits that would be inherited by their offspring; but as science really took off and started to develop, the evidence from the geologic record, biology, the geographic diversity of life discovered through exploration of the rest of the world etc. required an explanation of the natural world that could not be done by a giant flood on a world that had only been around for a few thousand years....and that's how we ended up with evolution, and all that scientists have really been debating for the last hundred years is HOW the process of evolution works...not whether or not it exists.

Back to symbiosis; if these wonderful Christians had any real integrity, they would inform the reader more about symbiosis, who came up with it, has it or any part of symbiotic theory been accepted by biologists....but it seems like they don't bother, so I will. Here is an actual review of a book written by the creator of symbiotic theory - Lyn Margulis, that mentions what has been accepted as evidence for the theory - the symbiotic relationship that joined two separate organisms in the eukaryote cell:

A visionary scientist with a blind spot

Lynn Margulis as a critic of neo-Darwinism

All humans have mitochondria in all of our cells. All animals and plants have mitochondria in their cells. It is largely due to Lynn Margulis that the hypothesis that mitochondria were once free-living bacteria, is now considered a proven scientific theory in biology. The symbiotic origin of mitochondria is no longer a controversial theory.

So; symbiosis may be able to explain some of the details of the evolutionary process, but not everything. I don't know where the dividing line should be between Margulis's theory, and the modern Neodarwinists like Richard Dawkins - who seems to try to explain everything as competition between selfish genes, but it's more likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But one thing that is NOT in the middle, or anywhere near a legitimate explanation for life on Earth is creationism.

[wyly]

creationists deliberately avoid looking for the path that leads to a point in time and jump right the end claim "this is impossible to explain unless there is divine intervention" ...

in the case of symbiosis there are many degrees of symbiotic relationships, looking strictly at a full and equal symbiotic relationship it's hard to see how it came to be...but there are numerous symbiotic relationships that aren't complete both parties may benefit but one other knows nothing of the arrangement, over time this can evolve to full mutual understanding...

[The_Squid]

I try to ignore these threads, but every so often, curiosity gets the best of me! Your antievolution source doesn't bother to explain that symbiosis is alternative evolutionary theory to natural selection, not a contradiction of the process of evolution itself!

It's been pointed out, time and time again, through one thread after another, that attacking Darwin, or even Darwinism, does not equal proof that evolution has not occurred. There were evolutionary theories prior to Darwin...most notably from Lamarck - who proposed that animals could develop traits that would be inherited by their offspring; but as science really took off and started to develop, the evidence from the geologic record, biology, the geographic diversity of life discovered through exploration of the rest of the world etc. required an explanation of the natural world that could not be done by a giant flood on a world that had only been around for a few thousand years....and that's how we ended up with evolution, and all that scientists have really been debating for the last hundred years is HOW the process of evolution works...not whether or not it exists.

Thanks for the informative post and links!

[Sleipnir]

The problem with what you say is that people, with any intellectual integrity, who grasp the basics dismiss creationism and ID for the stupidity that it is. But dismissing creationism and ID makes one an evolution fanatic and extremist to the person you are arguing with.

Creationism and ID has no merit in science, what are you talking about?

Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Wayward Son]

what are you talking about?

If someone knows even the basics about evolutionary theory they will dismiss creationism and ID as not being science.

If someone dismisses creationism and ID as not being science Betsy considers them to be a fanatic and extremist.

Her mind is completely closed and will only consider the ideas of people who are accepting the same absurd pseudoscience she likes.

You are more likely to be able to teach a dead dog advanced calculus then have her consider anything that does not conform to her worldview.

[kimmy]

Is there anything un-true stated in that quote? If there is, can you please point out which is untrue, and can you please correct it and enlighten us about it?

I already pointed out the problem with it. I'll highlight it again for you:

Symbiosis – A challenge to evolution?

Darwin’s theory of biological change was based upon competition among the individuals making up a species. In The Origin, Darwin concedes that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

How can plants that require certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? Moreover, how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without their partners arriving at the exact same moment?

This is a false dilemma. The author poses this question as if it were a "gotcha!" for evolution, but it isn't. He proposes that both creatures must have appeared at the exact same time or else they'd have gone extinct because they couldn't survive without each other, and implies that this is too impossible to believe.

But the whole premise that both species arrived in their present dependent-on-each-other state is wrong. The mutually beneficial relationship occurs first; the mutual dependency evolves later.

You asked:

That's another thing that evolutionists have got to come up with a plausible explanation of how such an arrangement - or "cooperation" - between two creatures could've evolved in stages.

.

And I answered:

How could a symbiotic relationship have evolved in stages? Easy.

1. Two creatures exist independently.

2. The creatures come into contact with each other and a mutually beneficial relationship occurs.

3. The cooperative relationship becomes a survival advantage for both, and is favored by natural selection.

4. Traits that enable a species to survive without the symbiotic relationship are no longer a survival advantage.

5. As a result, traits that enable a species to survive without the symbiotic relationship are no longer favored by natural selection.

6. Over many generations, because these traits are no longer favored by natural selection, these traits become weakened.

7. Eventually, descendents of the original creatures that formed the initial symbiotic relationship have lost traits that enabled them to survive independently, but it doesn't matter because they thrive thanks to their symbiotic relationship.

That's how a symbiotic relationship could form in a manner entirely consistent with natural selection.

-k

[cybercoma]

kimmy,

Tell us the one again about stacking rocks above the top of your bathtub then filling it with water until toy boat gets stuck on top of the rocks.

[kimmy]

kimmy,

Tell us the one again about stacking rocks above the top of your bathtub then filling it with water until toy boat gets stuck on top of the rocks.

To simulate the flood carrying Noah's Ark to the top of Mount Ararat? I leave that as an experiment for betsy.

-k

[WIP]

creationists deliberately avoid looking for the path that leads to a point in time and jump right the end claim "this is impossible to explain unless there is divine intervention" ...

in the case of symbiosis there are many degrees of symbiotic relationships, looking strictly at a full and equal symbiotic relationship it's hard to see how it came to be...but there are numerous symbiotic relationships that aren't complete both parties may benefit but one other knows nothing of the arrangement, over time this can evolve to full mutual understanding...

There may be many evolutionary adaptations that can be better explained by symbiosis than through competition. I haven't really read the writings on the subject by Lynn Margulis, but I heard her interviewed a few times, and she did stress the point that she felt there was some degree of male chauvinism involved in all of the focus on competition between species and "selfish" genes, that prevented her male colleagues from noticing the examples where cooperation could serve as a better explanation than competition.

But, again, whatever degree symbiotic theory explains evolutionary changes in living organisms, it doesn't disprove evolution! It just demonstrates the need to alter or adjust the present theories about how evolution occurs. There are alternatives to gene-centered evolutionary theories; most notably right now are group selection/multilevel selection theories that originated among biologists like E.O. Wilson - who study colony insects, and believe some of their evolutionary adaptations are difficult, if not impossible to explain at a gene level or even a species level. Maybe they have contributions to make also to understand how life develops, adapts and changes; but the one theory that went in the trashcan for good, is the one that was based on human intuition -- that all living creatures are individual creations which have always existed in their present forms.

Edited November 26, 2012 by WIP

[WIP]

Thanks for the informative post and links!

You're welcome. You should check out Gert Korthof's homepage for other books he's reviewed: http://www.wasdarwinwrong.com/

He's got everything covered -- Neo-Darwinist, alternative evolutionary theories, creationist theories...Intelligent Design etc., theistic evolutionary theory....you name it, he's got it covered! It's the first place I look if someone comes up with THE ANSWER.

[betsy]

Read the source I gave to you.

Post where it sez.

[betsy]

I try to ignore these threads, but every so often, curiosity gets the best of me! Your antievolution source doesn't bother to explain that symbiosis is alternative evolutionary theory to natural selection, not a contradiction of the process of evolution itself!

I know that some symbiosis are not contradictory to evolution.

But I'm talking about the EXCLUSIVE symbiotic relationship between two separate creatures that depends on one another for their VERY EXISTENCE!

If creature A depends depends EXCLUSIVELY on creature B to survive - and exists - creature A and creature B have got to have arrived at exactly the same time in order for creature A to manage to exist.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The replies I got from some skirted around that - and tried to validate their opinion with colorful insults - which unfortunately only brought them down to the level of those who can do nothing but throw adhominem!

Why do they get so upset? Well, consider yourselves as parent(s) to a child (me) who asks a very pesky question to which you've got no answer! Imho. Because that's how you're projecting yourselves.

Edited November 26, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

So; symbiosis may be able to explain some of the details of the evolutionary process, but not everything. I don't know where the dividing line should be between Margulis's theory, and the modern Neodarwinists like Richard Dawkins - who seems to try to explain everything as competition between selfish genes, but it's more likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But one thing that is NOT in the middle, or anywhere near a legitimate explanation for life on Earth is creationism.

You're not unique. All atheists hang on to that delusion, like as if stating, " that can't be," means exactly that! Some actually believe assumptions as facts!

If creatures arrive at the exact time in order to rhumba with each other in a perfectly harmonized symbiotic way - that kind of symbiosis does supports D E S I G N aka Creation.

Edited November 26, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

[/font][/color][/color][/color][/font]

You're not unique. All atheists hang on to that delusion, like as if stating, " that can't be," means exactly that! Some actually believe assumptions as facts!

If creatures arrive at the exact time in order to rhumba with each other in a perfectly harmonized symbiotic way - that kind of symbiosis does supports D E S I G N aka Creation.

No it doesn't. Do you have any proof that it support creation?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

I know that some symbiosis are not contradictory to evolution.

But I'm talking about the EXCLUSIVE symbiotic relationship between two separate creatures that depends on one another for their VERY EXISTENCE!

If creature A depends depends EXCLUSIVELY on creature B to survive - and exists - creature A and creature B have got to have arrived at exactly the same time in order for creature A to manage to exist.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The replies I got from some skirted around that - and tried to validate their opinion with colorful insults - which unfortunately only brought them down to the level of those who can do nothing but throw adhominem!

Why do they get so upset? Well, consider yourselves as parent(s) to a child (me) who asks a very pesky question to which you've got no answer! Imho. Because that's how you're projecting yourselves.

The replies haven't skirted around that. You simply cannot grasp the idea that they evolved into an exclusive relationship; they weren't created in an exclusive relationship. Survival of the Fittest is not about competition. It's about those animals most adaptable to the environment passing on their genes. If a mutually beneficial relationship developed between two species, then the ones that took advantage of that relationship would be more likely to survive, procreating wildly, and choking out the food supply of the others, such that they become extinct. Take on a few thousand years of the most suited animals for the environment, the one's with the strongest gene match for the environment, passing on their genes, while the others either die out or their populations simply shrink to near insignificance, and you get an exclusive relationship that develops over many generations. All your bold-face, underlined, and italicized fonts are meaningless, when you plainly refuse to even try to understand the process that you are criticizing. It's like having a 7-year old who's learning their times tables criticizing someone for doing differential calculus wrong. You don't understand the process that you're criticizing, therefore you don't understand the responses that have been given. Everything you bring up in your post has been addressed many times in this thread already by several different posters. Either learn about the things that you are criticizing, so you can actually make an intelligent argument, or risk continuing to look like you are completely in the dark, swinging at imaginary enemies that aren't even there.

Edited November 26, 2012 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Well said. What's worse, is that many of the creationist authors Betsy quotes know that their arguments are fallacious. I guess they're using the ends justify the means logic to rationalize their dishonesty.

[WIP]

[/font][/color][/color][/color][/font]

You're not unique. All atheists hang on to that delusion, like as if stating, " that can't be," means exactly that! Some actually believe assumptions as facts!

I lived in an area within close proximity to the Niagara Gorge - where water erosion of the last 12,000 years has revealed alternating layers of sedimentary rock. The lowest layers of the gorge...estimated to be 300 million years old, have a few exposed trilobite fossils....ever see one of them down by the seashore lately? No, and that's because they flourished during a time that has long past in the deep recesses of earth history. If creationism was true, we wouldn't find layer upon layer of sedimentary rock underground, and the fossils revealed would not display plants and animals specific to the geologic eras in which they were layed down.....but they do...hence the problem for young earth creationists trying to explain anything about the world....and that's why they don't bother, and don't want their children pursuing the earth sciences as career goals.

[WIP]

If creature A depends depends EXCLUSIVELY on creature B to survive - and exists - creature A and creature B have got to have arrived at exactly the same time in order for creature A to manage to exist.

Not if creatures A and B had evolved into that symbiotic relationship, which was Lynn Margulis's point about mitochondria in eukaryote cells. The mitochondria began as a fully functioning, separate organism, but found the cooperative relationship working as the energy converting power plant within a more complex cell to be a better option. Symbiosis explained an evolutionary adaptation through cooperation, rather than competition - the constant focus of most biologists.

[Sleipnir]

Its irrational, illogical and nonsense to use biblical claims to counteract scientific concepts. To do so, would render the entire argument void and meaningless. Which means betsy's attempt to use religious ideals to discredit a scientific phenomenon is a losing argument from the start.

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, it appears that your knowledge of evolution comes from Christian apologist articles. You seem to confuse evolution with some of the mechanisms for change. You also seem to blend it with unrelated theories like abiogenesis. I stumbled across

which sorts out many of the misconceptions you have recited. Use the knowledge to better frame your points on the subject. It may even help you to evaluate the credibility of some of the articles you quote.

[cybercoma]

Please watch the video. Seriously...

[wyly]

I know that some symbiosis are not contradictory to evolution.

But I'm talking about the EXCLUSIVE symbiotic relationship between two separate creatures that depends on one another for their VERY EXISTENCE!

If creature A depends depends EXCLUSIVELY on creature B to survive - and exists - creature A and creature B have got to have arrived at exactly the same time in order for creature A to manage to exist.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

you've done exactly what I described, gone to the most advanced/complex state skipping all the lead up stages making the assumption that's how it always was...

there is a nicotine plant that has a symbiotic relationship with moths flowering at night but then when convenient it is able to switch to daytime flowering and pollination by bees...if either the bees or moths were to disappear/extinct the plant can become exclusive to bees or moths...

just because you can't comprehend how evolution can work does not mean it doesn't....I don't comprehend how a computer works but that doesn't mean it's the work of god....