What are your views on evolution?

[Tubs]

I tried being diplomatic, but let’s forget that. Natural selection has been proved many times over, so you can be wrong if you want. Mutations being random doesn’t change the fact that they occur, and they have an affect on evolution (be it good or bad).

You can lie about plagiarism all you want, doesn’t bother me. Regarding RNA, there was mention about an evolved structure around RNA within the literature, but I am unsure on the specifics, I am not a chemist nor are you. My only point about RNA is that it can be formed in prebiotic environments, maybe it occurs after endosymbiosis, when eukaryotic cells have evolved, but it’s all very hypothetical right now. And as you’ve said many times before you went on your tirade, this thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

You keep bringing up Theism, you get so offended it’s hilarious. It’s delicious. Feed me more. Also, the main reason I bring up theism is when you assert that we don’t know truth about abiogenesis so you default to God being the reason. You are the one insecure in your belief because you deny the science. You deny the scientific consensus. The burden of proof is on you and you’ve shown none. All you have shown is an ignorance on the subject. I showed you proof that chromosomal fusion occurred in humans but you just said it can’t happen, it’s farcical.

You think that people just believe in evolution because it’s consistent with an atheistic world view? What about all the religious scientists who accept the truth of it? But you will never mention them when you cherry pick quotes. You can call a process which occurred over billions of years luck, I know it’s far beyond your comprehension.

Your attempts at condescension just show your insecurity in your knowledge, I advise you stop embarrassing yourself further.

I do understand why you’re so insecure, you have no credentials to speak of (or you’re embarrassed of them), and you think you know better than the thousands of scientists who are far more intelligent than you and I who devote their life to this research.

I have put up with your constant lies, science denial and strawmanning long enough. There is nothing to gain from this conversation, only to further display your lack of knowledge and refusal to accept the truth.

Have a good one, No Credentials!

 

[Adijazz1706]

I tried being diplomatic, but let’s forget that. Natural selection has been proved many times over, so you can be wrong if you want. Mutations being random doesn’t change the fact that they occur, and they have an affect on evolution (be it good or bad).

You can lie about plagiarism all you want, doesn’t bother me. Regarding RNA, there was mention about an evolved structure around RNA within the literature, but I am unsure on the specifics, I am not a chemist nor are you. My only point about RNA is that it can be formed in prebiotic environments, maybe it occurs after endosymbiosis, when eukaryotic cells have evolved, but it’s all very hypothetical right now. And as you’ve said many times before you went on your tirade, this thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

You keep bringing up Theism, you get so offended it’s hilarious. It’s delicious. Feed me more. Also, the main reason I bring up theism is when you assert that we don’t know truth about abiogenesis so you default to God being the reason. You are the one insecure in your belief because you deny the science. You deny the scientific consensus. The burden of proof is on you and you’ve shown none. All you have shown is an ignorance on the subject. I showed you proof that chromosomal fusion occurred in humans but you just said it can’t happen, it’s farcical.

You think that people just believe in evolution because it’s consistent with an atheistic world view? What about all the religious scientists who accept the truth of it? But you will never mention them when you cherry pick quotes. You can call a process which occurred over billions of years luck, I know it’s far beyond your comprehension.

Your attempts at condescension just show your insecurity in your knowledge, I advise you stop embarrassing yourself further.

I do understand why you’re so insecure, you have no credentials to speak of (or you’re embarrassed of them), and you think you know better than the thousands of scientists who are far more intelligent than you and I who devote their life to this research.

I have put up with your constant lies, science denial and strawmanning long enough. There is nothing to gain from this conversation, only to further display your lack of knowledge and refusal to accept the truth.

Have a good one, No Credentials!

Credentials, the old 'appeal to authority' argument. Subramaniam Swamy is a PhD in Economics from Harvard just fyi, doesn't make him intelligent or rational

 

[Robert]

Natural Selection is death. It does not add any new information to DNA. This is a fact, thus it cannot be a mechanism that influences change to DNA, thus diversity.
.

Death, or life. Changes to DNA happen spontaneously through random transcription errors. Some of these changes express as mutations. Some mutations incur an advantage to survival and others don‘t, so the mutation is selected in or selected out. It seems very simple to me.

 

[Robert]

Incorrect friend, religious people have faith.

Most of the ones I have met have certainty.

 

[Robert]

RNA doesn’t need cellular mechanisms to exist, there are RNA-only viruses. I learned that as an undergraduate.

 

[Technics 1210]

RNA doesn’t need cellular mechanisms to exist, there are RNA-only viruses. I learned that as an undergraduate.

Requires a protein membrane and a ribosome atleast.

From a *chemical evolution* perspective, these structures need to be in place before RNA can survive.

 

[Technics 1210]

Death, or life. Changes to DNA happen spontaneously through random transcription errors. Some of these changes express as mutations. Some mutations incur an advantage to survival and others don‘t, so the mutation is selected in or selected out. It seems very simple to me.

So we agree NS doesn't add any new information and doesn't change the DNA. Therefore it's not a mechanism that brings about change.

Spontaneous transcription errors? There's a plethora of evidence demonstrating transcription errors lead to disease such as cancer. Sure it's a change in the DNA but not an advantageous one by any means.

It's simple because your version doesn't answer the *why*, and glosses over the *how* DNA changes. Pinning change on random processes is a get out of jail free card tbh.

We both believe in evolution, the difference is you believe it's random, I believe it's purpoursful.

 

[Robert]

So we agree NS doesn't add any new information and doesn't change the DNA. Therefore it's not a mechanism that brings about change.

Spontaneous transcription errors? There's a plethora of evidence demonstrating transcription errors lead to disease such as cancer. Sure it's a change in the DNA but not an advantageous one by any means.

It's simple because your version doesn't answer the *why*, and glosses over the *how* DNA changes. Pinning change on random processes is a get out of jail free card tbh.

We both believe in evolution, the difference is you believe it's random, I believe it's purpoursful.

The how: DNA changes spontaneously during transcription. The double helix unzips at one end and base pairs lock together to make two double helixes. I learned this in A-level Biology. Sometimes the sequence of base pairs changes ever so slightly, and in some cases these express as a change in characteristics which may advantage the animal so that it survives to pass the mutation on, or disadvantage it with a birth defect or higher risk of cancer or shorter legs so it can’t escape prey or catch prey, so that it dies before mating and that mutation dead-ends.

 

[Technics 1210]

The how: DNA changes spontaneously during transcription. The double helix unzips at one end and base pairs lock together to make two double helixes. I learned this in A-level Biology. Sometimes the sequence of base pairs changes ever so slightly, and in some cases these express as a change in characteristics which may advantage the animal so that it survives to pass the mutation on, or disadvantage it with a birth defect or higher risk of cancer or shorter legs so it can’t escape prey or catch prey, so that it dies before mating and that mutation dead-ends.

Describing how something looks doesn't explain how something works.

You call advantage retrospectively, I call it advantage introspectively.

 

[Technics 1210]

*edit - a prediction, which is required to substantiate theories, cannot be retrospective.

 

[Robert]

Requires a protein membrane and a ribosome atleast.

From a *chemical evolution* perspective, these structures need to be in place before RNA can survive.

Viruses don’t have ribosomes, you are thinking of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. They have a protein capsid, but are much simpler than bacteria.

RNA and DNA are tough and can survive outside cells, suggesting that they predate even prokaryotic cells. Clearly there is an evolutionary advantage to having armour round the nucleus acid though.

Then even simpler than viruses are prions, protein structures which have no DNA or RNA and yet can self-replicate.

 

[Technics 1210]

Viruses don’t have ribosomes, you are thinking of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. They have a protein capsid, but are much simpler than bacteria.

RNA and DNA are tough and can survive outside cells, suggesting that they predate even prokaryotic cells. Clearly there is an evolutionary advantage to having armour round the nucleus acid though.

Then even simpler than viruses are prions, protein structures which have no DNA or RNA and yet can self-replicate.

So which came first? The virus or the cell?

 

[Tubs]

Again, science is more than willing to admit when they don’t know the answer yet. That is not a slight on science.

To suggest that there must be intelligence behind it like you have many times before is unsubstantiated and obviously biased. Within the last 10 years evidence of abiogenesis has gotten much stronger, and it will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.

 

[Robert]

So which came first? The virus or the cell?

We will never know, I suspect. Perhaps they appeared at the same time in different places and eventually ran into each other.

 

[Technics 1210]

We will never know, I suspect. Perhaps they appeared at the same time in different places and eventually ran into each other.

Given viruses must attack cells of a living host in order to reproduce, I say the cell came first.

 

[Adijazz1706]

We will never know, I suspect. Perhaps they appeared at the same time in different places and eventually ran into each other.

That just worsens the odds considering tge vastness of the earth and the huge surface area of the ocean floor with its trenches and ridges wherein life is supposed to have started

 

[uberkoen]

What sort of a thread title is this? It's just as silly as asking people "What are your views on gravity?" or "What are your views on the earth being round".

Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as “just a theory” in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation.