Posts Tagged ‘Natural selection’

Evidence for Evolution: Good Video and Debate with Matrix/DNA

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

xxxxx

Whatch the video, see my comments posted at the debate and copied below, and more curious evidences also copied below. Good learning!

What’s the evidence for evolution?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

xxxxx

Our debate:

Syed Firdaus Syed Omar Syed Firdaus Syed Omar – 14 hours ago

explain the ability of reasoning from natural selection perspective, their origin?

When you are talking about why you have a trait, you simply need to ask if it helps you survive. The ability for complex thought is the sole reason that Humanity conquered the earth, if you look at our ancestors, you can see our skulls getting bigger over time. Complex thought helped us survive and thrive so natural selection kept it.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
Good question, Syed, and as the Viktor answers, they insists to repeat the effects of natural selection, never mind how and why this phenomenon exists. Their thoughts reasonate that ” once time established a mechanism, like a piece well adjusted to a machine, it goes on and on…” If you think about that, this argument is against evolution itself: natural selection does not permit another effect of such machine, so, stopping evolution. Their most important target is to keep clearly that there is no purpose in Nature, evolution is a blind process, each evolutionary step begins with a random mutation coming from error at replication – which means that randomness is the ruler in this Universe, they believe in it. I am suspecting because 2 topics: 1) There is no absolute answer for everything in a world changing under evolution. Random mutation are the answers for everything like God was the answer for everything… 2) I search my own way and after hard work I found my own world view, which is not the right one, but it seems more reasonable. Comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems reveals the existence of a universal matrix formula which Nature has applied by 13,8 billion years for organizing matter (mass+energy) into natural systems. Or, saying it better: a unique formula creating a initial system at 13’8 billion years and this system is coming under evolution. Atoms, galaxies, plants, human bodies, are merely evolutionary shapes of a unique universal system. If this theory ( The Matrix/DNA Theory), is more complete, one difference is that there is a perfect formula which pulls this universal system into its direction – in the way that one day it will be perfect like the formula. So, this would be the cause and the reason for natural selection: it is the pushes towards the perfect final shape. So, if my theory is better than “the machine going on and on”, the normal is purposeful mutations not random: there are random mutations but it can be discarded or kept if it is anticipating what Nature is supposed to do, by any way…
xxxxxxxxx
Chris Mohrbacher Chris Mohrbacher 2 days ago

comparative anatomy (and DNA similarities) only demonstrates similarity, not causality. Nested Hierarchies also prove nothing as this is just people categorizing things based on the above similarities. They could be categorized in a completely different order and be equally logical. (I’m looking at you Hyena and Mongoose, classified as “cat-like…. things” ) Embryology has been debunked for decades. Species distribution doesn’t really “support” evolution… most kinds of creature has some version spread around the world. The fossil record demonstrates what has lived… not necessarily what came from what. Finding amphibian bones doesn’t suggest that it’s OUR ancestor, or the ancestor of any other non-amphibian. Which brings us down to observable evolution… and yea… that’s science. Selectively breeding dogs to generate a breed of dog with preferable traits is repeatable (science). No matter how many generations we breed, we can not take any number of dogs and breed them into a non-dog. Actual science supports specialization within a species… the idea of universal common ancestry is no less religious faith than the idea that any given pantheon of Gods used magic. Not testable, falsifiable, repeatable…. not science.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
To: Chris
Besides the long lists of reasonable evidences, I think that when observing embryogenesis – one shape transforming into other, facing my eyes, here and now – it means that Nature alone can do it, there is a natural mechanism for doing it. The individual nature express the population nature and vice-versa. Meanwhile, there is a observable fact in embryogenesis that Darwinists are ignoring: beyond the field where individual evolution occurs ( inside the egg or the womb), there is a species that triggered the process and is the guide for the process building itself. Why not this phenomena would be projected to the whole biological evolution, or even, the cosmological evolution? Reason suggests this is the case, there is no observable process of evolution without a “shape-from-outside”. This observation could be wrong in relation to cosmological evolution, but, if it is not, a kind of creationists god ( natural and not magical), and a kind of astronomical creator like suggested by Matrix/DNA world view, could be safe. Just comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems leads us to calculations of causality where the final results suggests that the building block of DNA is the exactly miniaturized copy of the galactic building blocks. In this case, the species that was outside the womb that nurtured abiogenesis, was just the Milk Way. It seems that each region of this galaxy builds a component of biological system, then, transit of meteorites, comets, etc., makes that all components meets at some places…and… voila’,… we have a DNA… But, then, every process of evolution is really, an inside process of a bigger one: reproduction. It means that there was no origins of life, merely the continuation of a natural genetic process coming from cosmological evolution. And so on…
eeeaten  eeeaten 1 hour ago 

sorry louis, as a biologist this made zero sense to me
No sorry, it is natural. I am a naturalist, my world view was built in the field – the Amazon jungle, yours, in the lab. I applied the systemic method, you applies the reductionist method. And so on, two investigations where all methods are different, it results into two different world views. The difference is that you don’t know mine and I know yours. It doesn’t matter here if one makes sense to the other or not. I think that yours does not make sense since that you have broken universal evolution into two blocks – cosmological and biological evolution – with no evolutionary link between them. So, one need to fit the abyss between the two blocks with magical thinking, like magical gods or magical randomness. Then, one will believe that there was an event of life’s origins at Earth due action of some force coming outside the long chain of causes and effects since the Big Bang. This is the prejudice for academic sciences today. Since I didn’t break universal natural history and found the link which shows that there are no non-living systems before biological ones, I am satisfied with the sense that my world view expresses to me. But, common sense or not is not a good scientific tool. If we want to debate our theories we must be attained at the common known proved facts. So my first question: the transformations of a body under embryogenesis, from the simplest to most complex, is not evolution?
xxxxxxxxxx

Curious evidences for Evolucao:

( Useful information from our friend, Randall Wilks ) Randall Wilks  Randall Wilks – 8/22/2017

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Vestigial Human Traits
Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn’t do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent incitating membrane or “third eyelid” that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic. Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called “Tennis Leg” occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution’s leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body. That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent.
At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth. In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother’s fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child’s weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.
We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are some 20,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry. They certainly do not support the idea of “intelligent design”. They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
Geographic Distribution of Species
As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian landmass (including New Guinea) prior to man’s arrival were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world, and egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of man who brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass.
New Zealand as well tells of a different evolutionary history. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. Other isolated islands, Mauritania and Madagascar, also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Hawaiian Archipelago. There, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch underwent adaptive radiation into the at one time 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed. We have Polar Bears in the Arctic and Penguins in the Antarctic similar environments totally different biota. Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.

“A Grand Bargain Over Evolution” by Robert Wright, Was Predicted by Matrix/DNA Theory

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

Article Published in The New York Times, Sunday, August 23, 2009, page 9, Sunday Opinion

———————————————— 

 Robert Wright is brilliant on his thesis that natural selection could be made even before life’s origins and he reveal some arguments for that. Then he says that        “… God did his work remotely. His role in the creative process ended when he unleashed the algorithm of natural selection (whether by dropping it into the primordial ooze or writing its eventual emergence into the initial conditions of the universe or whatever).”

————————— 

 Of course, to say that God trusted natural selection to do the creative work assumes that natural selection, once in motion, would do it. This claim turns out to be scientifically plausible.

—————————

Matrix/DNA Theory Comments: “ Our models suggests that processes like natural selection were existing before the Big Bang. Resuming, when the models says that this Universe is a genetic production, he suggests that there is a father/mother of the universe, be it whatever system is. So, this Universe has the final purpose to reproduce his father/mother system. it means that what we see as evolution – be it Cosmological and Biological evolution – it is really, small steps in a big process of reproduction. And at any reproduction process there is natural selection: the final body of the father/mother drives the process to finally reproduce their own shape. So, among any events by chance, any species that arouse as sub product or in parallel to the real fetus, can be selected and gets his eternal place in the trunk of the evolutionary tree, or can be discarded by natural selection. The agent behind natural selection is the genome that came beyond the universe. But ( the good news for atheists) it not means that God did it. It means that an unknown system that was existing before is as natural as the universe and our land.But ( the good news for theists) it is plausible that beyond the natural creator of the Universe there is a God and He did it remotely…