jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (10 posts)

Evolution dogma

  1. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Belief in accidental mutation as the driver of evolution is just that, a belief. There is exactly ZERO evidence that mutations are random. Thus it is FAITH to believe in it.

    Especially when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, that evolution and adaptation are determined,and predictable.

    You guys just need to admit you have FAITH in a theory that is unproven.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You're either advocating predestination or an intelligence making all evolutionary changes.  The first I categorically reject because I don't like it and you have no evidence, and the second you have no evidence for.  So which is it?

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I am advocatic morphogenic fields, which I have no evidence for. (No intelligence needed though, my way is a third option).

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          From what I'm reading, I'm not sure that that concept has anything to do with changing an organisms DNA.  Which definitely happens through evolution.  From Wiki, your fields seem more to influence the arrangement of cells to create specific organs and things in a specific location of the developing body.  Organs and things that are already coded into the DNA - the field just kind of says where to put them.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I think all possibilities are already there in the morphic field. I don't think it's "habitual" like Dr. Sheldrake says.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know.  I think I'd have to say that light impinging on an organism would never "tell" the cells creating gametes to make them with the beginnings of an eye, so future generations would eventually develop eyes.  Or some other factor tell those same cells to produce gametes with DNA for blue eyes, or blonde hair.  I don't credit either the environment OR the cells producing gamete cells with enough "intelligence" to do that. 

              I DO, however, credit both with enough of that undefined "intelligence" to have the cells make changes.  Just not changes that will affect the likely hood of reproducing by a developed organism.  Neither environment nor organism is smart enough to know what would help or what changes in that immensely complex chemical would produce what is needed.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why would it need intelligence? It just needs a "program" to tell it what to do in a given situation. Like a magnetic field tells electrons which direction to point in a given field. I suggest these fields are just more complicated.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Which is why the intelligence is in quotes.  Not intelligence as we normally use the word, tested with an IQ test, but something giving direction. 

                  And in this case, that something has to be able to recognize an environmental event, deduce that that makes this change advantageous and that changing this part of the DNA just so will begin the process of changing the species to end up here after hundreds/thousands of additional changes are made.

                  I don't swallow it.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think it can ultimately be explained without invoking any kind of intelligence. Self-organization follows simple rules. Like schools of fish etc. Even human behavior in large groups follows the same types of self-organization, with no intelligent input involved.

                    What do you think complexity stems from? Or metabolism?Or information in DNA? Or how do complex systems evolve before they are fully functional(like sexual reproduction for instance?)

 
working