Evolution dogma

1. 60

   janesixposted 8 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.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         janesixposted 8 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               janesixposted 8 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     janesixposted 8 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 8 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           janesixposted 8 years agoin 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?)

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              No intelligence in schools of fish?  Or human activity?  I would disagree in both cases.
                              
                              I think you already know what I think; that random mutations are "found" to be advantageous by just one yardstick.  That of the likelihood of reproduction.  Or, as sometimes happens, to have no effect whereupon they remain there, changing the species for no reason we can detect (that doesn't mean there is no evolutionary reason, of course).  And sometimes even negative mutations occur (what does that do to your field?) but that are not severe enough to kill the organism.  We'll see more and more of that as our ability to "fix" what is wrong with individuals grows.

                              replyreport