Main topics about evolution

Main topics about evolution

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2806-main-topics-about-evolution

What is fact in regards of evolution :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification is pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
4. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

What is not fact:
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

What are the REAL mechanisms of biodiversity, replacing macroevolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IGrzrk6iBEre=youtu.be

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2623-why-darwins-theory-of-evolution-does-not-explain-biodiversity

Why Darwin was wrong, and what really drives descent with modification
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2460-what-are-the-mechanisms-that-drive-adaptation-to-the-environment-microevolution-and-secondary-speciation

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2239-the-tree-of-life-common-descent-common-ancestry-a-failed-hypothesis

Chimps, our brothers ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2272-chimps-our-brothers

Chromosome 2, evidence for common ancestry ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1707-chromosome-2

Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes. Really ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1568-eukaryotes-evolved-from-prokaryotes-really

Failed and falsified evolutionary predictions
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1666-failed-evolutionary-predictions

Is there evidence for natural selection ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2458-is-there-evidence-for-natural-selection

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks

Primary, and secondary speciation
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2360-primary-and-secondary-speciation

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1390-macroevolution#1982

Micro evolution and macro evolution  are not the same
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1641-micro-evolution-and-macro-evolution-are-not-the-same

Non random mutations : How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome 2 3
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1476-non-random-mutations-how-life-changes-itself-the-read-write-rw-genome

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1303-challenges-to-endosymbiotic-theory

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

"Tetrapods evolved" . Really ?  
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2219-the-evolution-of-tetrapods

The origin of Homo Sapiens & timeline of human evolution according to mainstream science.....
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2596-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-timeline-of-human-evolution

" Creationists have no clue how evolution works " Is it? Who has?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2623-evolution-why-darwins-theory-of-evolution-does-not-explain-biodiversity#6260

In his textbook, Evolution, Futuyma (2005: 48-49;) claims that “From the comparative data amassed by systematists, we can identify several patterns that confirm [sic] the historical reality of evolution, and which make
sense only if evolution has occurred.” He then lists eight sources of ‘evidence’ for evolution:

(1) the hierarchical organization of life,
(2) homology ( homology-‘homogeny’ sensu Lankester 1870 relations; cf. Fitzhugh 2006a, b, c, 2008b),
(3) embryological similarities,
(4) vestigial characters,
(5) convergence (  ‘homoplasy’ sensu Lankester 1870; cf. Fitzhugh 2006a, b, c, 2008b),
(6) suboptimal design,
(7) geographic distributions, and
(8 ) intermediate forms.

1 the hierarchical organization of life 2 homology 3 embryological similarities 4 vestigial characters 5 convergence 6 suboptimal design 7 geographic distributions  8 intermediate forms.



There are various meanings of Evolution:

Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space and matter from nothing.
Stellar Evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds.
Chemical Evolution: life begins from inanimate matter.
Biological Evolution: Organisms change from one type into another.

Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind - Harvard CfA
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

Stellar evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Chemical evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

Biological Evolution
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-evolution

The mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, biased variation, movable elements, non-random mating (including sexual selection), and recombination.

Microevolution is better described as adaptation and is an engineered process which does not occur by accident, but by the activation and orchestrated set of pathways. The Cell receives macroscopic signals from the environment and responds by modulating the signalling pathways and responding by adaptive, nonrandom mutations, contributing to the maintenance of systemic homeostasis which provides robustness and adaptability and is the mechanistic fundament of living organisms. These mutations are not a reasonable means of producing cascading morphological change from one kind of animal to another but merely secondary speciation.

According to evolutionary theory, what drives evolution, is Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow. Natural selection depends on Variation through random mutations. Inheritance,  differential survival, and reproduction. M.Behe: Any adaptive biological feature requiring a mutational pathway of twice that complexity (that is, 4-6 mutations with the intermediate steps being deleterious) is unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth. Richard Lenski: Negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. James Shapiro: There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations”.  Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. In other words : Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system ?  A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional.   Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution.

Evidence points to preprogrammed specifying - instructional complex INFORMATION ( blueprints ) encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and signalling communication networks as the true mechanisms responsible for major morphological architecture and innovation & adaptation, development and body form. Major morphological innovation, development and body form are based on at least 17 different, but integrative mechanisms, the interplay of genes with the gene regulatory network, Trans and Retrotransposons, so-called Junk DNA, gene splicing and recombination, and at least two dozen epigenetic informational code systems, some, like the glycan ( sugar) code, far more complex than the genetic code, on the membrane - exterior side of cells, Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones, hormones, Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields that are not specified by nuclear DNA, Membrane targets and patterns, Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes, and inheritance by cell memory which is not defined through DNA sequences alone.


Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

1. Biological sciences have come to discover in the last decades that major morphological innovation, development and body form are based on at least 16 different, but integrative mechanisms, the interplay of genes with the gene regulatory network, Trans and Retrotransposons, so-called Junk DNA, gene splicing and recombination, and at least two dozen epigenetic informational code systems, some, like the glycan ( sugar) code, far more complex than the genetic code, on the membrane - exterior side of cells, Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones, hormones, Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields that are not specified by nuclear DNA, Membrane targets and patterns, Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes, and inheritance by cell memory which is not defined through DNA sequences alone.

2. These varied mechanisms orchestrate gene expression, generate Cell types and patterns, perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development, are responsible for important tasks of organismal development, affect gene transcription, switch protein-coding genes on or off,  determine the shape of the body, regulate genes, provide critical structural information and spatial coordinates for embryological development,  influence the form of a developing organism and the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development, organize the axes, and act as chemical messengers for development

3. Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis have proposed traditionally a gene-centric view, a scientific metabiological proposal going back to Darwin's " On the origin of species ", where first natural selection was proposed as the mechanism of biodiversity, and later,  gene variation defining how bodies are built and organized. Not even recently proposed alternatives, like the third way, Saltationism, Saltatory ontogeny, mutationism, Genetic drift, or combined theories, do full justice by taking into account all organizational physiological hierarchy and complexity which empirical science has come to discover.

4. Only a holistic view, namely structuralism and systems biology, take into account all influences that form cell form and size, body development and growth, providing adequate descriptions of the scientific evidence. The BIG ( umbrella ) contributor to explain organismal complexity is preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various languages and communication through signalling through various signalling networks  that act  on a structural level, which are pre-instructed to respond to environmental cues, development, and nutrition demands, and they are apt to communicate, crosstalk, signal, regulate, govern, control, recruit, interpret, recognize, orchestrate, elaborate strategies, guide and so forth. All codes, blueprints, and languages are inventions by intelligence. Therefore, the genetic and epigenetic codes and signalling networks and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

Richard Dawkins
“it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.)”

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/cperlich/home/Article/dawkins2.htm
I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

It is not intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid, or (probably) insane. It's just true.

if polls are to be believed, 100 million U.S. citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago. This is more serious.

But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting-influentially and powerfully-vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My "arrogant and intolerant" statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.

They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.

Are there, then, any examples of anti-evolution poseurs who are not ignorant, stupid, or insane, and who might be genuine candidates for the wicked category? David Berlinski, who is certainly not ignorant, stupid, or insane, denies that he is a creationist, but claims strong scientific arguments against evolution (which disappointingly turn out to be the same old creationist arguments). As guests of a prominent rabbi, he and I once shared a platform in Oxford, together with the great John Maynard Smith and others. Maynard Smith spoke after Berlinski, and, not surprisingly, he soon had the audience roaring with laughter as he lampooned Berlinski's bad arguments. But what amused me was Berlinski's tactic for dealing with this mocking laughter.

I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself. The clearest example I know is poignant, even sad, and I shall do it justice in a later article.

Does the Evidence Support Creationism? (FULL version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhMn0Pt_Otk

Claim: We should see greater similarity in physical characteristics between species that branched off relatively recently compared to those species that branched off farther back in time.

https://kgov.com/lee-spetner-on-non-random-evolution-bacteria-and-finches?fbclid=IwAR24nIDiPW1XqZ-qqFdFrrAH5iBubqnlZ2bGgWo4bCKKuUoJ40rog0rCAV4