The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[thedoc]

Yup.
But it's because people don't understand what evolution is, that they don't get this simple point.

Humans have been producing GMO's for almost as long as there has been agriculture.

BTW, natural selection is not random, it is the result of random mutations and other factors, but the process itself is not random. The only purpose of natural selection is survival and reproduction, the organism must survive long enough to reproduce.

No one said natural selection was random; it cannot be random since its function is to cull those occurring random mutations to ensure that what survives reproduces...a miserable barbaric affair. Whoever coined the phrase "mother nature" didn't have a bloody clue!

You said, "which nature produces - except that the former is a random process" indicating that natural selection was a random process.
Are you denying that you posted that, or that you didn't mean that? "Natural processes" is "natural selection". You need to be more clear in what you post.

[Walker]

Does anyone know

Sadly, Dr. No has intense comprehension issues.
Just another case of someone seeing only what the someone needs to see, for whatever oddball reason.

For the fact is, unless you directly and personally use the knowledge to lessen suffering in the world ...

To clarify, some folks such as those in the medical field, and crop engineering, directly use knowledge derived from The Theory of Evolution to ease suffering in the world, while others use their knowledge of others using that knowledge of evolution not to ease suffering in the world, but rather, to babble about evolution being a Scientific Law.

[Walker]

“What sets genetic engineering apart from all other types of crop improvements is that it involves transferring genetic material from one organism into the genetic material of a completely unrelated organism — DNA from bacteria into corn, for example. This doesn't happen in other plant-breeding techniques.”

“In the early 1980s scientists created the first genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by inserting genetic material from one organism into the DNA of a completely unrelated organism, even a non-plant species. This breakthrough is the only method available to plant breeders to confer beneficial traits between unrelated species.”

Source: Gardner’s Supply Co.
http://www.gardeners.com/how-to/genetic ... /7926.html

[thedoc]

“What sets genetic engineering apart from all other types of crop improvements is that it involves transferring genetic material from one organism into the genetic material of a completely unrelated organism — DNA from bacteria into corn, for example. This doesn't happen in other plant-breeding techniques.”

“In the early 1980s scientists created the first genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by inserting genetic material from one organism into the DNA of a completely unrelated organism, even a non-plant species. This breakthrough is the only method available to plant breeders to confer beneficial traits between unrelated species.”

Source: Gardner’s Supply Co.
http://www.gardeners.com/how-to/genetic ... /7926.html

As far as evolution and DNA is concerned there are no unrelated organisms, if they were unrelated the one organism would not be able to read the DNA from another organism and produce the proteins. According to evolution all Eukaryotic cell organisms evolved from a common ancestor and share the same DNA code.

[Londoner]

There is 'random' in the sense of 'not having a purpose'. Everything material is random in that sense, it simply is what it is, and acts as it must act. It does not have an objective; it does not imagine a future. This is true of evolution.

There is also 'random' in the sense of a one-off; 'a random mark'. Natural selection is without purpose, but it is not random in this second sense. We are not talking about individual accidents, like a member of the species being struck by lightening. Natural selection would be factors that exert a constant pressure on the whole group e.g. a sustained shortage of food.

[davidm]

In evolution, random merely means that some mutation is uncorrelated with the environment. Earlier I gave an example of a mutation that permitted bacteria to eat nylon. By pure happenstance, this mutation occurred in the wastewater of a factory that made nylon. This caused the nylon-eating bacteria to experience a population explosion. But a similar mutation may have happened many times before, in environments lacking nylon. Such a mutation in those cases would either have been neutral or perhaps deleterious.

That Walker italicizes the word theory is a sure tipoff that he has doesn’t know what a theory is in science. Italicizing the word means, to him, “It’s only a theory.” This is a hallmark of scientific illiteracy, exactly what you would expect from a Republican.

Also, there are no “scientific laws.”

[thedoc]

There is 'random' in the sense of 'not having a purpose'. Everything material is random in that sense, it simply is what it is, and acts as it must act. It does not have an objective; it does not imagine a future. This is true of evolution.

There is also 'random' in the sense of a one-off; 'a random mark'. Natural selection is without purpose, but it is not random in this second sense. We are not talking about individual accidents, like a member of the species being struck by lightening. Natural selection would be factors that exert a constant pressure on the whole group e.g. a sustained shortage of food.

Natural selection is not without a purpose, the purpose of natural selection is to better adapt the organism to the current environment, there is no purpose as in improving the species, only the immediate purpose of surviving and reproducing. Random is not a good term to use in this discussion, just as theory, in the laymen's sense, is not a good meaning for use in a science topic.

[Walker]

In evolution, random merely means that some mutation is uncorrelated with the environment. Earlier I gave an example of a mutation that permitted bacteria to eat nylon. By pure happenstance, this mutation occurred in the wastewater of a factory that made nylon. This caused the nylon-eating bacteria to experience a population explosion. But a similar mutation may have happened many times before, in environments lacking nylon. Such a mutation in those cases would either have been neutral or perhaps deleterious.

That Walker italicizes the word theory is a sure tipoff that he has doesn’t know what a theory is in science. Italicizing the word means, to him, “It’s only a theory.” This is a hallmark of scientific illiteracy, exactly what you would expect from a Republican.

Also, there are no “scientific laws.”

Must be contagious. Your notions of scientific theory and law are your own. The following link covers the old thread ground. Repeating your insistence does not confer validity upon your misunderstanding, for the fact is, evolution is a scientific theory.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=60#p324823

Obviously, you're using the layman's use of "law" because your fervent belief associates law with surety of concept.

*

It’s elementary.

“A scientist named Isaac Newton came up with three Laws of Motion to describe how things move scientifically. He also described how gravity works, which is an important force that affects everything.”

- Source: Physics for kids
http://www.ducksters.com/science/laws_of_motion.php

[davidm]

In evolution, random merely means that some mutation is uncorrelated with the environment. Earlier I gave an example of a mutation that permitted bacteria to eat nylon. By pure happenstance, this mutation occurred in the wastewater of a factory that made nylon. This caused the nylon-eating bacteria to experience a population explosion. But a similar mutation may have happened many times before, in environments lacking nylon. Such a mutation in those cases would either have been neutral or perhaps deleterious.

That Walker italicizes the word theory is a sure tipoff that he has doesn’t know what a theory is in science. Italicizing the word means, to him, “It’s only a theory.” This is a hallmark of scientific illiteracy, exactly what you would expect from a Republican.

Also, there are no “scientific laws.”

Must be contagious. Your notions of scientific theory and law are your own. The following link covers the old thread ground. Repeating your insistence does not confer validity upon your misunderstanding, for the fact is, evolution is a scientific theory.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=60#p324823

Obviously, you're using the layman's use of "law" because your fervent belief associates law with surety of concept.

*

It’s elementary.

“A scientist named Isaac Newton came up with three Laws of Motion to describe how things move scientifically. He also described how gravity works, which is an important force that affects everything.”

- Source: Physics for kids
http://www.ducksters.com/science/laws_of_motion.php

It's hard to parse your incoherence, but briefly: Yes, evolution is a theory. But your italicizing the word "theory" shows that you were saying, "it's only a theory," as if that has any meaning at all. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact because it is observed to occur. The theory explains the fact. I didn't click on your links because you are stupid and you bore me.

[davidm]

Moreover, Isaac Newton's "laws" are wrong. Newtonian physics has been supplanted by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

More to the point: Even GR and QM are not laws. They are descriptions of how reality is. Not laws.

[thedoc]

Moreover, Isaac Newton's "laws" are wrong. Newtonian physics has been supplanted by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

More to the point: Even GR and QM are not laws. They are descriptions of how reality is. Not laws.

I believe there is some confusion with a scientific law. Just as "theory" had different meanings to a layperson and a scientist, "law" has different meanings. A law to a layperson is something that you may or may not do, in science a law only describes what happens it does not dictate what may take place, in science a law is descriptive not prescriptive.

[PauloL]

Moreover, Isaac Newton's "laws" are wrong. Newtonian physics has been supplanted by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

More to the point: Even GR and QM are not laws. They are descriptions of how reality is. Not laws.

Of course, Newton is wrong.

But Newton is enough right for aeronautics to keep working even if they ignore Einstein.

[PauloL]

When I first posted in this thread, exposing my humble opinions, I couldn't count on such a huge attack by Evolutionists, or Evolutionauts if you prefer.

They called me theist, Mormon, creationist, and so on, and presented nonsense argumentation to counteract me in such a way to make me seem fool.

I was naïve enough to be so stupid to post here. Now I know that's the typical modus operandi of Evolutionists.

Richard Dawkins is the typical Evolutionist and does that with mental diarrhea not because of Evolutionism itself, but because within that stinking diarrhea he's got the idea that he's attacking God. This must be the reason for Evolutionists by and large.

Scientifically, Darwin himself, perhaps the only honest Evolutionist in history, listed the major flaws in his theory (that he himself refused to call so), each one likely to falsify Evolutionism, but these have been ever since ignored by Evolutionists under argumentation of the quality I pointed before.

So I stopped posting here, of course. It's a waste of time. I wished to discuss science, not cults of something.

[Harbal]

So I stopped posting here,

You say that but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of it, just like most of what you say.

[uwot]

- Source: Physics for kids

So that's where you learn your science.