Preface
Hello again! Hope you're doing well in these weird times! All that jazz. We've had a debate previously, so I'm going to mostly skip the introduction segment. To the reader - if you have any tips/advice in debate structure/rhetoric that would be appreciated. I'm still learning the nuances and jargon of DebateArt.
There are some truly ugly scientific terms in this debate. I'll do my best to define all the crazy terms used in my arguments in a dedicated category under Sources.
I apologise in advance for the size of this round. There was a lot to cover.
Definitions
There are several variations of the "theory of evolution" - the modern synthesis, Pigliucci's extended evolutionary synthesis, Koonin's post modern synthesis, etc, that could be said to be a better description of reality than Darwinism specifically. If PRO were to take the position that the modern synthesis, for example, is a better theory, I would have little choice but to concede. (For arguing that a 151 year old theory is superior to the modern version would be... difficult.)
However, the contention addressed in this debate arises not from the clash between these syntheses - but instead from the concept that:
"...evolution has been driven by ... non-random genetic engineering..."
...which is something that most if not all of the Darwin-based theories disagree with. In that sense, I propose the following (admittedly ugly) definition:
- "Darwinian Evolution", or "Darwinism": The theory of evolution postulated by Darwin, in which all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
For almost all other definitions, CON will defer to Merriam Webster. That said, the definition for "mutation" is extraordinarily verbose and unnecessarily technical, so it has been paraphrased. Link provided for full definition.
- "Natural Selection": A natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment. [1]
- "Mutation": ... permanent change in hereditary material that involves either a change in chromosome structure or number ..., or a change in the nucleotide sequence of a gene's codons ... that occurs either in germ cells or in somatic cells ...". [2]
Structure
R1: Preface, Definitions, Structure, BoP, Rebuttal, Point 1.
R2: Rebuttal, Point 2.
R3: Rebuttal, Point 3.
R4: Rebuttal, Conclusion.
Burden of Proof *
In this case, as the instigator suggests a significant departure from a widely accepted scientific theory - and thus the burden of proof falls to PRO.
- PRO seeks to prove that evolution is guided by non-random genetic engineering.
- CON seeks to dispute PRO's assertion and reaffirm that Darwinism - rather, modern Darwinism, is the "best" available theory.
* If there's an issue with the BoP please contact me, UpholdingTheFaith. I'm still a little iffy on who is supposed to set forward the BoP, if it's necessary to be set forward, etc., and I'd be happy to rectify any issues.
Rebuttal
For my organismal generations: Within organismal generations, there's genetic storage in local
DNA sequences and long range chromosome structure.
There is epigenetic storage in covalent
modifications and stable chromatin configurations;
Within a single cell cycle there is computational storage in
meta-stable nucleoprotein complexes.
I say this as respectfully as I can - this is nigh nonsensical. The use of "my" - along with the poem-like spacing and lack of citation - seems to imply that this is something that you've written personally. I'm going to ignore this bit for the following reasons:
- No citation.
- Six undefined highly abnormal terms.
- Relevance to the topic is extremely unclear.
- Red herring: "a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic." [3]
"DNA in addition to the data storage and "reading" ability has a sort of writing ability too. Like cd burning back in the day. Not only can we read cds but drives came out which allowed us to read and write ... onto the storage medium."
Are you referring to protein synthesis or the manner in which the DNA sequence can change via mutation? Or mitosis? Or meiosis?
Genomes have different kinds of functional information. Besides coding sequences, sort of data files in a way, determining the primary structure of
RNA and various protein molecules, there is information for other essential processes such as packaging DNA molecules within the nucleoid or
nucleus and the replication of DNA and transmission of copies to progeny cells.
Again - a source would be helpful.
This read write ability is driven by the non random cellular processes.
Equating the existence of "non random cellular processes" that occur within the cell to evidence of "non-random evolution" is blatantly fallacious. Erythrocytes carry oxygen, osteoblasts build bone, macrophages consume pathogens - these processes are self-evidently not done randomly.
2. Major evolutionary steps occur by DNA rearrangements which arise in sophisticated, non-random genetic engineering systems within the cell.
No evidence provided to support this claim - "non-random genetic engineering systems" are unreferenced and unmentioned.
3. Significant evolutionary jumps can when when the repetitive elements are altered which guide the formatting with genome system architecture. This is beyond simply altering protein and RNA coding sequences as in natural design.
No evidence of "evolutionary jumps" provided. Evolution isn't known for its speed, [
4] and the phrase "jump" seems to imply that PRO's theory of evolution occurs rapidly, which contradicts a wealth of documented evidence. [
5]
4. Evolutionary change is responsive to biological inputs, with respect to locating and timing of DNA rearrangements, which is regulated by cellular natural genetic engineering.
No evidence provided to support this claim.
The gene doesn’t have a special causal role. There are feedback loops from each and to each system. It’s based on a hierarchy and contains these different systems at each level.
- What systems?
- What feedback loops?
- What hierarchy?
- What levels?
- What gene?
Concluding Rebuttal Statement:
Aside from vague claims and unsupported statements, no discernible argument has been made in favour of the position of PRO.
CON Point 1: Darwinism as an Accurate Description of Reality
[In order to meet the BoP - to show that Darwinism is the best available theory - my first round is dedicated to show that it is, at least, a description of reality.]
Sub-points: a) Convergent Evolution, b) Domestic Evolution.
a) "Convergent Evolution" refers to when two species of different lineages develop the same trait, absent in those lineages. There are multiple examples of this phenomena - where an arctic fox and an arctic bird develop a similar colour independently, when dolphins and sharks develop similar fin shapes - or even when songbirds from around the world develop a similar brain structure. [
6]
The process of convergent evolution is an interesting illustration of evolution - and a perfect example of how the principles of Darwinism fit with reality. In the case of the arctic animals - a common selective pressure is present. The less visible the animal, the more likely they are to survive predators, and go on to reproduce. Despite being genetically dissimilar - bird and fox - the same colouring is evolved.
b) An interesting facet of evolution is
domestic evolution - where a horse's selection pressure becomes its speed or endurance, or a dog's selection pressure becomes its ability to manage sheep, or simply 'be cute'. For instance: gradually, wolves - more specifically, the ancestor of modern day dogs, which we would likely call wolves - through small inherited variations - have become continually more docile and suited for human companionship. [
7] This isn't a result of a selection pressure imposed by nature - but rather by the human race.
The more 'acceptable' the dog - mutations of colour, size, shape, demeanour - the more likely it is to be bred and reproduce. We manipulate Darwinism here deliberately - breeding animals for a range of purposes. I hardly need sources to say that domestic cats, cows, chickens, sheep, dogs, etc, aren't a result of nature.
Will be continued in my R2 - out of space. Lengthy rebuttal.
Sources
Terms
Protein Synthesis: Production of new proteins. DNA is converted into RNA in the transcription phase, the protein is built by a ribosome in the translation - a component of almost all cells, what is referred to as an "organelle". (There's a hell of a lot more to it, but that's the gist.)
Erythrocyte: Blood cell.
Osteoblast: Bone-synthesising cell.
Macrophage: Literally "large eaters" in Greek, immune system cell.
Mitosis: Somatic (non-sex) cell becomes two identical cells.
Meiosis: Sex cell becomes four non-identical daughter cells.
You're dead right. It was a really interesting topic and similar to astronomy, people know a lot of the intro level stuff. DNA and cellular biology is kind of in the same boat. I was hoping for a discovery documentary level discussion (and now know to better attempt to estimate my depth of knowledge to ensure fair expectation setting).
Then here, I bump into someone with both a deeper base of knowledge and far more rigorous debate style over discussion style. I literally feel bad if he feels his time was wasted.
All that said, wow I sincerely appreciate those call outs! I have so much to learn and those like my opponent who have been patient and kind have accelerated working through that learning curve dramatically.
Sorry for the lack of fireworks on what could have been a really fun one. Haha give me a year or so and I might be ready to re-tackle.
Unless we're talking physics/astronomy. Then I'm game all day!
Thanks again, that was kind of you to go out of your way to share!
And again one further nod to Jrob. You're a beast (good kind haha)
Hmm... not a very efficient debate tactic, but UpholdingTheFaith is a very intellectually honest individual, taking time to reevaulte biases and revise their opinion. I have to say, that great, it's not very often that people are like that. Props to Pro for the conduct.
We were in the "hot debates" category for a little while there! Woo! :)
You're fine. That comment just makes me feel twice as bad about the second response I did.
So hey. We're both learning and growing right. And open to a conversation. A win i think.
I mention it, but to reiterate - I am genuinely sorry for the length of the first round.
Future, succinct-ness, yes.
Same. Simultaneously believing in ID and Genesis seems impossible to me. I've yet to hear a solid explanation as to why they are compatible.
I personally, haven't heard any argument for intelligent design that doesn't have critical mistakes.
They are, but it makes creationism seem more plausible by comparison. I don't see how you could argue for Intelligent design from a biblical standpoint
The argument from improbability there is something in a discussion about abiogenesis. But unfortunately, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are separate theories.
By far the best point in your favor is the biogenesis upon which an athiest evolutionary theory relies.
New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 on page 527 (https://books.google.com/books?id=riW31Fy4kpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+Scientist,+Nov+19,+1981&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP8efk4rLkAhUER6wKHbW1D7EQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false):
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10 (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/a-look-at-some-figures/), explains:
“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”
Is this just about whether natural selection describes one mechanism of genetic changes in reproductive populations over time?
This will be fun to read
An interesting point of view!
I understand that position. Perhaps worth starting another debate with better terms for the type of discussion you're looking for? No pressure either way, feel free to engage in this debate if you wish. Perhaps we could just focus on a few things and let another debate continue the discussion if necessary?
One day for arg is not enough for such a scientific idea