View Full Version : Is evolution proven science or theory
from a scientific focus....why is it proven science?
my position is that the DNA code barrier and gene depletion coupled with natural selection make Darwinian style species 'creation' impossible.
Micro, within species development is possible and factual with gene depletion.
Dusty, guys, want to have a scientific discussion only....we all may benefit from that...these evo have been deleted before because it got personal, don't want that.
Just want to deal with the common evo explanations on a 'scientific' basis.
If this is too touchy for you just read and observe....I enjoy the non emotional discourse...if it gets silly I'll delete the thread.
I know we have lots of smarter scientific types than myself but I've never seen a convincing factual presentation....all periphery arguments
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 15:18
What are the initial assumptions upon which the theory is built?
For example:
What are the initial conditions?
What is the specific time scale/ when does it "start"?
Do the laws of chemistry and physics operate continuously in a manner consistent with what we now understand them to be?
There is nothing wrong with having initial assumptions as every theory has to have a foundation.
They just need to be clearly identified.
Given the initial assumptions, logical conclusions can be drawn and tested against known evidence.
Stole this from another site just to kick this off and start some conversation:
Part 1:
The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Part 2:
Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
Now as a side note, I would like to present this article for discussion also, lets call it # 12 shall we? This one I need to look into as I do not quite follow this as I should even though I took Introductory Geology. I am really having trouble with any scientific explanation for this one.
I know I posted more than I should but most will not follow the link, maybe this way they will actually READ it before responding.
Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead
A story about two friends from day one.
Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.
Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.
Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.
Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.
Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.
These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.
The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.
One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.
These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.
Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing intelligent design in nature. One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system called a bacterial flagellum found in many bacteria including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint and flexible propeller. The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much to small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer.
I had always heard that the smallest living thing has 23 parts, and it could not exist without all 23 and therefore could not have evolved. It made sense and I am sorry I do not remember where I heard this but the text directly above is darn near the same thing. How can evolution explain this?
How can these smallest of parts that need to be there in number evolve? It doesnt make sense. Just as the deeper you go into Space, when you travel to the smallest parts of creation, it gets MORE complicated, not less.
It would seem that some scientists at least believe that evolution can not explain this complexity in the world.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Cell
- Overconfidence in Evolution the Problem - Get rid of that fairy tale, and we will begin to deal correctly from effect to cause
- Too Much Complexity in Just One Cell - It is bigger than New York City!
- Cells Only Reproduce after Their Kind - They obey the law of Genesis 1
- Evolutionary Theories Are Ridiculous - They do not explain the facts
- Each Cell Is Full of Complicated Parts - We still do not understand its full complexity
- All its Parts Had to Begin Operating at the Same Time - Gradual changeover could not succeed
- Evolutionary Theory Offers No Solutions - We must look elsewhere for answers
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE CELL
Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
The conditions are our DNA, genetic code, and how 'it' operates. It is why I've always had trouble with macro evolution.
Evolution is explained, generally, as mutations that occur over time evolving a species....that works within a species as a depletion of genetic code, not an addition.
Mutations within DNA are a 'weaker code' (thankfully) and not dominant....for species change to take place the mutation would have to be dominant to 'build' and not devolve.
Natural selection reduces mutation within the same species....like the wild horse herd in Nevada that is so interbred many horses are born blind...a mutation that lead to a loss of DNA building blocks...if a healthy herd were introduced natural selection would 'fix' the mutation in some generations...the healthy DNA would not be overcome it would dominate....so how did mutaion lead to a new species.
The DNA barrier code is also a problem...a mutation will not pass the barrier code to reproduce once removed....Beefalo, close but not exactly the DNA, mate and have an offspring that is incapable of reproduction...the barrier code.
My question then is, how does a mutation build or add huge elements of new DNA over riding natural selection and the DNA barrier code.
PRB, I call bullshit because no evidence has ever been displayed. IMO, it falls into the same category as ghosts, werewolves, fake moon landings and 911 truth.
Any farmer or dog breeder can tell you Gregor Mendel was on the money, but until I see a fossil of whatever evolved into a platypus, I'm gonna remain patently skeptical of Darwin's crap.
PRB, I call bullshit because no evidence has ever been displayed. IMO, it falls into the same category as ghosts, werewolves, fake moon landings and 911 truth.
Any farmer or dog breeder can tell you Gregor Mendel was on the money, but until I see a fossil of whatever evolved into a platypus, I'm gonna remain patently skeptical of Darwin's crap.
Dusty,
I'm in agreement with you but want a scientific counter point based upon our DNA that explains 'how' it could happen when those that deal with DNA know it would have to reverse the nature of DNA's essence.
Roguish Lawyer
05-04-2013, 16:06
You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice. :munchin
You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice. :munchin
As long as we can find a conservative scientist also. Science is WAY OVER MY HEAD! :D
You guys want me to try to get a lib scientist to come discuss this? You would have to agree to be nice. :munchin
as long as he/she can discuss the DNA aspect as that has to be the key....I've never heard a molecular biologist explain away those known factors
btw, I'm not being liberal or conservative about this......I've heard all kinds of theories and almost science, stuff folks accept .... but evolution has to come back to our DNA and how it 'works' not how one thinks it should have happened or 'might have' mutated.
DNA works in a very specific way....even take mutating bacteria/virus's....the mutation is a change of loss of make up, not an addition of new DNA...
Dusty,
I'm in agreement with you but want a scientific counter point based upon our DNA that explains 'how' it could happen when those that deal with DNA know it would have to reverse the nature of DNA's essence.
That would definitely be an interesting counter point.
That would definitely be an interesting counter point.
Yes, it would...and I'm no scientist just looked into that aspect of the evolution theory.
In what I've seen our DNA is built so as to withstand mutation, to protect the 'species' and has multiple defense systems to do just that.
Evolution, development thru mutation (whatever the cause), says exactly the opposite....that environmentally/specie induced mutations 'created' new DNA to allow one species to become another thus creating a totally dif chain of DNA.
This would nullify the way we scientifically know our DNA works.....or so I believe.
within the same species yes....and it is a duplication of already existing DNA....does it create a totally new DNA chain?
i.e....does it change the pattern of a HOX gene or its purpose to create a dif species
It occurs over several generations of organisms through gene duplication. This addition is usually free from selective pressure, so there is no negative effect on the host organism.
And that, in a nutshell, is why my involvment in this discussion is limited to the above fact.
or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?
No. Domains with independent functions mix to combine and produce new complex functions.
Over several generations.
A distinct species is created when a population of that species is physically isolated form the rest, forming its own distinct gene pool. Natural selection will produce mutations and traits that the rest of the species will not develop. Eventually, so many mutations will build that the two species are incompatible with each other and cannot interbreed.
Viola - a distinct species.
Damnit, PRB, now I've got TWO posts in this hodgepodge! ;)
interesting, an example please. And that is an example of devolving is it not...or a lessening of DNA strain?
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 16:51
Concerning polonium halos:
-They are sometimes found in magma intrusions (rock which had been liquified).
-Almost all of the polonium halos come from isotopes produced exclusively by the U-238 decay series.
These facts tend to refute the "day 1" theory of polonium halos.
That being said, polonium halos are an interesting clue.
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 16:57
or too put it another way...Has a mutation been observed which has added new and beneficial genetic information to the pre existing gene pool which was inherited from the parents of the mutant?
Experiments have been done on thousands of successive generations of fruit flies for over a century to test exactly that question.
The conclusion: <crickets chirping>.
Trapper John
05-04-2013, 16:58
Oh boy, I feel like Daniel entering the lion's den here, but here it goes::D
First, GC, you are absolutely correct, we need initial starting conditions and indeed the laws of nature apply; e.g. thermodynamics. So, Brush Okie, entropy did not suddenly reverse itself. The interpretation of the third law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy (disorder) will dominate a system unless energy is provided into the system to maintain its order. In other words, life requires input of energy or disorder (death) will result. In fact life is a continual struggle to override entropy - energy input is required.
Second, the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. However, the preponderance of evidence supports this theory. The rules of logic dictate that we cannot "prove" a theory only "disprove" it by credible evidence that the theory cannot explain. Alelks, Brother, I love ya (no not in "that" way Dusty) but your entire post is not scientific "fact" and does not disprove the theory of evolution (I will refute these assertions point by point later).
PRB, your assertions re: DNA and accumulation of mutations, is behind the times- about 47 years :p The entire theory itself is evolving, but not in such a way as to invalidate its underlying premise and especially not the broader understanding.
Towards that end, I have a little personal story on that point. As an undergraduate, I was studying cell biology. At one point, I was particularly intrigued by the apparent morphological similarity of chloroplasts and mitochondria. One day after lab, I went to Prof. Robert's office to discuss this with him. My thought was, could these two organelles (one in the Plant Kingdom and the other in the Animal Kingdom) have a common ancestral origin. He just smiled and shuffled through his books and papers behind his desk and handed me the seminal paper by Lynn Margulis on the symbiotic theory of evolution, now called endosymbiosis. I have posted two links below about Lynn Margulis and the theory of endosymbiosis.
At the time this was a highly controversial theory (now widely accepted) and was the first and so far only credible challenge to the notion that it was the accretion of random mutations and natural selection that was the fundamental driver of evolution. I later had the pleasure of listening to Prof. Margulis expound on her thoughts. She has had a profound impact in the field of evolutionary biology and our understanding of evolution.
More later.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/organelles/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/dec/11/lynn-margulis-obtiuary
Absolutely.
Just ask the radiation resistant fungi inside Chernobyl. :D
When a fungi or bacteria becomes resistant
However, bacteria, fungi etc multiply radidy, accumulating genetic losses due to mutation....those are micro changes within the same species and we've agreed these exist. It is not a new organism, just a rearangement of its DNA with mutation.......iotw, it ain't a bird.
That's because I am older than 47 ;)....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.
Trapper, break it down for me in a nutshell....how has her theory changed the then know operational DNA experience of natural barrier, and mutation and natural selection?
See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Or human lactose tolerance.
it is a scientific fact that bacteria can become resistant to antb's via mutation via an anti pen enzyme...this mutation, is caused by a resorting or loss of the parent bacterias pre existing DNA, not a creation of new genetic information
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 17:14
See post #23.... or antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Affirming the consequent.
How do we know the bacteria had increased viability because of improved information in the mutated section of DNA?
It could very well have had increased viability because of lost information.
This would be consistent with PRB's view.
<edit>
Looks like PRB beat me to the trigger.
Trapper John
05-04-2013, 17:18
That's because I am older than 47 ;)....I'll look into that, looks interesting, the theory of it.
Can she, or does she, point to a definitive example in the macro sense or is she postulating at this point.
Being widely 'accepted' as a theory doesn't overy impress as Darwinism is so widely 'accepted' in the same vein.
If there is macro proof then that is a totally dif story.
And knowing your preference for the macro discussion that is exactly why I chose Margulis' work. :D We are going to start at the beginning and bring it forward ala Margulis. In the end, I think you will see evidence of how we humans are evolving. And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).
Darwinism is not the mutation of existing DNA within a species that changes that species to creat a sub species......what we've been discussing.
Darwinism is the creation of a new species, a complete and dif strain of DNA, from a mutation in another dif species.
Someone give me a scientific example of a DNA change that included HOX gene mutation that added beneficial replicating DNA that translated to a complete species change.....as that is Darwinism.
Since this had to happen thousands of times we must have lots of examples.
See Team Sgt, we can play nice...;)
There's the real rub - looking for absolutes in evolution and natural selection in a futile process.
Why is that the case....there should be some linkage that is traceable, identifiable.
We can trace our ancestors back thousands of years yet not scientifically trace, identify a cross over pt.
ie. I gave my DNA to the Genome project that traced my 'family' back to the craddle of civilization based upon my DNA markers...it mirrored exactly what the family history was, thru eastern Europe etc.
Yet, that is within the species of course.
I'm asking in any species to identify a transitional moment of species change.
And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).
I do think that, and why would having other molecular structure be 'not human'...everything is of 'this earth' as it were.
And knowing your preference for the macro discussion that is exactly why I chose Margulis' work. :D We are going to start at the beginning and bring it forward ala Margulis. In the end, I think you will see evidence of how we humans are evolving. And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).
I believe we are 'evolving' as a species, we do that.....in my simplistic laymans mind I want to know when we will evolve into something non human...another species...as that is what Darwin suggested happens.
Going to go work out so I can continue (slow down) my evolutionary process (old )...
Good stuff guys.
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 17:40
Why is that the case....there should be some linkage that is traceable, identifiable.
We can trace our ancestors back thousands of years yet not scientifically trace, identify a cross over pt.
Where is the link between prokaryotes and eukaryotes?
Why are there no 2 celled organisms?
Did vascular plants evolve from non-vascular plants, or vice-versa?
Where do insects fit in the evolutionary tree?
These steps would seem to precede mammals and humans.
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 18:02
It sounds like your frame of reference is a relatively short span of time, and I don't think it exists. Time, and a lot of it, individuates one species from it's founding population.
Now we're getting somewhere.
How much time?
Roughly when were certain stages of evolution occurring?
(First amino acid, first protein, first cell, first multi-cell, first plant life, etc.)
Doc,
Cool chart...what does it say...diff species walked on two feet. Are they directly related by evolution thru macro DNA changes? Some evolved and others did not?
What?
just an example...most scientists have reclassified Neanderthal man as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis...a human, homo sapien...as can be all of the other 'guys' on that chart in the humanoid vein....evolution within a species...not a cross over of apes to man.
It is also 'funny' that that chart has 'Lucy' on it...the much heralded 'missing link of years ago.
It was claimed Lucy walked upright and had to be a link because the 'knee was slightly larger' than a normal apes knee (evolving) and its femur had the same angle to knee ratio as a human.
It is documented that knee size means nothing, many apes and humans have dif sized knees....most tree dwelling apes have the same femur to knee ratio as humans and Richard Leakey said that the skull was so incomplete that 'imagination' made up her skull (The Weekend Australian 1983) He also noted there was no firm conclusion what species she was.
Anatomists proved in 1987 she was just another ape of the australopithecines and she did not walk upright..
Trapper John
05-04-2013, 20:15
I think we need to bring this discussion down to some basics and let's start with the evolution of life itself. Key question is what is the origin of membrane bound microbes? Key to that is the evolution of membranes. The approach to answering this question is not biological, but from the field of physics.
We also need to ask how did eukaryotes arise? (See previous post about Lynn Margulis).
The next question is how did multi-cellular organisms arise?
I have attached some reading that will help frame a better understanding of these questions.:lifter
There have been a common misconception re: induce antibiotic resistance in bacteria as it relates to evolution. The point is that resistance is not "induced" in bacteria by antibiotics. It is selected. See "Antibitioc Resistance is Ancient" The bottom line is that bacteria have had the genetic capability for 30,000 years to produce the resistance factors to all known classes of antibiotics. Bear in mind that antibiotics are derived from natural products and read Gerry Wrights paper (attached). IMO this does not relate to evolution as a primary driving force.
What I am trying to do here is establish the basic underlying factors (natural laws) that drive evolution of life and am starting with the protobiotic environment from which life evolved. No fossil record for this period. My reasoning is that we need to see evidence that this environment has the necessary factors to form membranes to package the molecular machinery of life, that early unicellular organisms (known to exist from the fossil record) can form muticellular organisms, and that symbiotic relationships between prokaryotes can result in the appearance of the eukaryotes. Establishing the scientific basis for this leads to the next stage of complexity of life.
More later.
Since this had to happen thousands of times we must have lots of examples.
Evolution is just that, theory. For Darwinian Evolution to be presented as proven scientific fact it must be reproducible, repeatable, and verifiable.
Take Islam for example, its violence has been reproducible, repeatable, and verifiable for over 1400 years:D
No matter the theory, we are all reduced to one common denominator, faith - faith in whatever theory we believe in…
If Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation, how did things come to be in the first place - that’s what I wanna know. Miller Urey has since been proven flawed (Abiogenesis).
What I am trying to do here is establish the basic underlying factors (natural laws) that drive evolution of life and am starting with the protobiotic environment from which life evolved. No fossil record for this period. My reasoning is that we need to see evidence that this environment has the necessary factors to form membranes to package the molecular machinery of life, that early unicellular organisms (known to exist from the fossil record) can form muticellular organisms, and that symbiotic relationships between prokaryotes can result in the appearance of the eukaryotes. Establishing the scientific basis for this leads to the next stage of complexity of life.
You've discovered the manner in which life began? That, I suspect, is another theory based upon supposition not so?
If not, then it could be reproduced yes?
And, to speed things along, lets say I see merit in her supposition on molecular ideas as to non membrane organisms....that then leads to Darwinian evolution in what manner
some of your examples of evolution are still of the same species, not a creation of another species.
Making a single cell yeast organism into a multiple cell yeast organism under 'unusual circumstances' to speed it along does not another species make....it is yeast.
Did the author create exactly the environment required simulating, in his words 'millions of years', and if so, how does he know that?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
and as one author wrote
The assumption of optimization of physical properties via evolutionary processes
cannot be proven for cell membranes at this time. Then he postulates onward.....
GratefulCitizen
05-04-2013, 21:03
"Antibiotic resistance is ancient."
So it makes sense that bacteria could be naturally selected for this pre-existing trait.
This is not the creation of new genetic information.
From "The evolution of membranes."
"The physical properties are governed by the structures formed when these molecules aggregate in a manner dictated by the normal laws of physics and physical chemistry. Although the feedback leading to genetic control can be one or more stages removed from protein synthesis that is controlled directly by nucleic acid sequences, we assume that evolutionary processes still lead to optimization of the physical properties of biological materials because of the almost unimaginably long time scale available. This assumption is the motivation for our examination of membrane evolution in this chapter.
The assumption of optimization of physical properties via evolutionary processes cannot be proven for cell membranes at this time."
This assumption has two parts:
-Small changes are, on average, beneficial.
-A large period of time is available.
A few questions:
What are the changes that occur at the chemical level?
What is the probability that the change is beneficial?
How often do the changes occur?
How much time is available?
Hello,
For those arguing pro-evolution I have a question. What caused the the first amino-acids, RNA & DNA? Replication requires something to replicate.
Hello,
For those arguing pro-evolution I have a question. What caused the the first amino-acids, RNA & DNA? Replication requires something to replicate.
It was lost forever when capitalist pigs warmed GAIA.
Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.
I think we all get the micro in species evolving...but that is a totally different deal that new species creation from another.
What I've noted so far, and in other discussions, is the micro evolution process
( dna replication/stacking and dna mutation within a specific species) to support the theory that new additional dna (not duplicate of existing parent dna and including new HOX creation) is possible ergo macro evolution or new species creation exists. That is a great leap scientifically....and not scientifically proven...postulating at best.
The 'charts' we've all seen of apes walking to manhood etc are of the same genre.
The 'assumption' is 'they kind of look like us' have similar dna (as does a pig btw) so it follows we developed from them. The dna barrier/mutation/natural selection process in that high order of developed species would argue directly against that.
The barrier/mutation/nat selection process is observable and quantifiable....there is no species jumping dna in that catagory....none.
The charts also rely on 'time testing' that is very 'objective' extremely so as stated in "The Anthropological Journal of Canada" R. Lee, radiocarbon, Ages of Error comments
"The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious....half of the dates are rejected...there are gross discrepancies...accepted dates are ""selected dates"".
So whomever made the monkey chart lined his primates up in order to support his thesis time wise and that is not science but science fiction.
The 'geological column' has also proven to be about as scientific as the date it was first put forward...the late 1700's.
Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.
Nope. No different than global warming.
Trapper J...that was some heavy stuff you ref. A bit much for me so I had my wife read it. She has a Biology degree from Boston U, she use to teach the subj and a Dr. of Pharmacy degree...after her run thru she said there was no direct linkage to any Darwinian theory except on wanting to believe there was...again some serious extrapolation. Her opinion only.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 15:01
It all comes down to one question:
What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?
Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 16:33
Although I know that it does happen, I don't know the chemical explanation.
Anybody find that yet? Curious.
Not sure about the downstream mechanism, but the initial mechanism (getting life's building blocks in the first place) has some problems.
It has implications for the downstream mechanism as well.
John R. Baumgardner did some math to illustrate the scope and scale of the problem.
An excerpt from one of his articles:
(All of the estimations and shortcuts are generously in favor of evolution)
Can random molecular interactions create life?
Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy.
This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.
Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 10^80 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos, 10^12 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10^110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.
Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about 1,000 protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1,000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible nonliving chemical environment.
Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3-D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20^100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1,000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.
In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process.
Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.
The numbers just don't work out for evolution.
Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.
The numbers just don't work out for evolution.
I agree, nor does the genetic science we know as supportable today under write it.
IOTW, Darwinian evolutionists rely on faith with anecdotal reference to a micro same species evolution process that is widely understood.
That is simply a huge leap of faith.
What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?
Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.
Boy + girl = new genetic information.
Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 17:44
Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...
The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.
What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?
Chance? A strict Mendelian process?
Support for evolution always devolves (pun intended) into attacking religion.
Religion is supposed to be off-limits for this thread.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 17:46
Boy + girl = new genetic information.
Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?
Reassembly of information.
Not new information.
Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...
The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.
What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then? The explanation of why our bodies are machines for the propogation of the genes that built them?
Chance? A strict Mendelian process?
I didn't mention religion at all....accepting a theory rift with postulation can only be done on faith....Darwinian evolutionists are simply the faithful....not the scientists they purport to be.
Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...
The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.
Chance? A strict Mendelian process?
Watching the Model T evolve into today's jeep, plants evolving into being hybrid and drought/insect resistant, and similar events can do that to a fellow. :)
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 19:01
plants evolving into being hybrid
Something tells me that this isn't a very good survival strategy.
:D
It also illustrates the limits of variation.
;)
Trapper John
05-05-2013, 19:22
Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...
The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.
What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?
Chance?
Although I would agree, Doc, let's not bring up the question of intelligent design in this or any other thread. That will lead to an impossible conundrum, IMO.
I think it is important to explore the driving forces (natural laws) that led to the origin of life in the first place. That was the point of the previously posted references, not to provide evidence supporting Darwin's theory to explain the diversity of species. So, PRB, the wife is correct, but that is not why I referenced these references. Simply put, I want to begin to understand the driving forces that led to life. And, NO, I did not discover the origins of life ;)
GC: Dr. Baumgardner's analysis, although statistically correct, is highly misleading and not germane to this discussion because the self-organization of the fundamental building blocks of life is not merely a statistical problem. The initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics profoundly alter the statistical probabilities. If that were true all chemical reactions could be predicted by statistical analysis. Rarely is this the case. I have attached a seminal paper on the subject of self assembly of biological molecules by one of the premier chemists George M. Whitesides. (My Whitesides trumps your Baumgardner :D).
Kozy, et al., the origin of the building blocks of life are not established by the Miller-Urey experiment, although academically interesting, just not likely a realistic explanation. Recent evidence suggests that preformed amino acids, nucleic acids, and key intermediates may have been delivered to the early earth in comets and meteorites. See the following link from NASA and the PNAS paper also attached.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html
All- I realize that none of this directly addresses the question of Darwin's theory. What I have tried to do is put forth the natural basis for the origin of life. What is amazing to me is that it appears that given the right conditions life will emerge. Even on this earth we find life in places that were previously thought to be incompatible with life e.g., the geothermal vents at the convergence of tectonic plates on the ocean floor. Thus it would not be surprising that we ultimately find evidence that life once existed on Mars - all of the right conditions once existed there as on earth.
I believe the foregoing has established that multi-cellular life will happen given the right conditions and thanks to Lynn Margulis, we can even see how the two major Kingdoms arose.
Trapper,
That's interesting but not exactly germane to the thread and leads in a totally dif direction.
Honestly speaking, that should be a sep thread if you wanted to discuss that.
I was only interested in the aspect of dev after life existed and do not want to get into a religious discussion of any sort.
My comment on faith was a generic faith . If you believe in an unproven theory one must be taking it on faith....a belief in it for whatever reason.
Trapper John
05-05-2013, 20:05
Trapper,
That's interesting but not exactly germane to the thread and leads in a totally dif direction.
Honestly speaking, that should be a sep thread if you wanted to discuss that.
I was only interested in the aspect of dev after life existed and do not want to get into a religious discussion of any sort.
My comment on faith was a generic faith . If you believe in an unproven theory one must be taking it on faith....a belief in it for whatever reason.
I am not getting into faith issues either. Only want to establish the initial conditions that give rise to life are governed by laws of nature, e.g. thermodynamics and that once established that symbiosis gave rise to the emergence of the multicellular eukaryotes. This sets the stage for the emergence of more complex life forms and diversity of life as we know it today. You have wanted hard scientific evidence, not speculation, conjecture, or theory. I am trying to provide that evidence and show how we go from the micro- to the macro-system analysis that you are looking for. We aren't there yet, but I hope that you see we are getting there.
Like the study of Islam, evolutionary biology is not going to be done in one or two posts on this forum. You've exposed me to a whole new area of study (Islam) and I am returning the favor by exposing you to a whole new way of thinking about the origin of life and evolution of life's diversity.;)
I am not getting into faith issues either. Only want to establish the initial conditions that give rise to life are governed by laws of nature, e.g. thermodynamics and that once established that symbiosis gave rise to the emergence of the multicellular eukaryotes. This sets the stage for the emergence of more complex life forms and diversity of life as we know it today. You have wanted hard scientific evidence, not speculation, conjecture, or theory. I am trying to provide that evidence and show how we go from the micro- to the macro-system analysis that you are looking for. We aren't there yet, but I hope that you see we are getting there.
Like the study of Islam, evolutionary biology is not going to be done in one or two posts on this forum. You've exposed me to a whole new area of study (Islam) and I am returning the favor by exposing you to a whole new way of thinking about the origin of life and evolution of life's diversity.;)
I get that...and wether we are 'getting there' is also supposition based upon another theory of extrapolation...but go for it.
My issue with Darwinism is that it is accepted and presented by so many as 'Fact'...science...proven...and that is simply not true on a scientific level.
That was my point with this thread....as to wether we 'get there', only time will tell.
Darwinism is a very popular theory that must be taken on 'faith'....until we 'get there' or do not get there.
Trapper John
05-05-2013, 20:42
I get that...and wether we are 'getting there' is also supposition based upon another theory of extrapolation...but go for it.
My issue with Darwinism is that it is accepted and presented by so many as 'Fact'...science...proven...and that is simply not true on a scientific level.
That was my point with this thread....as to wether we 'get there', only time will tell.
Darwinism is a very popular theory that must be taken on 'faith'....until we 'get there' or do not get there.
I have stipulated at the outset that Darwin's theory of natural selection and the divergence of species is only a theory, not scientific fact. I have also said that we cannot logically "prove" that a theory is correct, we can only disprove it. If evidence is brought forward that is not consistent with the theory then it must be modified to accommodate the new evidence or be discarded altogether. Therefore, the correct question to be asking is can Darwin be disproved. ;)
I have also presented an example of how Darwin's original theory has been modified, endosymbiosis proposed by Margulis. In a subsequent post, I will provide references to further modifications to the original theory and discuss some of my graduate research in this context. Finally, I hope to provide you some recent direct evidence of speciation.
In the end I hope that I will show you that simply accumulation of mutations in a genome is not sufficient to account for the diversity of life. It is far, far more complex than that. You see Darwin's theory is evolving too.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 20:43
GC: Dr. Baumgardner's analysis, although statistically correct, is highly misleading and not germane to this discussion because the self-organization of the fundamental building blocks of life is not merely a statistical problem. The initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics profoundly alter the statistical probabilities. If that were true all chemical reactions could be predicted by statistical analysis. Rarely is this the case. I have attached a seminal paper on the subject of self assembly of biological molecules by one of the premier chemists George M. Whitesides. (My Whitesides trumps your Baumgardner :D).
Constructed components self-assembling.
A few questions:
Is directed energy input required to construct the components?
How much energy does it take to disassemble them (both the assembly and the components)?
If greater energy is required to disassemble, then they are at a lower energy state and obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
This is not comparable to DNA.
DNA is highly unstable and left to itself degrades rapidly.
Most chemical environments speed the degradation process.
Kozy, et al., the origin of the building blocks of life are not established by the Miller-Urey experiment, although academically interesting, just not likely a realistic explanation. Recent evidence suggests that preformed amino acids, nucleic acids, and key intermediates may have been delivered to the early earth in comets and meteorites. See the following link from NASA and the PNAS paper also attached.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html
Transpermia - the shell game of evolution.
How did those critical components develop elsewhere?
The laws of physics shouldn't be any different elsewhere.
All- I realize that none of this directly addresses the question of Darwin's theory. What I have tried to do is put forth the natural basis for the origin of life. What is amazing to me is that it appears that given the right conditions life will emerge. Even on this earth we find life in places that were previously thought to be incompatible with life e.g., the geothermal vents at the convergence of tectonic plates on the ocean floor. Thus it would not be surprising that we ultimately find evidence that life once existed on Mars - all of the right conditions once existed there as on earth.
I believe the foregoing has established that multi-cellular life will happen given the right conditions and thanks to Lynn Margulis, we can even see how the two major Kingdoms arose.
FWIW, I believe that we will find traces of life on Mars and on comets/asteroids/meteorites.
Furthermore, those traces will be very similar, if not identical, to what is found on Earth.
This is predicted by an alternative origins theory, but I won't go into it per the conditions of this thread.
Concerning comets, no comet has ever been observed with a distinctly hyperbolic incoming trajectory.
(i.e. Every comet has passed through the inner solar system at least once/ none have been observed coming from outside the solar system)
Also, the odds of a comet/asteroid/meteoroid making it from some distant place to here -and- be captured within a reasonable time frame are infinitesimal.
-Inverse-square law dispersion (shotgun scatter) works against anything "hitting" the solar system.
-The motion of the solar system tends to expel objects, not capture them.
-Earth's gravitational sphere of influence is relatively small due to the sun and Jupiter making it yet more difficult for anything to "hit" the volume where capture might be possible.
-Capture is a very difficult event, almost impossible without an atmosphere.
-The speed necessary for a comet/asteroid/meteoroid to make it here within a reasonable time scale precludes the already difficult event of capture.
Concerning plate tectonics, the theory has massive flaws, among them:
-Granite is less dense than basalt, it cannot subduct (there are other problems with subduction)
-There are three points in the Pacific where ridges and trenches intersect (can't be going both up and down)
-There is a pressure point where magma becomes denser than solid basalt (at the "crossover depth", pressure is such that the magma above will go up to the surface and the magma below will go down to the outer core -- it cannot "circulate")
There are problems in many areas of science.
One area of science will reference another for support.
If the support science is flawed, it undermines both.
On some issues, one area of science will be incompatible with another.
Such disagreements mean one, the other, or both must be wrong.
Only want to establish the initial conditions that give rise to life are governed by laws of nature, e.g. thermodynamics and that once established that symbiosis gave rise to the emergence of the multicellular eukaryotes
Everything in the universe is under law, but hopefully not Shariah :D
Evolution defies the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the laws of conservation of mass & energy, and the law of increasing entropy.
According to thermodynamics, nothing can arise from nothing and increase in quantity, but only decrease, in disorder.
not to derail this discussion, because I find it both educational and fascinating, but I've never understood the 'either/or' when it comes to Darwinism v. Creationism. Why can't it be be both? the "Creator" began life, and then it has evolved (i.e. adapted) to life on Earth as necessary? Species either adapt/mutate for survival or they die off to make room for other species more adaptable to environment. Why is it that "Faith" and science cannot co-exist?
Why is it that "Faith" and science cannot co-exist?
It can, and is why people seek truth. Both sides are guilty of bias though. However, researching both sides will eventually bring forth truth.
GratefulCitizen
05-05-2013, 22:51
not to derail this discussion, because I find it both educational and fascinating, but I've never understood the 'either/or' when it comes to Darwinism v. Creationism. Why can't it be be both? the "Creator" began life, and then it has evolved (i.e. adapted) to life on Earth as necessary? Species either adapt/mutate for survival or they die off to make room for other species more adaptable to environment. Why is it that "Faith" and science cannot co-exist?
Thread is about the science related to evolution, not Darwinism v. Creation.
Please don't shatter the fragile dialogue we have going.
Some of us have waited years for just such a discussion on this site.
Please...
Genesis 1
New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Thread is about the science related to evolution, not Darwinism v. Creation.
Please don't shatter the fragile dialogue we have going.
Some of us have waited years for just such a discussion on this site.
Please...
lol
PedOncoDoc
05-06-2013, 06:35
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day....
...11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
I am fascinated by creation stories from around the world, especially in parallels/consistencies between creation stories from cultures that had no contact with eachother. While I do believe in a higher power (call it God, YHWH, Ain Sof, etc., whatever), I believe that after the initial spark of creation occurred, much of our universe was allowed develop on its own. (Insert the joke questioning intelligent design with regards to the close proximity of the anus and genitalia here.)
There are some inconsistencies in the strict JudeoChristian creation story which I highighted with the quote above-
There was light and darkness, and the light was called day and the darkness called night. What is the source of said light? It is not described or identified.
The plants were then made before the sun. Either the light that was created on the first day was sufficient for photosynthesis, the plants did not require photosynthesis upon creation and later developed this requirement, someone got his days mixed up (the author, not Creator) and the sun was made before the vegetation, or the story is flawed in some other way.
The creation of the sun and moon on the 4th day - the story implies that, in the absence of the sun, day would still be light (see the first day). It also identifies the moon as a source of light - but we clearly know that the moon merely relects the light of the sun and is not a light in and of itself. The translation you quote states that the sun and moon serve "to separate light from darkness", but God had already done so on day 1 - "he separated the light from the darkness".
Faith is something that must transcend logic and reasoning - the infinite is confined by these 2 measures, and expecting ourselves as finite beings to have the ability to understand it all seems like a fool's errand to me.
YMMV...
Gents,
Not on topic.....please comment upon Darwinism as a theory or science....
Gents,
Not on topic.....please comment upon Darwinism as a theory or science....
Did you really think you were going to keep this as an on-track, scientific discussion?;)
Did you really think you were going to keep this as an on-track, scientific discussion?;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
My understanding is that there are also some misconceptions regarding evolution, for example that it has never been observed. Evolution has been observed, some examples would be pesticide-resistant insects that have developed, and a bacteria that has evolved to feed on nylon (a completely human creation). Evolution doesn't mean that a creature will make a sudden leap, for example going from an insect to a lizard. It is very gradual changes over time due to various factors such as the environment.
Here is a link on some misconceptions. On the side, you will find a link to a creationist's rebuttal of said link, along with a rebuttal to the creationist's rebuttal:
LINK (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
Read the text about micro evolving...it is a replication of 'existing' parental DNA or a reduction of DNA. That is called mutation....for Darwinism to exist, new DNA would have to be 'made' that is other than inherited parental DNA to include HOX DNA....this has never been observed and goes against the laws of DNA...the barrier code, mutation weakness and natural selection....Macro evolution has never been observed...only inter species changes......totally dif scientifically.
BTW, Neanderthal was reclassified in the Homo Sapien cat years ago.....once again, having strains of other human DNA is not unusual depending upon exposure.
I was unaware we were 'great apes' tho....if so then we can mate with them and produce reproducing appettes? I don't think so actually.
....for Darwinism to exist, new DNA would have to be 'made' that is other than inherited parental DNA to include HOX DNA....this has never been observed
Nutshelled.
Richard,
To argue that Darwinism is a false theory in no way says another is fact. Why is that the case?
Macro evolution would be a species jump...one species changing into another...i.e an Ape developing into a human as in Darwinism. This would entail huge additions in beneficial DNA and the HOX DNA which goes against what we know of the protective process built into our DNA...this has never been observed in any form, DNA or fossil.
Micro evol is simply a mutation within the same species. i.e. blind underground stream fish...they mutated due to environment...thru the loss of DNA (that is key..the loss of not the addition too).
Other mutations are in resistant bacteria etc...but they restack already existing DNA or lose DNA thru mutation....they do not grow totally new DNA.
Micro evol has always been the fallback explanation for macro evolution even tho the two are not one and the same...it is a bait and switch argument.
All mamals have very similar DNA.....
"London: Scientists have sequenced the genome of the pig, showing the swine and humans share 112 DNA mutations linked to a range of disease including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, which may be useful in fighting diseases."
A watermelon is 98% water....so is a Jelly fish...so is a snowcone....very simple stats can be very deceiving.
One claim often made is that new species creation has never been observed, for example in fruit flies, that only new types of fruit fly are created, but not a different species. But this is incorrect. New fruit fly species have very much been created by scientists through experimentation. Different species of fruit fly as in if you try to mate the newer ones produced through experimentation with the original types used, they cannot produce off-spring. Just because something is a different species doesn't mean it isn't still the same type of creature.
That's my point...they cannot produce offspring...that is the barrier code in DNA...that exists and is observable and one of the reasons Darwinism is false.
Unnatural mutations (mules, beefalo etc) cannot reproduce, natural selection...kills the mutation....that is the built in prot device that Darwin had no idea existed
How does it make Darwinism false? It shows that wholly different species can evolve over a period of generations of changes in the life form. Also, the definition of "species" is a bit arbitrary: LINK (http://pages.towson.edu/scully/species.html)
Ive seen that 'study' they made very simple yeast into complex yeast....yeast is yeast, again...micro evolving...same DNA replicated. It proves nothing about Darwinism.....nada, it is asking you to take a leap of faith in the theory.
"An ape wouldn't develop into what we call a human, it would evolve over gradual steps over long periods of time. Different species of fruit fly exist in the wild and have been created in labs. Changing to a different species doesn't mean something big like a fruit fly turning into a honeybee. "
Different sub species of fruit flies exist....not seperate species. Your other comment escapes me. Darwinism says we developed from Apes, you say that wouldn't happen yet support that theory.
How does it make Darwinism false? It shows that wholly different species can evolve over a period of generations of changes in the life form. Also, the definition of "species" is a bit arbitrary: LINK (http://pages.towson.edu/scully/species.html)
when we artificially create a major mutation...crossing cows with buffalo...the offspring cannot reproduce...iotw, lets's say a 'natural' mutation of major hox DNA happened...the result would not reproduce...the mutation would die out, that is the barrier DNA has within it's own code.
Darwinism says apes became men at some point...that would require a modification of hox dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene) that would entail huge major modification and additions to DNA...as in the mating of beef/buffalo...this mutation process does not work as it produces non reproductive issue...ergo...the mutation dies without reproducing.
So, you tell me, with the barrier code and the protective DNA wall, how did apes become men?
If you choose to believe this theory works, without any proof whatsoever, have at it. Nothing you've put forth is considered quantifiable scientifically.
I'd suggest looking into the genome process a bit more as it really explains the dif between micro/macro mutation.
Also be a bit more specific with species, sub species as you use the term loosely.
I can get a dog to walk upright, however, the hox gene that dictates the angle of pelvic girdle, femur length and articulation are very specific to mammals that are designed to walk upright and those that can periodically do so but predominately are quadrupeds....i.e. when really moving they go to all 4's.
I don't know if that comparison works. One can't just try to mix a cow and a buffalo. They are separate species. And yes, huge changes would have been involved for human's ancestors to evolve into modern human, but that would have been gradual changes built up over a long time, not a sudden huge change.
Take a look at bonobos and chimpanzees. They are separate species, yet look almost identical. They came from the same common ancestor, but then the Congo river formed and split them up, and thus what we know of a modern chimpanzees developed on one side and the bonobos on the other. It is the same as with the fruit flies. You take one group, evolve them over enough generations, and then compare the ones after enough generations to the original ones and find it's a new species of fruit fly. The ancestor that evolved into humans (which they believe humans, bonobos, and chimps all share a common ancestor) would have taken multiple iterations before arriving at its current form.
Brd Sd...I used a cow and buffalo because that 'experiment' was tried...it was called Beefalo....as in Mules...the offspring of a male donkey and female horse...very close DNA, close enough to get an offspring...but all of the offspring are not capable of reproducing....that is the DNA barrier code. IOTW when there is a major mutation, one that would have to happen in Darwinism, the barrier code does not allow reproduction. Please think about that a bit.
BTW, in your example the 'same common ancestor' is unknown, postulation....I am not going to comment upon postulation.
There is not one example of a new species developing from another. Not one.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/lower-9th-ward-conservative/2013/apr/8/there-credible-proof-darwinian-evolution/
a news article no less....
Richard,
To argue that Darwinism is a false theory in no way says another is fact. Why is that the case?
I wasn't arguing either way. It has been a long while since I read "On The Origin of Species", but IIRC Darwin's hypothesis holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations and that natural selection {over time} determines which forms will survive.
To my way of thinking and the scope of the argument in relation to the timeline of Earth's history, 150 years certainly doesn't seem to be much 'time' to 'observe' and declare the exactitude or inaccuracy of his evolutionary theories.
MOO.
Richard :munchin
I wasn't arguing either way. It has been a long while since I read "On The Origin of Species", but IIRC Darwin's hypothesis holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations and that natural selection {over time} determines which forms will survive.
To my way of thinking and the scope of the argument in relation to the timeline of Earth's history, 150 years certainly doesn't seem to be much 'time' to 'observe' and declare the exactitude or inaccuracy of his evolutionary theories.
MOO.
Richard :munchin
I am arguing based upon the DNA science we know today that makes his basic premise moot, observable science, not theory...Darwin was totally unaware of the DNA composite and its protective devices.
For his theory to work the construct of DNA would have to be different, decidedly different.
Darwinists have been trying to prove otherwise for years now, to no avail.
from evolution today
"What about the claim in Chang's article that "the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA?" The "continuum of life" through descent with modification from a common ancestor is Darwin's core hypothesis. He sought to support it with evidence from comparative anatomy, fossils, and embryos; but all three of these categories provide as much evidence against the hypothesis as for it. With the advent of genome sequencing, Darwinists hoped to find more reliable support.
This hope has not been realized, though you'd never know it from reading Darwinian propaganda. It takes a review of the scientific literature to learn that even Darwinian biologists no longer think that humans and bacteria are descended from a single ancestral cell. There are just too many inconsistencies in the molecular data.
Even among the major groups of animals, the evidence from genome sequencing has failed to produce a consistent "tree of life." Different results are produced by comparing different molecules, or even by submitting the same molecule to different laboratories. The April 28, 2005 issue of Nature reported that DNA sequence data have failed even to establish whether insects are more closely related to us than they are to roundworms."
To say Darwin knew nothing of genetics would be false...he knew what any good animal breeder knew, you could pass on or strengthen certain traits by reintroducing that trait over and again...basic animal husbandry.
He postulated that basic genetic understanding into a 'tree of life' and grouping dif species as related by basic 'look'...that that same strong trait reintroduced in one species demonstrated an 'evolving' and he extrapolated that we all evolved in that manner not only within the species but crossing species lines.
That does not work in the real DNA world...that is the problem with Darwinism...1850's science applied in the face of what we know today....yet it is still sold as 'science'.....it is actually scientific urban legend.
My point about 'propositional knowledge' and I'm outta the debate:
"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know."
- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld
IMO - such reasoning can be as ably applied to Darwin as to our situation today.
Richard
GratefulCitizen
05-06-2013, 20:04
Just because we don't have a set of fossils of it doesn't mean it did not exist.
That falls under the category of "assumption".
Nothing wrong with assumptions, even big ones.
They are necessary for any theory.
However, when assumptions are repeatedly used to plug holes where evidence is lacking (or contradictory), confidence in the theory decreases.
Parsimony and Occam's Razor are useful tools.
Where do the assumptions of evolution end and the testable/falsifiable conclusions and predictions begin?
These need to be clearly delineated if the theory is to be considered science.
Sacamuelas
05-06-2013, 20:05
Lol
I love it when Richard is in good form.
ender18d
05-06-2013, 20:14
After spending a lot of time on neck anatomy lately, I can tell you that anyone who designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve sure wasn't looking at efficiency!
(especially in giraffes... worth looking up in the context of this discussion)
My point about 'propositional knowledge' and I'm outta the debate:
"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know."
- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld
IMO - such reasoning can be as ably applied to Darwin as to our situation today.
Richard
Yup, you have to take Darwinism on Faith alone....I'll agree with you there.
this fruit fly...
The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.
or another fruit fly
GratefulCitizen
05-06-2013, 20:51
Problem here though is that Occam's Razor can be claimed by either side in the debate.
"Either side of the debate."
This is a big part of the problem with the origins debate.
Each theory (or variant) needs to stand or fall on its own.
Let each one have its own assumptions, explanations, conclusions, and predictions.
Measure those against logic and known evidence.
Unobserved, unrepeatable events cannot be proven nor disproven.
We can only increase or decrease confidence in theories and explanations.
Different theories use different assumptions.
One theory cannot work in terms of another theory.
It always devolves into denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, and straw-man arguments.
It is an interesting experiment but not hailed as what the author claims in all sectors. What I cannot find is how the author induced DNA change, what his method was other than a natural procreation...are you aware of that? I'd be interested.
"One of the arguments that evolution is a fact is that we observe it in the laboratory. Evolutionists monitor, for instance, the adaptations of fast-reproducing unicellular organisms such as bacteria. But these species are far simpler than the multicellular eukaryotes. Now new experiments are studying the more advanced fruit fly. The results are telling.
New results published last week report on an experiment that monitored more than 600 generations of the fruit fly. In this laboratory experiment fly populations were selected for accelerated development. But new genes did not arise and take control in these populations as evolutionary theory predicts. The results suggest problems for evolution in the wild:
Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.
In other words, evolution must work differently than expected. "
A few things to keep in mind about evolution are:
1) Evolutionary theory itself does not purport to explain how what we call "life" began from non-living chemicals. That is a separate field known as abiogenesis.
2) There are different theories within evolution. The general idea is just that you have gradual changes that occur in life forms over time, with the ones that work best for survival retained because those particular life forms with those changes are more able to survive and reproduce, and pass on those same changes to their off-spring. Over enough time, organisms become distinct enough through these changes that they are separate species.
3) Criticisms within the scientific community regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory are not attacks on evolution as a construct itself. The same happens in other sciences, such as astronomy---there are multiple models of Big Bang theory for example.
Give me an example of the over time evolution in the abstract...as in an ape becoming a homo sapien....
Give me an example of the over time evolution in the abstract...as in an ape becoming a homo sapien....
Maybe Darwin had it backwards and apes 'devolved' from humans.
Richard
GratefulCitizen
05-06-2013, 22:11
Maybe Darwin had it backwards and apes 'devolved' from humans.
Richard
Maybe Darwin was backwards and wrong...
maybe animals all devolved separately within their own kinds from the megafauna in the fossil record to the pitiful creatures we have now.
Neanderthal was far more athletic than modern man and had a larger brain.
(But we're more evolved...)
DinDinA-2
05-06-2013, 23:18
So, regarding the idea modern man evolving from apes or something else, what is the current state of evolution? Are apes not evolving any more, are they left behind, stuck? Shouldn't new "evolved" species be discovered continuously in all forms of life? Or is evolution so slow modern man will not be around to see new life forms (not those little squiggly things).
Hmm, Richard, I wonder what a T-Rex devolved from?
Hmm, Richard, I wonder what a T-Rex devolved from?
It was sarcasm.
Richard
This evolution stuff is so slipperly, isn't it?
That always happens when you try to make the evidence fit the notion instead of the other way around.
The fruit fly experiment is interesting on a few levels. It apparently was taken through 600 generations of induced development. I'm not sure about the controls or the method of inducement but am not concerned with that overly for this point.
600 generations of mutation and the fruit fly was a fruit fly, the interesting part is the strong mutation which led to breeding flies. According to the author the original fruit fly would not or could not breed with the result...that's rather vague.
OTOH I've never had any difficulty with inherited characteristics or adaptation within the same GENUS...I accept that, man has developed within the hominid species.
My real DNA based issue is 'transformation'...when did a land mammal or reptile 'decide' to take flight, become a totally different genus....actually how?
How was DNA totally rewritten, not slightly modified by mutation or restacking of present inherited DNA.
This is The Holy Grail of evolution and without some real answers it remains a well supported theory, nothing more.
Scientists of the evolutionary bent have been seeking that Grail for over 150 years to no avail....fossil or DNA type, anything.
Every link 'discovery' has proved to be scientifically wrong or a hoax.
This is the long pole in my cerebral tent....not adaptation within a species or mutation of the same...but the total rewriting of basic and HOX DNA resulting in a new genus.
BSD, I've heard the story before...that would take hundreds of thousands of years or more based upon the fruit fly experiment (36,000 man years) for the minor mutation...... millions of years for the DNA changes you are dealing with.
When you talk about a developed vertebrate completely changing major DNA ....when major changes would happen over such a long time...how did the creature adapt to an environment that science says changed rapidly at times.
That depletion of oxygen in the water would have to take millions of years for the postulated adaptation to take place.
You would also have hundreds of thousands of cross over fossils....at least one.
This may or may not be of interest for some on this thread:
RNA building blocks synthesized (all links are to the same lab experiments):
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
vid summarizing the above here:
<link> (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html)
There are thousands of "transitional" fossils showing the evolution of fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and so forth. I put "transitional" in quotes because there really is no such thing. We modern humans ourselves could be considered "transitional" if we evolve into something different further down the line. "Transitional" is just a concept for a fossil showing a creature that is at some point in the evolution between one type of creature (say a reptile) and another (say a mammal or a bird).
Here is a link with lots of info on this: LINK (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
quickly read thru the link and found Lucy and other examples that have been proven to be quadrupeds but noted as early hominids because they walked upright....iotw, still using 'examples' to fill the gaps that are bogus....wanting it to be so does not make it so...
Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):
“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.2
Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”2
but not hominids...depends on the ind viewpoint I guess.
While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.
Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."
Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."
The link itself is from the 1990s, however mistakes found in the fossil record do not make the whole thing incorrect.
No, it doesn't...but I note that those examples are all classified as Apes, but called 'relatives' based upon what?...Not DNA. I get the drift but see no observable, other than kinda, maybe , sorta, supposition.
Anyways, I appreciate the discourse but am checking out of the net for 7-8 days or so...road trip.
Good discussion. Thanks for the restraint.
Trapper John
05-07-2013, 18:43
No, it doesn't...but I note that those examples are all classified as Apes, but called 'relatives' based upon what?...Not DNA. I get the drift but see no observable, other than kinda, maybe , sorta, supposition.
Anyways, I appreciate the discourse but am checking out of the net for 7-8 days or so...road trip.
Good discussion. Thanks for the restraint.
Before you leave here is some potty reading.
In the scheme of evolution, species can both converge and diverge, depending on genetic and environmental factors. Evolution leaves its mark on living things and shows up in reoccurring patterns, including convergent evolution, parallel evolution, divergent evolution and coevolution, to name a few.
Convergent evolution occurs when one or more unrelated species (meaning they don't share a recent ancestor) evolve similar morphologies or behavior. Often, the species "converging" fill similar ecological niches in a given habitat or in different regions of the world. For instance, a torpedolike body among marine organisms is common in several unrelated animals. Marine mammals like dolphins, certain species of sharks, and even fossils of extinct marine reptiles, for example, share this shape -- but they don't share a recent ancestor. In most cases, similar morphologies evolve in organisms to overcome the same natural hurdles in different environments. Much like convergent evolution, parallel evolution occurs when species evolve similarly but share a recent ancestor.
Divergent evolution, on the other hand, happens when related members of a group possess enough variation to be considered a separate species. The term also applies to two or more related species that become increasingly dissimilar as they evolve [source: BioWeb]. A widely known process of divergent evolution is adaptive radiation. You may have heard the term while learning about Darwin's famous finches on the Galapagos Islands. Darwin hypothesized that an original species of finches arrived at the island and split up to exploit new environmental niches. This gradually resulted in the creation of several species. In addition to exploiting new environments, divergent evolution can be influenced by the physical demands of a given environment, competition for resources and geographic isolation [source: Schluter]. Extinction can be a consequence of divergent evolution as well.
Coevolution is best described as two or more species affecting each other's evolution in a mutual way [source: University of California Museum of Paleontology]. Species that coevolve usually have close relationships with one another -- they might be predator and prey duos or have a symbiotic relationship. In this case, species aren't necessarily converging or diverging, but rather evolving to match the adaptations of other species
And an attachment just for fun :D Enjoy and see ya when you get back.
Be well and be safe Brother.
I attended a lecture today given by COL (Ret) Dr Chris Parone in which he discussed what could be considered linguistic evolution. I know it's different than this thread (for the most part) but I found the 10 page article (attached) interesting. On page 59 (of the edition of Military Review Journal), he discusses evolution from a metaphorical perspective. It's not an easy read--rather academic--but worth it the second time through.
As to the question of physical evolution, I spent 5 years getting an undergraduate Microbiology degree and after all the (pain) courses in genetics, chemistry, immunology, biology, microbiology, (etc...) I still don't know the answer to the question this thread is discussing. Over time I have formed an informed opinion (which matters not), I think we do/have physically evolved. I do not believe we come from apes. IMHO, our descendants were CREATED and then they/we EVOLVED into what we are today.
GratefulCitizen
05-07-2013, 18:59
IMHO, our descendants were CREATED and then they/we EVOLVED into what we are today.
Ancestors?
Ancestors?
Oops, yes thank you--ancestors.
GratefulCitizen
05-07-2013, 22:24
While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.
Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."
Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."
You bring up an important point: the clock.
Life sciences can rage back and forth all they want about this stuff.
Unfortunately, "the clock" is interfering with other areas of science.
Geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. shouldn't give a rat's ass whether their studies disagree with the timeline needs of life sciences.
Yet lines of thought are constantly abandoned lest they offend evolutionary biology dogma.
Science at large shouldn't be restricted by one theory in one subject area.
airbornediver
05-08-2013, 09:05
The clock you speak of is dependent upon which theory you believe.
If its creationism, then question for how to define the clock is dependent upon us knowing that from that first day; the days were 24 hours long, with a certain amount of daylight and nighttime. The time length of daytime and nightime would thusly depend on where the earth was in relation to the sun and where the first man/woman were on the earth to properly identify the season.
If its evolution (ie, big bang), then question for how to define the clock is technically already answered. Since scientists now know what happens (thanks to the Higgs bosun) to certain particles and how long they last after they collide (which is part of the big bang).
There are holes in both, considering that they're both theories (to answer the OP). At this point, to treat any as fact is to ignore the merits of the other. Ignorance is not bliss, it is the tool to which charlatans use to dupe the population.
GratefulCitizen
06-29-2013, 16:37
While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.
Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."
Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."
Wanted to address some of this when the thread was active, but didn't want to disrupt the flow of the thread at he time.
The long first day theories originated with "The Gap" theory proposed by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.
It relies on some questionable translations of the Bible into English.
Specifically, Genesis 1:2 is retranslated as “the earth became formless and void” rather than “the earth was formless and void.”
The Hebrew word used in that verse is almost always translated "was".
Also, the KJV of Genesis 1:28 reads "replenish the earth" which is sometimes misunderstood to mean "refill".
The root word for replenish is the French verb replenir (to fill) and the Hebrew word translated into replenish here is usually translated into "fill" elsewhere in the Bible.
Regardless of translation, all of this would fall under the category of "theistic evolution".
The "theistic" part addresses the first cause (initial assumptions).
Science is equipped to address cause and effect.
Whether the first cause is theistic or atheistic isn't something science can address.
This is also the problem with intelligent design theory.
ID focuses on the first cause, rather than the cause and effect relationship (as such, it trends away from science).
A creationist theory which focuses on subsequent cause and effect, but ignores the question of first cause (assumes things started fully-formed without attribution of origin) would be science.
Evolution assumes initial starting conditions without attribution of origin and goes on to focus on cause and effect (poorly, IMO, but it is science).
Looking at evolution from this perspective is where I have a problem with it.
Assuming a starting point of disorder and increasing in order over time defies observation and experiment.
Conversely, assuming a starting point of order and increasing in disorder over time is consistent with observation and experiment.
The fact that this view is also consistent with some religious beliefs is why it is so vehemently eschewed.
Whether a theory is consistent or inconsistent with a particular belief system should not matter to science.
All that should matter is whether or not the theory is consistent with the evidence.
We must have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
bandaidbrand
06-29-2013, 20:46
Stole this from another site just to kick this off and start some conversation:
/snip
Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
/snip
Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Maybe I'll try to address some of these other "facts" at a later time, but these three I can spitfire some easy replies to. Number 4 is just a misleading statement, the primary mechanism of the evolutionary theory is selection by the environment. Sperm + egg actually reinforce this aspect of evolution. By having a offspring produced from two 'randomly' selected gametes, that were themselves created through meiosis with multiple crossovers between chromosomes creates a massively genetically different group of offspring. The potential for micro-evolution between generations is _increased_ by sexual reproduction, and has been shown in repeated experimentation, as in the fruit fly experiments mentioned earlier in this thread. In the case that the author of these facts was saying the environment can't cause changes in the DNA of eggs inside of a body... consider why you wear a lead vest when you get you get x-rayed.
"Fact" number 5 is just a joke. Yes, there are DNA repair mechanisms, but they hardly repair every error in DNA synthesis in replication. A very common example in this is how a common drug such as insulin is made. Human DNA is put into a plasmid and inserted into live bacteria through a process called transformation. There is either chemical transformation which involves calcium ions, or electroporation which involves a targeted current that disrupts the cell membrane, but basically some of this human DNA gets incorporated into the bacterial DNA. How do scientists keep these bacterial cells from getting rid of this foreign DNA while it's being incorporated by the cells? Raising the temperature to 42C serves other purposes in making the cell membrane 'leaky', but it also inhibits DNA repair, specifically the DNA excision pathway. 42C is 107F, the heat index here in Houston today was 106. DNA repair mechanisms also can actually assist in evolution. I'll try to link some articles on it later. All of these topics are at least brushed upon in a freshman biology book in college.
Fact 7 is also just blatantly wrong. Do a search for polyploidy in plants, or DNA disjunction in mitosis or meiosis. Chromosome numbers do change, they are not fixed, and some resulting organisms CAN mate depending on the nature of the polyploidy.
All that being said, I still think there's a lot of deep questions about the origin of life that are not answered by science at this point. I'm not naive enough to think we have all the answers, or that all our answers our right (the world was flat according to scientists once right?), but I think discounting the incredible amount of evidence that supports evolution is the mistake of someone that isn't willing to really challenge their belief structure. I think you can learn about the incredible complexity of science and still come to the conclusion that there's something truly divine about how it all works.
GratefulCitizen
06-29-2013, 21:23
All that being said, I still think there's a lot of deep questions about the origin of life that are not answered by science at this point. I'm not naive enough to think we have all the answers, or that all our answers our right (the world was flat according to scientists once right?), but I think discounting the incredible amount of evidence that supports evolution is the mistake of someone that isn't willing to really challenge their belief structure.
"Discounting the evidence" is a false dichotomy.
Support for a theory increases or decreases with new evidence.
Unobserved, unrepeatable events can neither be proven nor disproven.
It is unfair to hold scientific theories to a "prove it" standard (this can only be done in math).
But, scientific theories can and should make falsifiable predictions.
What are some of the falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory?
bandaidbrand
06-29-2013, 21:55
I agree that it's not a "prove it" scenario, and as you say, the events are unrepeatable. Most of the evidence for evolution has been based on falsifiable hypotheticals.
An example from my previous post could be:
"E. coli can spontaneously incorporate foreign DNA from a plasmid."
Looking at the fossil record can be informative, but I think there's a lot of room for [incorrect] interpretation there. The actual mechanisms that could have allowed for evolution are the testable and the real science.
Just for fun...
In this evolutionary process when did abstract consciousness arrive on the scene?
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 06:57
Refreshing myself with the comments in this thread a couple of things have jumped out me:
(1) A clear bias towards one POV or the other and the attempt to select facts with a misinterpretation of the underlying principle is evident. As a case in point I cite GC's comment (I don't mean to be picking on you, GC, just using this as an example).Looking at evolution from this perspective is where I have a problem with it. Assuming a starting point of disorder and increasing in order over time defies observation and experiment.
The problem here is that entropy is selected out to make the case that the theory of evolution is flawed, i.e violates the third law of thermodynamics. The argument you are making here is specious.
What should be applied here is Gibbs free energy (a relation that incorporates both entropy and enthalpy) and simply states that a system will establish the lowest energy state.
To illustrate this point, and the fallacy in your argument, I would like you to do a little experiment. Half-fill a soda bottle with water, add about 50 ml of vegetable oil. Shake vigorously (after replacing the top of course :D) and observe. You will see the initial conditions of micro droplets of oil randomly dispersed in the water. Disorder - right? After a few minutes you will see the oil aggregate on top and water and oil separated into a two phase system. More ordered -right?
This "apparent" violation of the third law is in fact a representation of a system seeking the lowest free-energy steady state. Entropy is not dominating this process, enthalpy is. Hence, your argument does not conflict with the theory of evolution - it is consistent with it. (Notice that I did not use the word "prove". As I have said before nothing can be proven to be only not be).
The null hypothesis is "The theory of evolution is false". All subsequent experiments should be designed to disprove that null hypothesis. No credible evidence has been advanced so far. Ergo the theory stands until such evidence is presented.
(2) And that brings me to the second point that has been made, i.e. that in order for the theory of evolution to be correct (an incorrect null hypothesis from the outset by the way), new DNA must be created and that has never been observed. Well, that is not correct either, and bandaid cited an example with bacterial incorporation of DNA plasmids - a fact well established in nature and used extensively in biotechnology. In fact the human insulin that diabetics take was produced by E. coli expressing the human insulin gene. I grant you that is an artificial system, not a natural one.
However, there are naturally occurring examples and the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good example. Antibiotics select for bacteria expressing resistant genes and the these bacteria survive. What is more, they transfer that gene to other bacterial species through plasmids and new species of antibiotic resistant bacteria emerge.
Another example in humans: Morbid obesity is known to run in families. There has been some evidence for an obesity gene. These patients can consume a mere fraction of calories that normal people do and still gain weight. Now I would like you to do a mental experiment. Imagine a global crisis event that wiped out a large percentage of humans and destroyed society as we know it. Food would be in very scarce supply. Humans carrying the "obesity gene" would have a survival advantage and would be able to procreate and pass on the "obesity gene". I realize that is an example of micro-evolution and does not prove evolution theory. But as I said, we cannot prove evolution theory - only disprove it. This is an example in support of that theory, nonetheless.
In the end, bandaid hit the nail on the head, IMO (added a small change in italics to your comment). I think you can learn about the incredible complexity of science [nature] and still come to the conclusion that there's something truly divine about how it all works.
In my view, it doesn't matter whether you start from an ID or Darwinian view, we end up at the same point. Nature/God are one in the same and we are all children of Nature/God.
Act accordingly!
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 07:13
Just for fun...
In this evolutionary process when did abstract consciousness arrive on the scene?
As always CSM, you ask the most poigniant and IMO relevant questions. Up until recently humans were thought to be the only species with abstract consciousness, and by that I assume you mean a sense of self identity and a sense of future (time).
I read somewhere that dolphins are now known to have a sense of self and possibly a sense of time, elephants I think do as well. However, conscious abstract thought is most advanced in humans and it is that quality that burdens us with a "caretaker" responsibility both individually and as a species. So far we are barely passing (D+) that test IMO.
I feel myself diverging off on a Ayn Rand philosophical line of thinking and that is just a bit off topic so I'll stop now. :D
GratefulCitizen
06-30-2013, 10:17
But as I said, we cannot prove evolution theory - only disprove it.
Still not sure what exactly "evolution theory" is.
Seems to be a moving target.
Does it demonstrate predictive power?
What falsifiable predictions does it make?
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 10:54
I'll pick up that ball, Trapper. ;)
I began asking same thing in undergrad, eventually posing the question to a Harvard educated Logic prof. His answer was that symbolic behavior, the evolutionary root of abstraction, began to appear somewhere between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. This lays it out in short form:
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=1132
He then recommended this literature:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198503248.001.0001/acprof-9780198503248
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cognition-Vienna-Theoretical-Biology/dp/0262082861/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1372595897&sr=8-3&keywords=The+Evolution+of+Consciousness+macphail
Exactly when, biologically, did our brains begin to develop the machinery for abstract thought? I haven't located a definitive answer to that; at least, not in the early 2000s when investigating it.
Thanks Doc. Good posts, got my brain in the game. I agree the development of language must have been the first evidence of human abstract thinking.
GratefulCitizen
06-30-2013, 11:26
Refreshing myself with the comments in this thread a couple of things have jumped out me:
(1) A clear bias towards one POV or the other and the attempt to select facts with a misinterpretation of the underlying principle is evident. As a case in point I cite GC's comment (I don't mean to be picking on you, GC, just using this as an example).
The problem here is that entropy is selected out to make the case that the theory of evolution is flawed, i.e violates the third law of thermodynamics. The argument you are making here is specious.
What should be applied here is Gibbs free energy (a relation that incorporates both entropy and enthalpy) and simply states that a system will establish the lowest energy state.
To illustrate this point, and the fallacy in your argument, I would like you to do a little experiment. Half-fill a soda bottle with water, add about 50 ml of vegetable oil. Shake vigorously (after replacing the top of course :D) and observe. You will see the initial conditions of micro droplets of oil randomly dispersed in the water. Disorder - right? After a few minutes you will see the oil aggregate on top and water and oil separated into a two phase system. More ordered -right?
This "apparent" violation of the third law is in fact a representation of a system seeking the lowest free-energy steady state. Entropy is not dominating this process, enthalpy is. Hence, your argument does not conflict with the theory of evolution - it is consistent with it. (Notice that I did not use the word "prove". As I have said before nothing can be proven to be only not be).
Are you asserting that molecules assembled in such a way as to produce life is the lowest available energy state for those molecules?
(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)
Here is my illustrative example:
Around the southwest, and especially in Canyonlands National Park, there are these naturally occurring piles of rocks called "cairns".
Typically, there are about 4-6 somewhat flat rocks common to the area neatly balanced in a vertical stack.
Park rangers say that over millions of years, weathering and erosion removed surrounding rock and soil and these rocks "fell" into these neatly ordered stacks.
As luck would have it, they precisely mark trail routes.
The explanation is completely consistent with the laws of physics, and given the explanation, the rocks are at the lowest available energy state.
How many people believe my story?
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 12:06
Still not sure what exactly "evolution theory" is.
Seems to be a moving target.
Does it demonstrate predictive power?
What falsifiable predictions does it make?
So GC, if you are not sure what evolution theory is how is it possible to opine about it?
That being said, I think we are talking about this definition: "Evolution is the organic change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Often this is extended to be more inclusive and to attempt to explain the Origin of Life, a viewpoint I share.
As to the second part of your post, I assume that you are referring to the properties of a good hypothesis (theory) - (1) Consistent with the observed known and (2) Predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable.
I contend, as do the vast majority of scientists, that Darwin's theory is consistent with the observable known (e.g. fossil record, structure and function of species genome, etc.). That's condition 1.
As to condition #2, (predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable), that is more problematic for evolution of species because of the time required to test the most obvious prediction. I'll have to get back to you, in say 1 million years or so on that one.
However, there is ample evidence for micro-evolution and co-evolution as has been cited elsewhere in this thread. In fact it was co-evolution that gave rise to the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms (see discussion re: Lynn Margulis).
But before you jump on the difficulty surrounding condition #2 as a reason to discount a the Theory of Evolution, consider the same difficulty (for different reasons) with the General Relativity Theory and the Standard Model of the Universe. These theories meet condition #1 and still we have not tested all of their fundamental predictions largely because the technology to do so is still in development. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, invalidate the value in either. Nor does it invalidate the Theory of Evolution.
So far, as I said in my earlier post, no credible evidence has established proof that the null hypothesis (the Theory of Evolution is not correct) has come to light. Until that time comes, then it must stand as the best explanation of what is known, i.e there is no reason in logic to replace it with an alternative theory.
But let's do the mental experiment and say that some evidence does come forward that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain. Let's also attempt to replace it with ID and let's apply these same conditions to ID and ask (1) is ID consistent with the observed known and (2) what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? In our mental experiment let's assume condition #1 is met (Personally, I don't believe it can be given the preponderance of evidence so far, but in the mental experiment I am suspending my disbelief).
Now the question is, what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? I think the answer to that question is none. I think you will see the conundrum and therefore a logical impasse is reached.
My point is that any attempt to apply logic to ID is folly. ID is a matter of Faith and as I said in the earlier post, when you look at the origin of life, whether it's through the lens of science or Faith, we ultimately come to the same point.
We are all children of Nature/God - so Act accordingly.
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 12:13
Are you asserting that molecules assembled in such a way as to produce life is the lowest available energy state for those molecules?
(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)
In reverse order: (1) We are not discussing plate tectonics in this thread. And (2) I was only highlighting the specious nature of your argument regarding the importance entropy. I am not going to get into a discussion of thermodynamics in this thread (or on this BB for that matter) but the short answer is - I said no such thing.
(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)
No need to be making personal attacks about Trappers hairline. :D
So GC, if you are not sure what evolution theory is how is it possible to opine about it?
No need to introduce logic. :D
You two play nice. :D
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 12:46
No need to be making personal attacks about Trappers hairline. :D
Unfortunately, that does explain a lot
No need to introduce logic. :D
There, ya go - spoiling all my fun.
You two play nice. :D
We are, Mommy!!
GratefulCitizen
06-30-2013, 12:57
So GC, if you are not sure what evolution theory is how is it possible to opine about it?
That being said, I think we are talking about this definition: "Evolution is the organic change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Often this is extended to be more inclusive and to attempt to explain the Origin of Life, a viewpoint I share.
As to the second part of your post, I assume that you are referring to the properties of a good hypothesis (theory) - (1) Consistent with the observed known and (2) Predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable.
I contend, as do the vast majority of scientists, that Darwin's theory is consistent with the observable known (e.g. fossil record, structure and function of species genome, etc.). That's condition 1.
As to condition #2, (predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable), that is more problematic for evolution of species because of the time required to test the most obvious prediction. I'll have to get back to you, in say 1 million years or so on that one.
However, there is ample evidence for micro-evolution and co-evolution as has been cited elsewhere in this thread. In fact it was co-evolution that gave rise to the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms (see discussion re: Lynn Margulis).
But before you jump on the difficulty surrounding condition #2 as a reason to discount a the Theory of Evolution, consider the same difficulty (for different reasons) with the General Relativity Theory and the Standard Model of the Universe. These theories meet condition #1 and still we have not tested all of their fundamental predictions largely because the technology to do so is still in development. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, invalidate the value in either. Nor does it invalidate the Theory of Evolution.
So far, as I said in my earlier post, no credible evidence has established proof that the null hypothesis (the Theory of Evolution is not correct) has come to light. Until that time comes, then it must stand as the best explanation of what is known, i.e there is no reason in logic to replace it with an alternative theory.
But let's do the mental experiment and say that some evidence does come forward that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain. Let's also attempt to replace it with ID and let's apply these same conditions to ID and ask (1) is ID consistent with the observed known and (2) what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? In our mental experiment let's assume condition #1 is met (Personally, I don't believe it can be given the preponderance of evidence so far, but in the mental experiment I am suspending my disbelief).
Now the question is, what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? I think the answer to that question is none. I think you will see the conundrum and therefore a logical impasse is reached.
My point is that any attempt to apply logic to ID is folly. ID is a matter of Faith and as I said in the earlier post, when you look at the origin of life, whether it's through the lens of science or Faith, we ultimately come to the same point.
We are all children of Nature/God - so Act accordingly.
In an earlier post, I also stated that ID isn't science.
Anything attempting to support "first cause" directly is a matter of postulation (faith), science is the cause and effect which comes later.
Concerning "disproving" evolution and falsifiable predictions:
In evolution, all new evidence gets explained after discovery.
A theory should be able to be somewhat specific concerning what new evidence will be found.
A theory also should be specific concerning what new evidence will not be found.
The lack of falsifiable predictions tends to move evolution away from "theory" and into the realm of "conjecture".
I have no problem with evolution presented as a conjecture (Still confused as to what exactly "evolutionary theory" is...).
Conjecture isn't theory and theory isn't a law of nature nor a fact.
Evolution certainly has broad use in science, but should be presented for what it is.
There are significant distinctions among the ideas of fact, hypothesis, theory, scientific law, conjecture, postulate, and proof(theorem).
Too often those distinctions are blurred.
I am not making accusations.
Just pointing out what I believe to be the root problem with the whole debate about evolution.
This is a great thread. University of California Museum of Paleontology has compiled a decent collection of papers regarding “where we are in the theory.” It is extensive, so here is summary of some points from paleontologists which may be useful.
The strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is a fact. Common descent is not a proven fact. The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor is not the theory of evolution, but it is a fraction of it (as well as several different theories). The theory of evolution says that life evolved and it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. That framework is accepted in science as a way to sort and understand data. Scientific method needs a paradigm.
"Transitional fossils"
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. There are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates.
This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages.
Both types of transitions often result in a new "higher taxon" (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging to a different, older taxon. For example, the Order Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be traced back to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from each other, and didn't look at all like horses or whales. But over the following tens of millions of years, the descendants of those animals became more and more different, and now we call them two different orders.
Gaps
1. The first and most major gap, "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene.) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts.
In general, in order to document transitions between species, you need specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved.
2. Most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled (e.g., the long-missing rodent/lagomorph ancestors were recently found in Asia). Of course, even in known strata, the fossils may not be uncovered unless a roadcut or quarry is built (this is how we have most of our North American Devonian fish fossils).
Documenting a species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens. Typically we must wait for some paleontologist to take it on the job of studying a certain taxon in a certain site in detail. Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970's, and even now only a small subset of researchers do it. For example, Phillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him ten years to produce the first detailed studies of just two lineages.
3. Even when they are found, they're not popularized. The only times a transitional fossil is noticed much is if it connects two noticably different groups (such as the "walking whale" fossil reported in 1993), or if illustrates something about the tempo and mode of evolution (such as Gingerich's work). Most transitional fossils are only mentioned in the primary literature, often buried in academic papers later referenced already collapsed to the genus or family level. The two major college-level textbooks of vertebrate paleontology (Carroll 1988, and Colbert & Morales 1991) don't even describe anything below the family level. Many of the species-to-species transitions were described too recently to have made it into the books yet.
What paleontologists do get excited about are topics like the average rate of evolution. When exceptionally complete fossil sites are studied, usually a mix of patterns are seen: some species still seem to appear suddenly, while others clearly appear gradually. Once they arise, some species stay mostly the same, while others continue to change gradually. Paleontologists usually attribute these differences to a mix of slow evolution and rapid evolution (or "punctuated equilibrium": sudden bursts of evolution followed by stasis), in combination with the immigration of new species from the as-yet-undiscovered places where they first arose.
There's been a heated debate about which of these modes of evolution is most common, and this debate has been largely misquoted by laypeople. Virtually all of the quotes of paleontologists saying things like "the gaps in the fossil record are real" are taken out of context from this ongoing debate about punctuated equilibrium. They are arguing about how often evolution occurs gradually.
Gingerich, 1980, who found 24 gradual speciations and 14 sudden appearances in early Eocene mammals;
MacFadden, 1985, who found 5 cases of gradual anagenesis, 5 cases of probable cladogenesis, and 6 sudden appearances in fossil horses;
One good thing about scientific method -- it accepts new data and allows for a theory to be disproven. I am attaching a table regarding types of evolutionary work (non-Darwinian, Darwinian and Neo-Darwinism). One bad thing about accepted theory, the paradigm will occasionally obfuscate the new data and reject it unconsciously -- but not for long. Science is competitive.
Trapper John
06-30-2013, 20:02
One good thing about scientific method -- it accepts new data and allows for a theory to be disproven. I am attaching a table regarding types of evolutionary work (non-Darwinian, Darwinian and Neo-Darwinism). One bad thing about accepted theory, the paradigm will occasionally obfuscate the new data and reject it unconsciously -- but not for long. Science is competitive.
Thank you for posting this. A very, very good summary of the status. :lifter Even if Dusty still wants to see the monkey. :D
Show me the monkey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2iiPpcwfCA
Show me the monkey.
Here ya go .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YryIuBxzomA
:lifter
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 06:30
Dusty- Watch MR2s vid and have 3-4 of the of SDiver's suggestions and you'll see the monkey alright. :D
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 06:40
Truth be told! This is why I prefer a scientific lifestyle. Part of the scientific method is accepting the fact that we have gaps in knowledge, and that that's not only acceptable, but desirable.
Unless you are working in one of those knowledge gaps. Boy does that get ugly sometimes! ;)
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 06:55
Then it comes down to who has a better presentation for the grant committee.
Talk about a demonstration of the ugly side of human evolution. :D:D
And that is not enough. Get a copy of "Catching Cancer" (available on Amazon.com). Excellent read by a first rate author - Claudia Cornwall. I knew Barry Blumberg and have spoken at length with most of the scientists she interviewed. Their stories are enlightening but are only the tip of the iceberg.
The best analogy I have - it's a UW Op in every aspect. ;)
Truth be told! This is why I prefer a scientific lifestyle. Part of the scientific method is accepting the fact that we have gaps in knowledge, and that that's not only acceptable, but desirable.
That is the gap in the thread and the discussion. Evolution theory isn't faith. It is just our filter theory to sort data until it doesn't work -- then it is altered. We don't have to believe in it. But if a job requires someone to know how or why something mutated, then they see if the theory helps to explain, exploit or affect it. Making it a political discussion can turn it into a belief. While this is not a thread on religion, The Catholic Church has a formal position on evolution that may be of interest: Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.” ... Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524
And yes Trapper John, that gap would not be desirable in most military missions. Grants may get ugly, but they only get lethal metaphorically. :o Same world. Different planets. I think it was a Larson cartoon.
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 08:28
That is the gap in the thread and the discussion. Evolution theory isn't faith. It is just our filter theory to sort data until it doesn't work -- then it is altered. We don't have to believe in it. But if a job requires someone to know how or why something mutated, then they see if the theory helps to explain, exploit or affect it. Making it a political discussion can turn it into a belief. While this is not a thread on religion, The Catholic Church has a formal position on evolution that may be of interest:
And yes Trapper John, that gap would not be desirable in most military missions. Grants may get ugly, but they only get lethal metaphorically. :o Same world. Different planets. I think it was a Larson cartoon.
Thanks for that insight into the Catholic Curch position. Couldn't agree more. The better we understand the natural world the better we understand God. Science and Theistics are not mutually exclusive - they are in fact complimentary. Great post.
As to the UW environment - what you say is true for an academic. However, operating in an entrepreneurial small business, sometimes I am not so sure the analogy is merely metaphorical. :D
Thanks for that insight into the Catholic Church position. Couldn't agree more. The better we understand the natural world the better we understand God. Science and Theistics are not mutually exclusive - they are in fact complimentary. Great post.
As to the UW environment - what you say is true for an academic. However, operating in an entrepreneurial small business, sometimes I am not so sure the analogy is merely metaphorical. :D
Life threatening and livelihood threatening can pull out some similar hypothalamus responses -- but usually not similar end results. Note -- I said usually... :) We may need a bloodied emoticon added to the line up.
Back to the question of the thread, more from Berkeley (I went a Beach Boys concert there while attending DLI in 1979, so no academic connection). :D Paraphrasing their educational tools site, the following words have both popular and scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.
Function not purpose
The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails. One function of a hand is to hold a hammer. Designed tools have purposes. Structures and behaviors of living things have functions. This is an important distinction in science.
Evidence not proof
We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having “enough proof.” This is an example of confusing the terms, “proof” and “evidence.” In addition, the term, “proof,” is used in geometry and in courts of law, but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.
Primitive and advanced
The average person might see an opossum as more primitive than a cat. Life forms that are more highly specialized tend to be viewed as more advanced. However, even though opossums retain some conspicuous ancestral features, they are well adapted to their omnivorous habit and are every bit as successful and modern as cats. Saber-toothed cats were even more narrowly adapted than present-day cats and a change in their environment put them on the fast track to extinction.
Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.
Believe or accept
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a question often asked in debates. The most accurate scientific answer is, “No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2iiPpcwfCA
Did I say "Show me the monkey who can play tiddlywinks with bones? Chimps can still do that, after all these years. ;)
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 09:40
Did I say "Show me the monkey who can play tiddlywinks with bones? Chimps can still do that, after all these years. ;)
You really need to have 3-4 of SDivers concoctions - trust me you will see the monkey :D
Trapper John
07-01-2013, 09:43
Life threatening and livelihood threatening can pull out some similar hypothalamus responses -- but usually not similar end results. Note -- I said usually... :) We may need a bloodied emoticon added to the line up.
Been in both environs. Like I said, some days I prefer the military one. At least there I have a kinetic response.:D
As to the rest of your post - most excellent :lifter
Been in both environs. Like I said, some days I prefer the military one. At least there I have a kinetic response.:D
Agreed when an enemy is involved -- fight is a really good response.
Do you think the analogy in business is mostly not with competition but with internal system-driven issues? Doc Illinois example would be a systematic issue akin to a command directive that could negatively affect your unit but is not direct enemy engagement. You may want to fight it, but your options are limited in both environments.
Now I had better go look for that monkey.... :D
Surf n Turf
07-01-2013, 10:50
Unless you are working in one of those knowledge gaps. Boy does that get ugly sometimes! ;)
That is the gap in the thread and the discussion. Evolution theory isn't faith. It is just our filter theory to sort data until it doesn't work -- then it is altered. We don't have to believe in it. But if a job requires someone to know how or why something mutated, then they see if the theory helps to explain, exploit or affect it. .
The lack of falsifiable predictions tends to move evolution away from "theory" and into the realm of "conjecture".
I have no problem with evolution presented as a conjecture (Still confused as to what exactly "evolutionary theory" is...).
Conjecture isn't theory and theory isn't a law of nature nor a fact.
Evolution certainly has broad use in science, but should be presented for what it is.
FANTASTIC AND THOUGHTFUL THREAD !!!!
I am stuck between those believing ID, and the “GAPS” in evolution theory ("conjecture".) i.e. There must have been a beginning; and evidence of inter-specie “evolution”. Not a Catholic, but thought the following comment was interesting: :o
SnT
QUOTE Comment 3
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524
The problem with scientists making blunt statements regarding evolutionary science is that they shoot themselves in their own foot. When scientists, or writers of science proclaim that 'evolution' is a 'fact' they inadvertently bite the hand that feeds them. Saying a case is closed tends to shut down any funding for further research. Saying "I believe in evolution" discloses that that person knows very little regarding the study of or facts pertaining to the science of evolution as it exists today. When a serious minded person begins the journey of discovery by reading popular writers on evolution; Dawkins, Gould, Hauser, Zimmer....ad nauseum..and read the sections on Evolution in High School textbooks for themselves..they will come away with more questions than answers. In these volumes of text you will be faced with many occurrences of words and phrases like; "somehow", "in some yet unexplained miraculous way" by some unknown mechanism" , etc...etc... Wonderful writers waxing eloquent does not a scientific fact make. There would be no "God of the gaps" if there weren't so many gaps. Robust and large scale scientific discovery is not well funded and we are left with no answers to the logical idea of an original cause for one. You can imagine as many universes as you wish but you always end up facing a beginning. A beginning presupposes a beginner; an uncaused cause; a non-contingent contingency. That is logical. That is thinking scientifically. If you really want to understand evolution to be a fact you have to answer the question of biological 'mechanisms'. How did an early simple chemical become a molecule, or what was the forcer of change. What 'told' the simplest form of life to arrange itself into a complex and robust 'machine' and produce for itself a protective and complex cell 'wall'. What environmental 'sensors' were there to provide feedback to the core decision processor and how did these sensors develop and construct themselves without a set of instructions. Even the most basic of questions such as "what is' the survival 'instinct' and where did or does it reside and what were the mechanisms that created 'it' and how did the simple organism 'learn' and put into effect the mechanics of biological survival. Believing in 'evolution' is a non- sensical statement. Believing that evolutionary science will someday support a knowledge of evolutionary processes that is complete enough and robust enough to call this area of science 'fact' is an act of 'faith' at this point. If we shut down the funding for and interest in finding the answers to the most basic questions, then writers of evolutionary theory will always have to employ words and phrases such as "somehow" and "one possibility might be", etc.. It is a fact that there is mutation. That is fact. It is a fact that lifeforms are extremely complex, and the complexity of a single cell is mind boggling. The ID folks are simply asking the how questions before accepting conjecture as fact. That is the mark of a true scientist.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524
The problem with scientists making blunt statements regarding evolutionary science is etc., etc., etc...
The problem(s) I see in the blogger's opinion is that it mis-represents science and the Catholic Church. You might look at the definition post (#175). As for religion, as Catholics (and I am one), here is the Pope's actual explanation versus the blogger's interpretation.
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions. In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake". In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.
7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."
GratefulCitizen
07-01-2013, 16:21
Saw this about a year and a half ago.
Neat representation of DNA.
Gets pretty cool around the 3 minute mark.
http://youtu.be/WFCvkkDSfIU
Like the comment "left out error correction and a bunch of other things" around the 4:30 mark.
ironyoshi
07-01-2013, 17:47
The problem(s) I see in the blogger's opinion is that it mis-represents science and the Catholic Church. You might look at the definition post (#175). As for religion, as Catholics (and I am one), here is the Pope's actual explanation versus the blogger's interpretation.
You must be referring to the article Surf n Turf linked (instead of the comment excerpted), but I don't see the conflict between Father Coyne's summarized remarks and the full text of the Pope's address.
Certainly the Pope specified that " theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man," so Coyne's remarks are lacking some context, but I don't see a conflict.
You must be referring to the article Surf n Turf linked (instead of the comment excerpted), but I don't see the conflict between Father Coyne's summarized remarks and the full text of the Pope's address.
Certainly the Pope specified that " theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man," so Coyne's remarks are lacking some context, but I don't see a conflict.
Thanks -- sorry if that was unclear. Yes Surf and Turf quoted a blogger who disagreed with Father Coyne. (if you scroll below the article you will find it.) Coyne's views are completely in line with the Pope's address.
The blogger took a very broad brush to science and theology to fit his view.
The Reaper
07-01-2013, 18:15
Is it not possible that our planet was seeded at some intervals by a "Creator?"
In the big picture, our knowledge is laughable and our recorded history but an instant.
Just looking at alternatives.
TR
ironyoshi
07-01-2013, 18:23
Thanks -- sorry if that was unclear. Yes Surf and Turf quoted a blogger who disagreed with Father Coyne. (if you scroll below the article you will find it.) Coyne's views are completely in line with the Pope's address.
The blogger took a very broad brush to science and theology to fit his view.
I did see that comment but it didn't seem he was interpreting the Pope's remarks - I think I see what you're getting at now.
He did overreach in calling IDs the only true scientists, but I think there is value to the idea that persons who support evolution ontologically have faith just as a creationist does.
edit: to wit, I read your post about the idea of "accepting" as opposed to believing, but someone who tends to distrust evolutionary history, such as myself, can also 'accept' the paleontological and geological support of evolution without believing, whereas most scientists would both accept and believe.
edit: to wit, I read your post about the idea of "accepting" as opposed to believing, but someone who tends to distrust evolutionary history, such as myself, can also 'accept' the paleontological and geological support of evolution without believing, whereas most scientists would both accept and believe.
I come back to science is competitive. If someone would test evolution and the theory would not hold up (or as in the last 100 years -- adapt) it would be a major breakthrough. So far, that has not happened. So for now the paleontological and geological support of billions of years is not a bad start. :D
GratefulCitizen
07-01-2013, 19:55
Musings about DNA...
Don't know if this is true, but it's what I've come to understand about DNA.
DNA replicates within cells and sometimes makes errors.
Cellular machinery includes mechanisms which repair these errors, but not quite perfectly.
Over time, the accumulated errors add up and the cell quits functioning properly.
Enough malfunctioning cells result in the death of the organism.
In the case of humans, some DNA is is drawn from each parent and the new combination of DNA is used to construct a new human.
But wouldn't the DNA from each parent have at least some accumulated damage?
Logically, this would result in a gradual increase of accumulated DNA damage over generations.
Would that damage result in an increase or decrease in fitness?
Is this idea testable?
*************
*************
Also, what are the effects of carbon 14 (and other) decay on the proteins and DNA within cells?
Carbon randomly turning into nitrogen certainly can't be a good thing for chemical message systems.
Is this testable?
GratefulCitizen
07-01-2013, 20:12
Just for fun...
In this evolutionary process when did abstract consciousness arrive on the scene?
Humans are unique in having communication which has both vocabulary and grammar.
The divide between humans and other forms of life is immense in this area.
Also, is their any evidence that language has evolved?
How complex are modern languages compared to ancient ones?
(English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Akkadian, etc.)
Humans are unique in having communication which has both vocabulary and grammar.
The divide between humans and other forms of life is immense in this area.
Also, is their any evidence that language has evolved?
How complex are modern languages compared to ancient ones?
(English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Akkadian, etc.)
You asked... :D
http://http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm (http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm)
The link between beer and early language development.
GratefulCitizen
07-01-2013, 21:02
You asked... :D
http://http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm (http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm)
The link between beer and early language development.
Hmmm...
An experiment that would link beer with language ability...
I think a personal experiment is necessary.
:D
<edit>
Seems like beer results in devolving communication.
http://youtu.be/JJmqCKtJnxM
Trapper John
07-10-2013, 04:28
Not sure if this is evolution or devolution? But, it is an interesting video presentation at any rate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=MrqqD_Tsy4Q
Trapper John
09-20-2013, 11:43
I knew it, I knew it, I just knew it! PRB we got your macro-evolutionary evidence right here. :lifter
Trapper John
09-20-2013, 19:25
Is that Tim Conway?
Ya gotta be a FOG to get that one, CSM. :D Good one, really good one Bro!
DocI, let's hope it's a recessive trait, but I'm not so sure. :eek:
Ya gotta be a FOG to get that one, CSM. :D Good one, really good one Bro!
DocI, let's hope it's a recessive trait, but I'm not so sure. :eek:
No way, I googled it like any 20 year old
might be a good read
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/18/darwinism-and-materialism-they
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 13:21
might be a good read
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/18/darwinism-and-materialism-they
Walt Brown published most of these arguments against evolution decades ago and also developed his own origins theory.
Just to make a point, he published an edition of his book which was devoid of any religious references.
Evolutionists still refuse to address his scientific arguments, unless they are allowed to bring religion into the debate.
Walt Brown published most of these arguments against evolution decades ago and also developed his own origins theory.
Just to make a point, he published an edition of his book which was devoid of any religious references.
Evolutionists still refuse to address his scientific arguments, unless they are allowed to bring religion into the debate.
I believe he focus's on recent DNA discovery to expand the works you mentioned.
I'm going to get this work and any rebuttal that addresses his thesis.
i.e. "“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level....An excellent book and a must read.” (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)
Not exactly light reading....a Physicists review
By D. Snoke
When I first saw that the new book by Steve Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, centered on the Cambrian Explosion, I was loathe to read it. I had been led to believe over the years that everything that could be said about the Cambrian Explosion has already been said. I was quite happy to believe that the only real discontinuities in the story of life occurred at the origin of life and at the origin of human consciousness.
I should have known better; science marches onward, and old arguments get reexamined as new data arises. Steve Meyer's book is a wonderful, comprehensive case that the origin of the major types of animals, namely the phyla, is just as strikingly discontinuous as the the origin of life. As such, it represents a solid second volume complementary to his previous work, Signature in the Cell, which focused on the origin of life.
I had come to think that discussing the Cambrian Explosion was misguided because of two arguments: 1) that the explosion was merely an artifact of the fact that organisms before that time did not have hard bones or shells, and 2) that the explosion was short on the geological time scale, but was really quite long on the biological time scale. Meyer disposes of both of these arguments quite handily. On the first, modern science shows that soft-bodied organisms are well preserved in the strata before, during, and after the Cambrian. Also, many of the body types which appear in the Cambrian can't even be imagined without their hard parts to give them structure. An earlier, boneless version could not have had the same body plan at all. On the second objection, Meyer shows that the geological time scale has gotten more compressed over the years, not less; best estimates now are 5-10 million years, which is quite short geologically. Meyer then spends a good number of chapters establishing what the natural time scale is for evolution.
From a physicist's perspective, I am used to thinking of time as a relative thing (for electrons in solids, a few trillionths of a second can be a long time, while for stars in clusters, a few million years can be a short time.) What makes something a short time or a long time is the natural time scale of the system-- much less than the natural time scale is short, and much longer than the natural time scale is long. A fairly convincing case has been made in the literature of molecular clocks that the natural time scale for evolution of the degree seen in the Cambrian is a billion years, not 5 million years. Even that billion-year time scale may be an underestimate, if one looks at the microscopic details of protein folding. Thus the intrinsic biological time scale is not less than the geological time scale, and the Cambrian Explosion does indeed occur in a fantastically short time. Meyer cites many evolutionists who acknowledge this problem; the Cambrian problem has not gone away for those who are really in the know, no matter what popularizers may say.
This is a solid scientific review, not a polemic diatribe. It also comes at a good time. Like Signature in the Cell, it comes after 10-20 years of debate on intelligent design. Thus Meyer can summarize the back and forth of the debate in a nice story-like approach. The story is not one of gaps in our knowledge constantly being filled, but the paradox of the Cambrian becoming sharper and sharper. Again, when evolutionists talk to each other instead of to the public, they are remarkably candid about this, and Meyer well documents this with many quotes.
After posing the problem, Meyer discusses some of the non-orthodox, semi-Darwinian proposals floated in the last few decades, such as Gould's punctuated equilibrium and epigenetic neo-Lamarkianism. All of these are built on a surprising amount of hand-waving, invoking new terms but brushing over the actual physical mechanisms. One section I was quite happy about was the section on "self-organization", promoted by Kaufmann, Prigogene, and others. This area has had a strong following in the physics world for three decades, but I have always thought it was sterile, for the reasons that Meyer cites. Essentially, getting "order" from natural self-organizing process and getting "information" are two totally different things. "Order" is easy-- all you need is a natural length scale to arise in a system and "spontaneous symmetry breaking" will lead to orderly patterns on this length scale. This is true of atomic crystals at low temperature and rows of clouds in the sky. But the very nature of information, whether in DNA or human writing, precludes natural forces from generating it. DNA can hold information precisely because there is no natural force demanding the nucleic acids be in one location or another. All information requires this type of "contingency", that is, openness to many possible choices; a system which is driven to one required state holds no information. (Something I was not aware of before reading this book: there is another, equally information-rich, code in biological systems, known as the "sugar code", which is written on the outside of cells to govern their interactions. Like the DNA code, there is no force driving the locations to hold one piece of information instead of another.)
And this is also the problem with identifying where the information came from. Many anti-ID critics demand that ID proponents identify the physical process by which the information came into being. But by its very nature, information is fungible--it can be exchanged into many different forms. Any system with many physical possibilities and no force driving the system to any of them can hold the same information. Thus the demands of the anti-ID critics are like a person who would demand that you deduce from reading a novel whether it was first written with pen and ink, or with a typewriter, or with a modern computer processor. While one can easily identify information when one has it, the very fact that information can remain the same while being embodied in any number of different media, makes it impossible to deduce a physical cause for it.
A few small things that I would have liked to see Meyer address: 1) in his discussion of the molecular clock data, he points out the variation in the numbers over a wide range, but doesn't discuss at all the scientific concept of "uncertainty". Having different numbers for the same measurement vary by a factor of ten or more does not mean the numbers are meaningless, unless the claimed uncertainty is much less than the scatter. 2) He mentions that the molecular clock data don't work at all for histones, but doesn't mention that the reason histones are highly conserved is because they are an integral part of the reproduction system-- one change there and you die. A proper molecular clock calibration would be a "weighted average" in which each gene is weighted by the likelihood that a change will kill the organism. Apparently this has not been done in the literature yet in any quantitative way.
fini's
One of the fascinating side stories, which I have heard in ID circles for years but have not before seen documented as Meyer does, is the problem of making consistent genetic trees. I have often heard evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, make the argument for universal common descent by showing two genes in different species that have remarkable similarity but key differences, such as a fusion of two genes or a viral insertion. The argument basically goes: species 1 has the pattern A-B-C-D-E-F, while species 2 has the pattern A-B-C-X-D-E-F. What is the likelihood that these would be so similar in two unrelated species? Is this not clearly an insertion of X going from 1 to 2, or a deletion of X going from 2 to 1? Sounds good as far as it goes, but the problem comes when you try to do it for many more than two species. Let's write this relationship as 1> 2. Suppose now that you look at four organisms, and find the relationships 1>2, 2>3, 3>4, and 4>1 in four separate genes. Can you make a consistent tree from that? What if I further tell you that 1 is a plant, 2 is an insect, 3 is an animal, and 3 is a worm? Now, this is a fictional example, but are you willing to bet the farm that no such relationship can exist in nature? It turns out that relationships like this are all over the place. To explain it, some evolutionists invoke "convergent genetic evolution", which means that that same gene (same sequence of DNA) arose two times, independently. I could sort of buy convergent structural evolution (e.g. placental wolves and marsupial wolves that look nearly identical but have very different DNA), but convergent gene sequences? It defines the imagination. I once met a German scientist who told me he lost his faith in Darwinism after realizing he could not make self-consistent genetic trees (but he is not willing to come out of the closet out of fear for his career). In general, although I don't think there are a lot of theological stakes in the question of universal common descent, I am surprised at how weak the case for it is.
Meyer ends with general thoughts on ID, similar to his arguments at the end of Signature in the Cell. His experience, like mine, is that some people literally can't "see" God as an explanation, because they have defined God-explanations as non-explanations. Meyer doesn't go into detail about the jump from knowing what human intelligence can do, to invoking non-human (presumably divine) intelligence as a similar causal agent, but the case can be easily made. I have addressed myself in an essay available at christianscientific.org.
Overall I don't expect this to change the views of diehard atheist evolutionists, but I would hope that my theistic evolutionist friends will give this book a close reading. A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Goedel, Escher, Bach, it simply can't be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 15:54
I believe he focus's on recent DNA discovery to expand the works you mentioned.
I'm going to get this work and any rebuttal that addresses his thesis.
i.e. "“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level....An excellent book and a must read.” (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)
Looks interesting.
Just ordered it.
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 16:00
Interesting read indeed PRB! I think we are continuing to confuse to related, but different questions. One, is the question of the origin of life. The other is the question of evolution of species. The latter is the realm of the theory proposed by Darwin.
The first question is largely a study in thermodynamics, IMO. From that point of view we can see the spontaneous assembly of the macromolecules of life given the right conditions. All together this process took the majority of geological time. Once the basic templates were in place (the pre-Cambrian era) the conditions were subsequently ripe for the life explosion. Some life forms were able to exploit ecological niches and compete successfully others were not.
To argue that bombardment of flies with radiation fails to create any new species from the radiated fly and therefore disproves Darwinism is simply misunderstanding the theory. All that experiment shows is that ionizing radiation is lethal.
It was Darwin's intent to try to explain the diversity that was observed within the animal and plant kingdoms - not to explain the origin of life. Darwin's theory does not predict that random mutations in the genome in a fly will produce anything other than another fly. It may have shorter or longer wings, it may be different colors, or longer or shorter legs or antennae, or tolerance/resistance to microbial parasites any number of which could confer a selective advantage to survival and ability to pass on the genetic variant.
Scientific evidence has irrefutably shown that does occur in nature and in fact is now exploited in the biotechnology industry. One example being E.coli that produce human insulin. Now that's hard evidence for intelligent design!
What do you think about that?
The first question is largely a study in thermodynamics, IMO. From that point of view we can see the spontaneous assembly of the macromolecules of life given the right conditions. All together this process took the majority of geological time. Once the basic templates were in place (the pre-Cambrian era) the conditions were subsequently ripe for the life explosion. Some life forms were able to exploit ecological niches and compete successfully others were not.
Pics, or didn't happen. ;)
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 16:09
Homoslackass erectus :p
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 16:21
The first question is largely a study in thermodynamics, IMO. From that point of view we can see the spontaneous assembly of the macromolecules of life given the right conditions. All together this process took the majority of geological time. Once the basic templates were in place (the pre-Cambrian era) the conditions were subsequently ripe for the life explosion. Some life forms were able to exploit ecological niches and compete successfully others were not.
What were the right conditions?
How much time constitutes "the majority of geological time"?
How long did it take for the explosion and subsequent variation to occur?
These are initial assumptions, and can be chosen to specifically fit the needs of evolution.
Nothing wrong with that.
Once they are pinned down, they can be tested against evidence in the physical sciences.
Refuting evidence in the physical sciences because it isn't consistent with the needs of evolution would be a case of circular reasoning.
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 16:29
Refuting evidence in the physical sciences because it isn't consistent with the needs of evolution would be a case of circular reasoning.
Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.
Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.
Oh. Well, that explains the duckbill platypus, for sure. :D
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 16:47
Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.
Still not sure what the starting conditions and time scale are.
Wasn't thinking about thermodynamics.
Was thinking about the timescale evidence associated with geology and astronomy -- the part without "index fossils".
Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.
TJ, I believe he addresses this at length in his book. It is mentioned in a few of the reviews.
I was unaware that Darwin had doubts about his theory based upon his own observations and lack of real evidence. This period is highlighted by the author referencing what we know now about molecular structure etc. and what exists, not what Darwin hoped for.
I suggest we read the book and not be like some of the reviewers that posted negative comments the day after it came out.
I would guess the real bottom line is that macro evolution is still not science....if it were, it would be incontrovertible.
There would not be learned arguments that could be supported if it were so.
It also seems to me that one specific realm of study will not explain away anything, nor support it. There are way too many variables in this 'stew'.
Any approach has to be multi, multi faceted.
So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 19:21
So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...
Have to be fair to evolution.
Nothing can really be proven in science.
Scientific explanations are never certain or final, and the overused word “prove” is never justified except possibly in mathematics or a court of law. Science is even less certain when dealing with ancient, unrepeatable events, because other starting conditions might work as well or better than the proposed starting conditions. Maybe we have overlooked a physical consequence or have improperly applied the laws of physics. Certainly, we can never consider all possibilities or have all the data.
So, to try to scientifically understand unobservable, unrepeatable events, we must consider many sets of starting conditions, estimate their consequences based on physical laws, and then see how well those consequences meet the [criteria of process, parsimony, and prediction].
-Walt Brown
Have to be fair to evolution.
Nothing can really be proven in science.
Good point....then why do I hear that it is proven science, and why is it taught that way...as is carbon Global Warming by many.....
There are many, many religions out there that have nothing to do with a God.
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 20:01
So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...
Wrong question Bro. ;) The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.
But, what I am trying to point out is that the origin of life is not Darwinian and that it does not require intelligent design, we need only invoke the laws of nature and the laws of thermodynamics in particular. (Note that i am using the term laws because these are not theories).
I have attached a couple of papers to go along with the Whitesides paper. The bottom line is that the essential macromolecules necessary for unicellular life can self-assemble and the unicellular organisms will also aggregate and propagate as multi-cellular organisms -evolution in the laboratory. No intelligent design here - just the laws of nature. [These were previously posted in this thread and I cannot re-post them here.]
Once life appeared the Darwinian theory probably applies, but certainly does not predict one species suddenly or even slowly transforming into another unrelated species, e.g. a fish becoming a frog. Just subtle accumulating changes in species enabling the exploitation of specific ecological niches that could result in separation and eventual speciation. No intelligent design required, just the laws of nature.
However, I did proved a definitive example of intelligent design and stipulated that this is irrefutable hard evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design is therefore a fact.
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 20:15
Wrong question Bro. ;) The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.
Conjectures cannot be disproved.
Theories make testable, falsifiable predictions.
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?
Anyone willing to start a thread along those lines?
Maybe some specific ground rules need to be laid out like in this one.
This thread has been awesome.
Thank you, Trapper John, PRB, and others for the orderly discussion.
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 21:06
Conjectures cannot be disproved.
Theories make testable, falsifiable predictions.
If we are going to dwell on semantics then - theory: (noun) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. [synonyms: thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation]
On the other hand a hypothesis in science is an explanation based upon a limited set of data. The desirable criteria of a good hypothesis are that it (1) be consistent with that which is already known, (2) makes a prediction that (3) can be experimentally testable.
The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is by definition a conjecture based upon Charles Darwin's observations. To fully appreciate the contribution that Darwin made to our understanding of the natural world we really need to look at it in the context of what was known at the time. Bare in mind that he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel and I am not sure he was even aware of Mendel's work at the time that he wrote the Origin of Species.
Through painstaking observation and cataloging of those observations, Darwin provided a comprehensive explanation for the divergence of species that has guided the biological sciences ever since. No credible evidence has come forward since to seriously challenge his theory or even to call it into question its reasonableness. Quite the contrary, biological evidence and in particular the science of genetics are consistent with his suppositions. To dismiss Darwin's work as not scientific or as merely a conjecture or as not verifiable is to fail to understand it in the first place.
Trapper John
09-22-2013, 21:16
Good point....then why do I hear that it is proven science, and why is it taught that way...as is carbon Global Warming by many.....
There are many, many religions out there that have nothing to do with a God.
Science has always been perverted, co-opted, misrepresented, and even fabricated to promote or justify a particular theology, politic, or ideology. Probably always will be. That is why critical thinking is so very, very important!;)
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 21:45
If we are going to dwell on semantics then - theory: (noun) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. [synonyms: thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation]
On the other hand a hypothesis in science is an explanation based upon a limited set of data. The desirable criteria of a good hypothesis are that it (1) be consistent with that which is already known, (2) makes a prediction that (3) can be experimentally testable.
The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is by definition a conjecture based upon Charles Darwin's observations. To fully appreciate the contribution that Darwin made to our understanding of the natural world we really need to look at it in the context of what was known at the time. Bare in mind that he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel and I am not sure he was even aware of Mendel's work at the time that he wrote the Origin of Species.
Through painstaking observation and cataloging of those observations, Darwin provided a comprehensive explanation for the divergence of species that has guided the biological sciences ever since. No credible evidence has come forward since to seriously challenge his theory or even to call it into question its reasonableness. Quite the contrary, biological evidence and in particular the science of genetics are consistent with his suppositions. To dismiss Darwin's work as not scientific or as merely a conjecture or as not verifiable is to fail to understand it in the first place.
Not sure what the definition would be, but these would demonstrate scientific rigor WRT evolution:
-Specific starting conditions (initial assumptions).
-Specific timelines (or at least upper and lower bounds - some leeway in this area is obviously needed).
-Process (actual mechanism, measurable or testable with the possibility of being falsified).
-And most importantly: Testable, falsifiable predictions; published prior to collecting new evidence.
Wrong question Bro. ;) The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.
But, what I am trying to point out is that the origin of life is not Darwinian and that it does not require intelligent design, we need only invoke the laws of nature and the laws of thermodynamics in particular. (Note that i am using the term laws because these are not theories).
I have attached a couple of papers to go along with the Whitesides paper. The bottom line is that the essential macromolecules necessary for unicellular life can self-assemble and the unicellular organisms will also aggregate and propagate as multi-cellular organisms -evolution in the laboratory. No intelligent design here - just the laws of nature. [These were previously posted in this thread and I cannot re-post them here.]
Once life appeared the Darwinian theory probably applies, but certainly does not predict one species suddenly or even slowly transforming into another unrelated species, e.g. a fish becoming a frog. Just subtle accumulating changes in species enabling the exploitation of specific ecological niches that could result in separation and eventual speciation. No intelligent design required, just the laws of nature.
However, I did proved a definitive example of intelligent design and stipulated that this is irrefutable hard evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design is therefore a fact.
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?
That is some huge supposition right there......
Has anyone observed the creation of life as you mention it....self assembled?
Inert to living thru the process you describe? I find that most interesting.
Is evolution controlled by any dynamic....no evolution, slow evolution, whiz bang overnight construct of complex elements?
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2013, 23:07
Been to trying to find a way to express the idea.
This guy is much more articulate than I:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
miclo18d
09-23-2013, 05:14
I once met a German scientist who told me he lost his faith in Darwinism after realizing he could not make self-consistent genetic trees (but he is not willing to come out of the closet out of fear for his career). In general, although I don't think there are a lot of theological stakes in the question of universal common descent, I am surprised at how weak the case for it is.
I am by no means anywhere near you guys' level in this debate, but the words above ring true to me, that Darwinian evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. This German scientist he talks of is scared of excommunication from his church. There was another point that the scientists talk about the lack of evidence behind closed doors but their "public" side denies these problems. Where is the science in that?
To Thine Own Self Be True!
Arguing over the definition of theory vs speculation is a straw man. There is either evidence or not. The search continues.
Trapper John
09-23-2013, 06:05
That is some huge supposition right there......
Has anyone observed the creation of life as you mention it....self assembled?
Inert to living thru the process you describe? I find that most interesting.
Is evolution controlled by any dynamic....no evolution, slow evolution, whiz bang overnight construct of complex elements?
The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else? Should we also discard Newtons theory on gravitational attraction because it fails at the quantum level? Should we also discard Einstein's theory of relativity because we have not discerned the cosmological constant? (He himself rejected that idea.)
One of the subtle elements of Darwin's conjecture is that it inferred a process of inheritable traits that can be preferentially selected for depending upon the conditions, i.e. natural selection. Mendel's work inferred the same thing and it was 100 years later before we understood what it was.
I think the more interesting and perhaps relevant question is - why is the Darwinian theory so threatening to some and so vehemently defended by others? Not, is it valid science? To pursue that line of thinking we will need to discuss the 'apparent' conflict between faith and science. Frankly, I don't believe that these are inconsistent with each other at all. In fact, I will argue that in the end they are entirely consistent and converge on the same fundamental truths that are very, very humbling.
Trapper John
09-23-2013, 06:09
I am by no means anywhere near you guys' level in this debate, but the words above ring true to me, that Darwinian evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. This German scientist he talks of is scared of excommunication from his church. There was another point that the scientists talk about the lack of evidence behind closed doors but their "public" side denies these problems. Where is the science in that?
To Thine Own Self Be True!
Arguing over the definition of theory vs speculation is a straw man. There is either evidence or not. The search continues.
Thank you ;)
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/23/nasa-sees-han-solo-on-planet-mercury/?intcmp=features
:D
The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else?
What do the stats guys say is the probability of this...1 in what?
A simple question about this if probable....why don't we see self assembly inorganic to organic if the evidence suggests it is so.
Was this a one time deal or is self assembly taking place today unbeknownst to us?
Doc,
I'd rather keep the discussion at a quasi scientific level and not delve strictly into ones beliefs....We do touch on that a tad but that is a peripheral event due to some subject matter expressed by outside authors when discussing their science. It should not be the central theme.
Ok Doc but that tar baby is on you......good luck
Trapper John
09-23-2013, 15:32
Oh, I'm not saying it will be pretty or gain any traction, but I'll throw it on the wall at some future point. :D
In reference to self assembly, I thought it already had been disproven. It used to be called the Spontaneous Generation theory. The attachment shows the experiments which disproved it.
And I'd get into Biopoiesis, but Trapper's thermodynamics stuff pretty much led us down that road.
Doc- PLEASE, spontaneous generation, really? Self assembly of macromolecules and spontaneous generation are not even remotely related. What next the alchemists dream, lead to gold? I am trying to bring true science to this discussion. :p
See the Whitesides paper I posted earlier. This guy is one of the leading chemists in the world. I have already posted papers on self assembly of macromolecules in this thread.
Trapper John
09-23-2013, 20:01
Always trying to pull a leg... :D
Okay, self-assembly happens. This opens a whole 'nother can of questions, namely, why did the physical laws in place at the time of the origin of life constrain constants to some particular set of life-starting values? Can impersonal physical laws influence parameters in order to allow for the start of life?
Or can we pull Chance off the shelf for this one?
We could go down the 'designed by an intelligent agent' road, but remember, PRB has ordered a quasi scientific environment.
I have been trying to post a couple of good papers: one shows self assembly of lipids to form a lipid bilayer membrane - an essential component of cellular life as we know it. The other shows the self aggregation of yeast to form a new multicellular yeast complete with cellular specialization and compartmentalization of the multicellular form. What is most interesting is that this form of yeast replicates not in the single cell form but as the multi-cellular form. A new species of yeast?
The problem I am having is that when I try to upload these files, I get a message telling me that I have already uploaded the file to this thread. I didn't think that I had and I cannot find where I have in any of my posts. So, until I can figure out what I am doing wrong, anyone wanting these papers, just send me a PM with your email address and I will send them by email. (I doubt that I will be inundated with such requests, but you never know).
As to the governing laws, these never changed. Same laws then as today and will be the same tomorrow.
GratefulCitizen
09-23-2013, 20:23
I have been trying to post a couple of good papers: one shows self assembly of lipids to form a lipid bilayer membrane - an essential component of cellular life as we know it.
Do the specific lipids involved in the self-assembly occur in nature in the absence of life?
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 05:39
The folding of polypeptides into proteins is an example of self assembly, among other things already observed. I, too, am wondering about the absence of life condition.
GC & Doc - Yous guys are raising a couple of interesting questions - the ol' chicken or the egg conundrum.
The lipids and other macromolecules that are involved are the same that are found in living organisms. So, did they arise from life or did they initiate primitive life? This is truly a matter for conjecture. Finding these very same building blocks in comets and meteors suggests that they have an extraterrestrial origin. Still that leaves open the question, are they from life elsewhere? We simply don't know for sure.
Having said that, I believe either is a possibility. But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe. When the conditions are right (temperature, pressure, presence of water, etc.) they organize in predicable ways and rudimentary life arises. (Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.) How far this goes depends on the environment and a myriad factors of chance.
For instance intelligent life arising, IMO, is not a given - more likely an accident. In my view it is entirely possible that we are the most advanced life-form in the universe. Taking this view, leads to a very, very humbling philosophy. And hence, why I said that, based upon the genetic engineering example I mentioned, that intelligent design is a fact. That intelligence is us! Think about it.
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 06:09
The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else?
What do the stats guys say is the probability of this...1 in what?
A simple question about this if probable....why don't we see self assembly inorganic to organic if the evidence suggests it is so.
Was this a one time deal or is self assembly taking place today unbeknownst to us?
Sorry for taking so long to reply to you CSM. Wasn't sure if (1) you meant by inorganic "abiotic" (not arising from life) or (2) being a non carbon based molecular entity (e.g. sodium chloride v ethanol). If you meant (2) that is not chemically possible unless you are in a nuclear furnace like the sun. If you meant abiotic then my response is as I replied to Doc and GC.
Now as to the statistical question: This is not a statistical driven process. It is thermodynamic. The rate of assembly will be statistically driven, however. Higher concentration of lipids less time required for self-assembly.
GratefulCitizen
09-24-2013, 07:15
GC & Doc - Yous guys are raising a couple of interesting questions - the ol' chicken or the egg conundrum.
The lipids and other macromolecules that are involved are the same that are found in living organisms. So, did they arise from life or did they initiate primitive life? This is truly a matter for conjecture. Finding these very same building blocks in comets and meteors suggests that they have an extraterrestrial origin. Still that leaves open the question, are they from life elsewhere? We simply don't know for sure.
Having said that, I believe either is a possibility. But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe. When the conditions are right (temperature, pressure, presence of water, etc.) they organize in predicable ways and rudimentary life arises. (Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.) How far this goes depends on the environment and a myriad factors of chance.
"Correct conditions."
This is a big driver of the extra-terrestrial theories.
Trying to nail down such conditions on Earth leads to problems because such possible conditions are subject to testing and measurement.
Essentially infinite, untestable possibilities exist if you remove the problem to the rest of the universe.
Or so it seems.
How much time would it take for these problems to be solved elsewhere?
How far would the transport vehicle (comet) have to travel?
How much time is available?
Once the math is actually done, the time and distance involved require speed and accuracy which defy probability.
Furthermore, no comet has ever been seen with a distinctly hyperbolic incoming orbit.
Theories attributing the origin of comets to outside the solar system are not supported by the evidence.
Where evolution is concerned, specific timelines and starting conditions remain elusive.
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 09:43
So, you agree that it is highly unlikely (or at least not necessarily) that the molecular building blocks of life that are known to exist outside of earth, arose from extraterrestrial life. Ergo, they arose from abiotic processes governed by the laws of chemistry and physics.
Surf n Turf
09-24-2013, 10:32
Excellent, excellent thread --- I am working, trying to keep up with the conversation.
With a dictionary in one hand (figuratively), and math and chemistry classes now dimming in my memory, I would ask the following:
But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe.
(Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.)
Trapper John,
You know this is "universal" how ?
It seems to me that we (papal non)postulate daily, but remain in the infancy in the study of mathematics.
Chemistry provides us with a window to our limited physical world -- might not "universal" chemistry alter our construct of the science ?
For instance intelligent life arising, IMO, is not a given - more likely an accident. In my view it is entirely possible that we are the most advanced life-form in the universe.
Taking this view, leads to a very, very humbling philosophy. And hence, why I said that, based upon the genetic engineering example I mentioned, that intelligent design is a fact. That intelligence is us! Think about it.
I doubt that a "like-form" that evolved from a grass eating, bug infested, simian creature to the dominant animal on this planet in less than 300,000 years is a candidate for "most advanced life-form" in the universe. Having said that, the rapid evolution of the species might lend credence to some cosmic genetic engineering experiment.
Your "humbling philosophy" would have the solar system revolving around the earth
SnT
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 11:31
The universality is based upon the observation that the basic organic building blocks for the chemistry of life are found in comets and meteors. If they exist there could they not also exist everywhere else. The basic elements are derived from stars, the laws of chemistry and physics that made them are laws everywhere in the universe. If they did not come from life (biotic) they must have arisen abioticly.
I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise. However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life (bear in mind that there is no driving force for intelligent life to emerge in the first place) presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur and we know that these catastrophic events do occur. So, if an intelligent life form were to emerge there are any number of events that can and do occur to reduce the ecosystem back to single cell organisms or obliterate it altogether.
Our existence on this planet is finite and if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, the sun will ultimately strip away our protective atmosphere and this planet will be reduced a barren rock. So, yes, it is conceivable, even likely, that we are the only or most advanced intelligence in the universe.
The humbling aspect of that thought has nothing to do with the solar system revolving around the earth. It has everything to do with the responsibility we have as the only species capable of contemplating the meaning of life, contemplating questions that we are asking in this thread, understanding universal laws and truths, and charting its own destiny. To me the responsibility that comes with that knowledge is very, very humbling. To put it in more figurative terms, we have eaten the forbidden fruit and now it is all up to us to act accordingly.
Are you up to the challenge?
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 11:37
I do agree, but am trying to fit that notion alongside your intelligent design claim resting upon the fact that we, as humans, are intelligent life.
Or are you hinting at an agent capable of making rational choices "guiding" the work of nature's laws toward the formation of living creatures rather than a cosmological soup?
Wait, this may be straying too far toward religion again...
Not hinting at all Doc. I am flat out sayin' it! And this leads me to say what i did in my reply to SnT.
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 15:05
Here's my issue with that view: when it comes to things like the molecular origins of life on earth, any agent that could have a hand in such things must be more powerful and intelligent that anything with which we are familiar. Therefore, we can have no clue as to how such an agent would act, no reasonable way to telling which of it's "preferences" is more likely than the other.
So, the emergence of life can't be reasonably judged to be more probable on the assumption that some kind of agent fiddled with laws or constants at critical periods.
This would all be so much easier if the Miller-Urey experiment remained valid, wouldn't it?
The Miller-Urey experiment is valid. The over interpretation and over-expectations of its results are what is invalid. The laws of nature are constant and inviolate. No tinkering with them is even possible let alone required. Understanding of them, on the other hand, is what is lacking.;)
Trapper John
09-24-2013, 19:12
(And please bear in mind that I'm referring to a rational, intelligent agent influencing the fundamental laws here.)
No intelligent being can "influence" the fundamental laws - only be constrained by them. They are inviolate and govern everything. We can only hope to understand them.
Trapper John
09-25-2013, 06:41
At any rate, I think I'll stop the train here and say that what's been determined by this thread is that evolution is a theory and a fact, neither of which equates to "absolute certainty." It is also not going away because people debate rival theories to explain it. (Which, coincedentally, is a hallmark characteristic of facts.)
The theory of evolution makes no claim to perpetual truth, and we are very far from understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which it occured, but it has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.
On that we can agree, Doc. Much, much more to learn. :lifter
Surf n Turf
09-25-2013, 10:00
Trapper John,
I generally understand the concept of ID, and "sort of" believe there is some guiding force at work in the universe. I am a skeptic of Darwinism / evolution, and reject the general thesis.
Having said that, I also am in awe of the size, complexity, and unknowns in this 12 - 14 billion year old universe. We have such limited understanding of this universe, that confounds any foundation of "fact", that we probably would err in applying any laws, theorems, or conjecture as "universal". As an agnostic in "current fact based science" I would question the following from your application of universal laws:
SnT
The universality is based upon the observation that the basic organic building blocks for the chemistry of life are found in comets and meteors. If they exist there could they not also exist everywhere else. The basic elements are derived from stars
Didn't "Grateful Citizen" establish (in post #242) that nothing has entered our solar system from "stars".
the laws of chemistry and physics that made them are laws everywhere in the universe. If they did not come from life (biotic) they must have arisen abioticly.
Again( not being hard headed) but you haven't made your case, you know this how ?
I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise. However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur ----- HUH ???
I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise.
With an unknown number (but very, very large) of galaxies, finite number of "environs" only if you would consider some number like 666 to the 128 power to be finite.
However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life (bear in mind that there is no driving force for intelligent life to emerge in the first place) presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur and we know that these catastrophic events do occur.
Wouldn't the obverse also apply -- i.e. infinite opportunities for intelligent life ?
Our existence on this planet is finite and if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, the sun will ultimately strip away our protective atmosphere and this planet will be reduced a barren rock. So, yes, it is conceivable, even likely, that we are the only or most advanced intelligence in the universe.
Again, to my general theme, We do not know enough to form any knowledge calculus on the universe
The humbling aspect of that thought has nothing to do with the solar system revolving around the earth.
I attempted (poorly) a little humor, alluding to a time when man had an over-inflated opinion of his omnificence.
Trapper John
09-25-2013, 10:54
SnT-I will try to field these in the order asked.
Didn't "Grateful Citizen" establish (in post #242) that nothing has entered our solar system from "stars".
True for the present day situation. However, all matter in the universe in "star stuff" to include, of course, the matter that comprises our solar system.
Again( not being hard headed) but you haven't made your case, you know this how ?
I don't know this for a certainty. But there are only 2 processes, biotic or abiotic (I like binary problems - keeps the math simple :D). We stipulated, earlier, that these molecules did not arise from life (biotic). Experimental evidence shows that they do not necessarily need to arise from life.
----- HUH ??? and With an unknown number (but very, very large) of galaxies, finite number of "environs" only if you would consider some number like 666 to the 128 power to be finite.
Even though the number may be large (but much smaller than you are suggesting, I think) it is still finite. The opportunities for catastrophic annihilation are infinite even if the manner of such events are limited.
Wouldn't the obverse also apply -- i.e. infinite opportunities for intelligent life ? and Again, to my general theme, We do not know enough to form any knowledge calculus on the universe
No! To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that if life arises that it must evolve into intelligent life. Moreover, the cynic would argue that the arrival of intelligent life will ultimately result in its self-destruction. Some days I believe there is a lot of truth to that point of view.
And you have just made my case, our knowledge is limited and that is our mission as humans - pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Again, two different things, having knowledge is meaningless and even dangerous without corresponding understanding.
Hope that was clarifying. [Just the opinions of a FOG]
SFOC0173
09-25-2013, 18:11
Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380154009&sr=8-1&keywords=genesis+and+the+big+bang
Gerald L Schroeder, Ph.D wrote "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible". It's worth reading, if you have an interest in the subject.
Debate tonight - I'll be interested in watching this one when it's posted on YouTube.
Richard
Bill Nye to Defend Evolution in Kentucky Debate
Time, 4 Feb 2014
Evolution, the Bible and the origin of the universe will be up for debate when “Science Guy” Bill Nye shares the stage with the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum.
Nye is in Kentucky to debate with Ken Ham on Tuesday evening.
The event is attracting plenty of attention in science and faith circles, as Nye is a former TV star and Ham is prominent among Christians who believe the Bible tells a factual account of the Earth’s beginnings.
The Creation Museum says the audience will be made up of visitors from 29 states, and the debate will be streamed live online.
Ham invited Nye to debate last year after Nye criticized the belief held by Ham and other creationists that the earth is just a few thousand years old.
http://science.time.com/2014/02/04/bill-nye-to-defend-evolution-in-kentucky-debate/#ixzz2sN8ajh1t
I've said it before - since nobody knows how long one of God's days is they both might be right although Ham may be a lot off on the timeline.
Debate tonight - I'll be interested in watching this one when it's posted on YouTube.
Richard
Bill Nye did an excellent job.
spherojon
02-05-2014, 01:32
I’m still trying to wrap my head around quantum mechanics. Specifically, with quantum coherence of electrons and protons within enzyme reactions in living cells, which has been suggested to help with protein formation (10,000 times a second). Well that and wave-particle duality…my point is, intelligent design.
Has anyone brought up Ancient Aliens theories yet? :rolleyes: That show is entertaining to watch however. In my snuggie and tin foil hat.
Bill Nye did an excellent job.
Did you have your Bingo cards handy? ;)
http://www.vocativ.com/02-2014/creationism-drinking-game/?utm_campaign=feb3&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain
Richard
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 10:00
Looks like a win-win arrangement.
Ham gets publicity for his fund-raising business err... I mean his ministry.
Nye gets to beat up a straw man.
<edit>
This attitude may be a little cynical.
Still, something about the associated hype just makes it seem like these guys are more interested in personal agendas than their respective messages.
Did you have your Bingo cards handy? ;)
http://www.vocativ.com/02-2014/creationism-drinking-game/?utm_campaign=feb3&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain
Richard
Dang... I didn't know they existed... :p
Did you have issues with teachers omitting curriculum when it didn't fall in line with their beliefs?
I admire Ken Ham for the conviction in his beliefs, but I don't agree with them. With a preponderance of evidence to suggest Earth is more than 6000 years old, among other reasonable ideas that contradict his beliefs, there will always be people who think otherwise, and I don't think their beliefs cause harm to scientific progress. Bill Nye made a good point when he said the future of our economy depends on future engineers and scientists, but I think good scientists can be spiritual, or even indoctrinated into belief systems that may not change when they're educated about things that say otherwise.
You can be Christian and not take the words of the Bible literally, IMO. I believe God exists in the things science cannot explain, (where did the matter that caused the big bang come from?) I don't think we're the only intelligent beings that have existed, exist, or will exist.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 13:32
Regardless of what other theories or beliefs argue, evolution should stand or fall on its own merits.
Whenever evolution is subjected to skeptical scrutiny, proponents immediately invoke religion and attack it.
It always devolves into a straw-man argument.
Streck-Fu
02-05-2014, 13:50
All you need to know about Ham is that he wrote "The Dinosaurs of Eden" in which he depicted children in Eden playing with dinosaur pets and that he claims that dinosaur fossils were buried by Noah's flood. As a young Earth proponent, Ham doesn't even like the Intelligent Design proponents because they accept that the Earth is ~4 billion years old.
Illustrations from his book....
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d6/f4/49c981b0c8a028e53f3fd110.L.jpg
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/7f/5d/b098419328a08af2414fd110.L.jpg
Anyone that holds Ham as the champion of their cause deserves the ridicule.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 14:12
All you need to know about Ham is that he wrote "The Dinosaurs of Eden" in which he depicted children in Eden playing with dinosaur pets and that he claims that dinosaur fossils were buried by Noah's flood. As a young Earth proponent, Ham doesn't even like the Intelligent Design proponents because they accept that the Earth is ~4 billion years old.
Illustrations from his book....
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d6/f4/49c981b0c8a028e53f3fd110.L.jpg
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/7f/5d/b098419328a08af2414fd110.L.jpg
Anyone that holds Ham as the champion of their cause deserves the ridicule.
What does this have to do with evolution?
Streck-Fu
02-05-2014, 14:23
In reference to the Nye - Ham debate....
evolution should stand or fall on its own merits.
How doesn't it? It doesn't make it fact, but it's more reasonable to say we've evolved than it is to say we were created 3000 years ago, or whenever Ham says we were created. Can we refute the idea that Civilizations existed thousands of years before Jesus Christ? Can the idea that Jesus was the Son of God be refuted? Can the idea that Aliens have visited Earth be refuted? Answer to all of these questions is no, because there's no evidence to say otherwise.
There was a finding off the coast of Japan recently, that suggests an advanced civilization existed before the last Ice Age.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 14:38
How doesn't it? It doesn't make it fact, but it's more reasonable to say we've evolved than it is to say we were created 3000 years ago, or whenever Ham says we were created. Can we refute the idea that Civilizations existed thousands of years before Jesus Christ? Can the idea that Jesus was the Son of God be refuted? Can the idea that Aliens have visited Earth be refuted? Answer to all of these questions is no, because there's no evidence to say otherwise.
There was a finding off the coast of Japan recently, that suggests an advanced civilization existed before the last Ice Age.
My point is that this thread was about the science of evolution.
I guess "straw man" isn't technically a correct description.
"Affirming the consequent" would be better.
Hypothesis: if evolution is true then creationism is false.
Conclusion: creationism is false, therefore evolution is true.
A implies B
B, therefore A
This is a textbook case of affirming the consequent.
Falsifying creationism doesn't tell us anything about the validity of evolution.
My point is that this thread was about the science of evolution.
I guess "straw man" isn't technically a correct description.
"Affirming the consequent" would be better.
Hypothesis: if evolution is true then creationism is false.
Conclusion: creationism is false, therefore evolution is true.
A implies B
B, therefore A
This is a textbook case of affirming the consequent.
Falsifying creationism doesn't tell us anything about the validity of evolution.
I don't think the point of embracing evolution is to undermine creationism. It doesn't make religion any less important; there are things about our past science cannot prove. It will never be able to undermine the credibility of Jesus and the idea that he's the Son of God for example.
Science deals in the tangible and abstract, not the spiritual. I feel like the deeply religious view scientific discoveries as attacks on their belief system when those discoveries might negate the word of God as written by man. If evolution was fact, it wouldn't make religion less relevant.
FWIW, I believe in God.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 15:45
I don't think the point of embracing evolution is to undermine creationism. It doesn't make religion any less important; there are things about our past science cannot prove. It will never be able to undermine the credibility of Jesus and the idea that he's the Son of God for example.
Science deals in the tangible and abstract, not the spiritual. I feel like the deeply religious view scientific discoveries as attacks on their belief system when those discoveries might negate the word of God as written by man. If evolution was fact, it wouldn't make religion less relevant.
FWIW, I believe in God.
My point has little to do with creationism or religion.
It has to do with evolution.
Nye laments religion working its way into the schools and interfering with science.
This is a common complaint among evolutionists.
My question: If they're so concerned about religion interfering with science,
then why do they keep bringing it up when debating evolution?
Streck-Fu
02-05-2014, 16:09
My question: If they're so concerned about religion interfering with science,
then why do they keep bringing it up when debating evolution?
Because many school boards have faced efforts or tried to either add Creationism to science classes or have Evolution reduced to an unproven idea. It has happened in many states to include Texas, Florida, Kansas, and Maine just since 2005.
My question: If they're so concerned about religion interfering with science,
then why do they keep bringing it up when debating evolution?
Because the Religious idea of Creationism, could undermine Scientific idea of Evolution. They have to cut the head off the snake for lack of a better term, to stop people like Ham from spreading what the majority of scientists consider, disinformation.
craigepo
02-05-2014, 16:21
My point has little to do with creationism or religion.
It has to do with evolution.
Nye laments religion working its way into the schools and interfering with science.
This is a common complaint among evolutionists.
My question: If they're so concerned about religion interfering with science,
then why do they keep bringing it up when debating evolution?
I think the problem is that people on both sides of the debate keep looking at the Bible as a world history/geology book. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament were written with the sole purpose of being textbooks for a history or geology or physical science classroom.
I would humbly submit that if both sides read the Bible with an understanding that the Bible was written as God's plan of salvation for humans, we could get the creation-vs-evolution debate back on a scholarly track.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 16:23
Because many school boards have faced efforts or tried to either add Creationism to science classes or have Evolution reduced to an unproven idea. It has happened in many states to include Texas, Florida, Kansas, and Maine just since 2005.
I mean: why do they keep bringing it up while debating evolution?
If someone has criticism for some aspect of evolution, a common response is to talk about the flaws in creationism/religion.
This does nothing to improve scientific understanding.
Here's an analogy (just an analogy, not an accusation):
Person "A" argues that 2+2=5
Person "B" says that they don't think 2+2=5, and wants to investigate the matter further.
Person "A" responds by saying that Person "C" thinks 2+2=7, which is even more wrong.
What person "C" thinks has nothing to do with the validity of the argument proposed by person "A".
Surf n Turf
02-05-2014, 20:04
Continues to be an excellent thread.
SnT
For your viewing pleasure :)
A List Of Fallacious Arguments.
Grateful Citizen caused me to go back and check.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
spherojon
02-05-2014, 20:20
Disclaimer: I am not, and do not pretend to be an expert of Quantum Physics. This is just my understanding of the situation.
The argument seems to revolve around the "time" in which certain events happened. To me, I believe that both arguments are invalid because Time is an illusion. What leads me to this thought is the theory of relativity and time dilation. Motion (velocity) directly affects the entire concept of time. Now let me give you an example of Time Dilation and space flight. If there are a set of twins (classic example), one on earth, and one that travels on a spaceship going at a high velocity through the universe, the theory tells us that the twin on earth will age faster than the twin on the space shuttle. With this in mind, we are in constant motion (our velocity in orbit around the sun, in turn our sun/solar system has a velocity orbiting around the galactic center, which in turn has a velocity relative to the universe). It seems to me, that time is an illusion based on our observation. One cannot declare that the universe is Billions of "years" old, because everything in our known universe ages differently based off motion and observation. Thus, a “day” for God could be billions of “days” for humans. YMMV
I didn't read through this entire thread but I say it's BS
If we evolved from apes there are more than a few flaws in that theory.
1. Where are the remains of those we evolved from over the years showing that evolution?
2. Why are there STILL apes if they evolved into us?
:D
Streck-Fu
02-05-2014, 21:12
There are lots of fossils but even better, we now have DNA...LINK (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html)
But, I guess, you could argue that God was either practical or not very original... ;)
Science is much younger than religion, but no less a religion, a provable one…over time. A very long time.
Twice this week science has been dealt a blow. Stephen Hawking, who made a career “hawking” Black Holes, now says that they do not exist, at least not as he first theorized. And Polaris, the North Star, was once considered a Cepheid variable star but is now rejecting that label by behaving differently than scientifically predicted.
In the mid ‘80s, there were astronomers that suggested that our Sun might be a flare star, which could account for “global warming”. Where did those learned voices go? Silenced for blasphemy?
Science, in the modern day, is trying to explain the incomprehensible the same way religion did a couple of thousand years ago. They answer the question, “Why is that star getting brighter?” with the same available knowledge as someone asking why seashells were found in mountains in biblical times. They don’t know, for sure, but feel the need to offer an answer to make the questioner feel comfortable when he or she goes to sleep at night. Oh, and to project the aura of superior knowledge and wisdom over the questioner.
Or not. ;)
Pat
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 21:23
There are lots of fossils but even better, we now have DNA...LINK (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html)
But, I guess, you could argue that God was either practical or not very original... ;)
What did evolutionary theory predict about the genetic distances among different species for cytochrome c?
:munchin
There are lots of fossils but even better, we now have DNA...LINK (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html)
But, I guess, you could argue that God was either practical or not very original... ;)
That's actually silly...we have about the same DNA match up with pigs as with apes...
That 4% is a huge difference....there is no missing link in that example.
We have a serious match up of DNA with almost everything in our food chain...for an obvious reason.
GratefulCitizen
02-05-2014, 22:17
That just means that the scientists were wrong on a couple of things. That happens. The science gets refined constantly as they learn more and understand more.
Science gets refined when orthodox views are challenged and questioned.
When disagreement is disallowed, you have only the faithful and heretics.
Broadsword...we are going in circles...
Those famous fruit flies evolved into what...fruit flies...a sub species of the same specie.
Evolution is predicated upon those fruit flies developing into birds, or whatever...not a fly to a fly.
I'm lactose intolerant so obviously not a good example of whatever milk equation you are providing.
Everyone accepts micro evolution...the development within a species...this does nothing to prove macro evolution.
The development a lizard to a bird etc......as is put in museum displays etc.
Would have to disagree that science is a religion. Properly conducted, science goes only be evidence and experimentation and data.
Really? How's that Global Warming thing going for ya?
That just means that the scientists were wrong on a couple of things. That happens. The science gets refined constantly as they learn more and understand more.
A couple of times? So the two instances that I mentioned are the only times scientists have been wrong?
Besides, I was only referring to the blind followers of each field, not the practitioners, necessarily. In both fields, financial gains are an incentive.
At the time of the "seashell" question, there probably were stories of massive floods (Black Sea deluge) that prompted parents to explain that the shells in the mountains were a result of that flood. And, Polaris acted like a Cepheid variable until it didn't. And black holes were plausible until the guy who came up with them said that they are not.
Blind faith is a religion even it if calls itself a science. BTW, Newton was wrong on some of his calculations, but they still got us to the Moon and back...apparently on blind faith.
Pat
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 08:10
Macroevolution would just be the summation of long periods of microevolution.
No, it would not.
A moth which has a slight color difference giving it better camouflage survives, passing on that slight variation.
Natural selection (microevolution) selects creatures which are more fit immediately.
A leg which is starting to turn into a wing would make a crummy leg/useless wing and the creature would not survive nor would the variation be passed.
Macroevolution is actively prevented by natural selection.
The portion of Newton's calculations that got us to the Moon were not wrong though.
Newtonian mechanics were close enough to serve that purpose.
That doesn't imply that they were "correct".
Ptolemy had a model for the solar system which worked well enough to serve its purposes.
After 1500 years, some believed it to be absolute truth.
Two-dimensional trigonometry is close enough for short range Terran navigation.
Spherical trigonometry is necessary for long range Terran navigation.
A couple of times? So the two instances that I mentioned are the only times scientists have been wrong?
Yeah, like organized religion hasn't been consistently out there flappin' themselves.
The portion of Newton's calculations that got us to the Moon were not wrong though.
Actually, they were wrong, but close enough for Government work. ;)
Pat
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 10:23
The portion of Newton's calculations that got us to the Moon were not wrong though.
This got me thinking.
(About more than the limitations on us "Terrans" WRT interstellar travel and other nerd humor).
Newtonian mechanics makes use of Euclidean geometry.
Long range navigation makes use of elliptical geometry.
Relativity makes use of hyperbolic geometry.
All of them are "correct" within their own systems.
The difference is found in a single assumption (the parallel postulate, specifically).
What are the specific assumptions in evolution?
That question has never been addressed.
Yeah, like organized religion hasn't been consistently out there flappin' themselves.
No argument, there, but religion is faith-based where science sells itself as certainty-based, hence the "consensus of scientists" and "settled science" slap-down in the argument against human-caused global warming.
Both systems want to control your behavior, but which is being used by government to actually do it?
Pat
No argument, there, but religion is faith-based where science sells itself as certainty-based, hence the "consensus of scientists" and "settled science" slap-down in the argument against human-caused global warming.
Both systems want to control your behavior, but which is being used by government to actually do it?
Pat
Controlling behavior is controlling behavior. F--- em all.
Controlling behavior is controlling behavior. F--- em all.
Good thing you never joined the Army. Oh, wait... ;)
Pat
Good thing you never joined the Army. Oh, wait... ;)
Pat
Are you SURE he joined and maybe wasn't drafted ????
:munchin
It kind of grew on me over time.
Kinda like a fungus .... :D :munchin
I'm currently rereading Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes - damn that Haristas.
And so it goes...
Richard
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 19:45
And after enough periods of gradual change, you can end up with something that looks totally different.
What I meant by "immediately" is: the change must be beneficial at that point in time for it to be naturally selected.
A random change can't plan on how it might be beneficial hundreds of generations later (that would be ID, not evolution).
That's assuming that the leg/wing was needed for the creature to survive.
I confess.
I assumed that survival was quite necessary.
Are you suggesting that random variation over successive generations produces half-leg/half-wing creatures that are somehow more fit that full-legged or full-winged creatures?
(See SnT's link under "special pleadings")
Where is the fossil record of all of these intermediate forms?
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 20:39
Sure, but if said change is beneficial and continues to be beneficial for generation after generation, and develops more and more over generations, then you can see a large development of it over a long period of time.
Your example though is one of a massive evolutionary change very quickly, which doesn't happen. My point is that certain changes in life forms can occur where the change unto itself is not necessary for the creature's survival, but just something that can aid it better in surviving, and thus be passed on and over-time develop. For a half-leg-half-wing variation to develop would mean that the creature is capable of surviving that way plenty fine.
But a leg would not just start to turn into a wing where it becomes half-and-half via one variation. Such a change would take many generations. Thus for the leg to continue changing to a wing would mean that the creature is fully capable of surviving with this gradual adaption and that the change was continuing because the more the leg became a wing, the more beneficial it was to the creature for survival.
There is no fossil record of successive creatures going from a leg to a wing.
They have legs, or wings; not something going from one to the next.
Still not sure how any of the stages in between would render the creature more fit.
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 21:20
I'm not arguing that there is, was just using that for the sake of example, as that is the example you gave. I do not myself see how going from a leg to a wing could be beneficial. My point was that IF something like that happened, then it would mean that there was some kind of benefit to the life form.
Natural selection: If a change has benefit, then it will be kept.
A implies B.
"If something like that happened" (was kept).
"Then it would mean it had benefit."
B, therefore A.
This is just affirming the consequent.
<edit>
This is a common way of slipping in an assumption (something like that happened - B) and hiding it within an accepted implication (natural selection - A implies B).
At its root, it's just begging the question.
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 22:24
Not sure what you are getting at here. The discussion here is over natural selection. If a change is beneficial, it will be kept. If fossils show a life form changed over time in a certain way, then it would mean that the change was somehow beneficial.
You just did it again.
"If a life form changed over time in a certain way"
This is an assumption.
Assuming it is true doesn't make it true.
There is nothing wrong with having arguments which assume evolution (so long as the consequent is potentially falsifiable).
In this case the argument pretends to be equivalent with natural selection, but it is not.
GratefulCitizen
02-06-2014, 22:52
If there are fossils, then it wouldn't be an assumption, it would proof that it changed over time that way. If you see, via fossils, that a life form changed over time to be a certain way (as fossils are the only real way to know this), then it would have to be because that change benefited the life form in some way or had no negative affect on its ability to survive. In environments where life forms have no competition, they tend to evolve a whole lot of unnecessary anatomical features.
Now we're getting somewhere.
"If a series of fossils exhibited changes, then that would be evidence that the changes were beneficial."
(Paraphrasing, correct me if I'm getting it wrong)
OK. That is your argument.
I don't think anyone would dispute that this would be evidence that the changes were beneficial.
How does this argument support macroevolution?
GC and BS, you two are dorks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=260
GratefulCitizen
02-08-2014, 10:48
If you have enough fossils, you can see over time how macroevolution would occur, as it would be the accumulation of microevolution over time. This would involve multiple microevolutions over many generations, eventually evolving enough species changes that you'd get to a different genus, and so forth. For example, humans and chimpanzees, two different genera, likely split from a common ancestor about four to five million years ago.
Your statement is logically correct.
It also assumes facts that aren't there.
The fossils to which you refer have not been found.
The faithful continue with the search...
<edit>
In an earlier post I mentioned the idea that there is nothing wrong with assumptions, provided the consequent was falsifiable.
Your statement basically says that if you have evidence which is predicted by evolution, then that evidence is consistent with evolution.
That is not a falsifiable consequent.
It is a tautology.