The debate "Is evolution science" was started by
February 1, 2017, 3:57 pm.
By the way, Christian is disagreeing with this statement.
89 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 7 arguments, PsychDave posted 32 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 31 arguments, Nemiroff posted 7 arguments, Blu_Ray posted 7 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 1 argument, ProfDoke posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Christian posted 38 arguments, Nemiroff posted 12 arguments, neveralone posted 8 arguments, Ematio posted 21 arguments, UnderdogMike posted 23 arguments to the disagreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual, SharpHost, PsychDave, Your_dad, carrieunderwood007, historybuff, slipknot, dalton7532, Blue_ray, ScepticalPeasent, TheExistentialist, Jona, smv2005, seanlaw688, LSpalding, Regine, shehab, CoreyO, hjlr71, danielle, Adrian, Yanksxx21, redstar, Blu_Ray, Brayden24, blue_rayy, sabrina, Thepanther, wayneSPEC, Pnbshady, ProfDoke, Jericho, diana26, RedstarIsWeird, Nemiroff, castor and 53 visitors agree.
Stidlet, lilmiller, thereal, Liberator, Christian, Matthew_Daniel, skeletonbones, UnderdogMike, Ematio, mmjd14, ChloeLMc and 20 visitors disagree.
what is the "kinds" argument? all he did was quote the phrase from the bible, which seemed more vague than nonsense.
Don't get me started on Ken Ham, the most ignorant pretentious creationist of the all.
Are you really going to use the "kinds" argument. That's not a wise thing to do. After all it is logical Bollocks.
can't you see it clearly in their features?
are you really going to say that wolves and bears look more different than wolves and chihuahuas?
I gave you a link answering that. Did you read it?
What's the evidence that bears share a common ancestor with dogs?
yes, I assumed we agreed there. but what features set the bears too far for adaptation to reach?
So do dogs and bears.
Dogs and wolves had a common ancestor.
it's all the same code. the changes are the length/thickness of hair, amount of fat or size of similar muscles. a few behaviors tweets.
what exactly is this unbridgavle distance between bears and dogs... well dogs went survival of the cutest thanks to us, but let's say wolves (you'd agree dogs and wolves are related right?)
so bears and wolves, what's the major difference that adaptation can't bridge?
I think the point is being mixed up a bit. It isn't that a bear turns into a dog. It is that they share an ancestor.
Imagine a small animal like a mouse. Two separate groups exist. One lives in the prairies. Over many generations, the ones that are better at digging survive more and reproduce more, so the population of tunneling mice starts to get bigger. Once they have a safe way to hide, the larger ones have an advantage competing for food, so they population tends to get bigger. This turns into something like a prairie dog.
Another group lives in the forest. They eat nuts and fruit. The ones that are better climbers out compete their grounded fellows, since they don't have to wait for the food to fall. Over time those with better balance fall less. Now we have squirrels.
It isn't that one animal turns into another, it is that they share an ancestor. You aren't suddenly going to turn into your cousin, but you share ancestors. The same way you can trade your family tree to see the connection between yourself and distant relatives we can trade the ancestry of animals. We have many fossils that show points in between. We can visibly trace the path of evolution by looking at fossils, and we can also trace it genetically.
All the bear can do is to only reuse genetic data or scramble it. It cannot create any genetic code.
just small changes. let's look at the changes that happened in tens. a difference of giant fatty white polar bears and smaller faster black bears. I'm sure they have other differences including diet and teeth and such but whatever that is, do that 10 more times. and we have 100 of thousands.
10 more phases of equivalent changes. I'd say that would qualify as a dog at that point. same thing. furry on all 4s. snout, smell primary, similar teeth, more meat diet but both can eat varying non meats.
it's mostly size, and maybe the shape of specific features like claws and chest. easy "adaptive" changes no?
so after tens of thousands of years, the bear split into 2 bear like species.
at this point do the changes stop? what about another set of tens of thousands? or even 100s of thousands of years, can't one of the bears continue to slim down and become something closer to a dog or cat?
Yes, I would consider that evolution, as that bear did not turn into a dog or a fish. Okay, let me clarify the perfection part.
We were created as perfect humans, only God has that perfection you speak of.
don't you think ignorance is a flaw?
Being perfect means there is no flaw or problems.
OK so let's say a species of animals splits into 2 and separate completely, and over tens of thousands of years, become 2 different similar species, like black bears and polar bears.
that is what you would consider adaptation, but not evolution, right?
no, the definition of perfect is perfection, nothing is better. if something is better, than you are not perfect.
I think you guys are confusing perfection with something that is just very good.
Alright, your definition of perfect is a little skewed in this sense, I don't mean any offense.
If I'm making a computer, and I create it to only have 2 functions, then I have created it exactly the way I wanted, correct? In order to know if something is perfect, you have to look through the eyes of the creator of creation. Just because we weren't created all knowing (I don't knkw if we were) and equal to God does not mean that we were not perfect.
For the survival of the fittest, it would work the same way to how it works in the theory of evolution. Let's get the mass extinction event cleared up. Before the flood, Noah brought every animal after its kind onto the ark. These animals were probably packed with genetic potential being so early in history (As we know, DNA breaks down over time). So after the water dried up, the animals spread, reproduced, and thus many different species came from an ancestor, like how all the different breeds of dogs came from wolves.
Adaptation is not the same as evolution. You know darwins finches, correct? Yes, they adapted to different living conditions, the same way we do, but they never changed into different animals. Adaptations are changes from a from one species to another, staying within the family, while evolution is the changing of one class to another, much different and something not observed.
Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world and ruined it for themselves just because they didn't obey one simple rule.
wait. everything was perfect? we were perfect? equal to god? all knowing, all power, flawless beings?
I really don't think that is the case. can you defend that, or please change your answer to my first question.
as to my belief in god, for the sake of this discussion let's assume the existence of god. If you want to ask that other question, feel free to make a separate thread.
survival of the fittest makes sense in any theory. it's not that complex of a theory. but in a creation model wouldn't that result in fewer species over time as they die off? especially after a mass extinction event?
also what is the difference between diversification / adaptation and evolution. that is pretty much the definition of evolution
Nemiroff, what evidence would it take for you to believe there is a God?
Alsi, just because the Bible doesn't give a process doesn't mean there wasn't one. The Bible is not a book of science. Science is also good, it's just you can't reallu use it in every situation
It's not that God didn't create us perfect in the first place, it's that he gave us a mind and a free will. He didn't create slaves
Alright, for your first question:
In the beginning, God created everything, and He saw that it was good. Everything was perfect.
God created humans. God gave the first humans (Adam and Eve) a choice: Don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and you will live a perfect life, and a second option, eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and suffer the consequences of you rejecting me.
They chose the second option... This brought corruption into the world by sinning (Evil, entrophy, disease, etc...) That is why we have diseases like cancer and suffering.
Also, I believe God had the ability to create animals so that they could adapt and diversify. Not the same thing as evolution, survival of the fittest fits perfectly well into creation theory
and also, you can look at the bible as a life for dummies book.
if your going to try to teach a cavemen about computers, are you going to tell him about processors and transistors? how RAM works and what bytes are? no! your just going to point to the on button and tell him it just works. it would be mind numbing explains such a complex thing to a caveman. why do you think God would go into the full details of the creation of life to first civilization savages? he would just say "I did it, and it was good". does that mean there was no process???
the Bible itself is completely vague on the issue. but we should objectively view the context of who is sending the message.
God is perfect, yet this reality and everything in it is not. for whatever reason God chose to not allow perfection here. however, don't you think his crowning creation (life) would be as great as possible?
so what's more worthy of a divine origin? life, that although not perfect in every situation, can adapt to being the perfect being in their current situation, and can change when the situation changes?
or a rigid line of species that will get screwed in any changes and will likely die out without consistent divine protection?
it seems to me that your view limits God's power and intelligence. why would a perfect being create such an inflexible system.
True, but the same can be said of creation. Look at Ken Hamm's work and tell me he is not deliberately manipulating information to fit what he wants it to say.
Holding the Bible to your idea of how we have different species is not right. You have to compare the two schools of thought not by holding the other idea to yours, you have to pit yourself in the shoes of the other and think how this could possibly be true, and how the evidence supports or contradicts it
but I'm not talking about Noahs time. I'm talking about creation. the bible has been vague on this kind. and I see no mention of a necessary separate lineage.
and I'm hoping God didn't intend to stuff them in like a chicken farm.
you also don't need to worry about birds, but 6000 wouldn't even account for just the mammals.
Noah could have brought baby animals on the ark.
1. They eat less, they sleep more, more likely to survive.
2. They live longer after the flood and that's exactly the reason why Noah brought them.
The ark could hold 500 railroad stock cars and that's enough for 6000 basic kinds of animals including the fish. That's 12 animals in every car and you don't even need to bring the fish.
how literally do you read the bible?
cause Noah is well into the future. Noah is already civilization. at that time the "fundamental forms" have ready diversified into something very similar to today.
and to be honest, no matter how big the boat, it probably wasn't big enough.
If they were the basic ones and there was only a few, why did God tell Noah to build the boat so big?
perhaps those were the basic ones?
were lizards and amphibians included with the mammals? having 4 limbs and a tail and all. fish obviously have no problem in a flood.
so birds, mammals, and insects.
and it said "bring forth the living creatures after HIS kind." we aren't even sure he's referring to the animal here and the specificity is completely vague. for all we know he's talking about mammal, amphibean, fish, when he means kind. and not specific like monkey, or starfish.
even if you do read the Bible literally, there are many ways to interpret it's words. especially with the numerous translations...
it didn't say anything about wolves and bears... all it said was "cattle". and cattle can mean anything, human beings have been called cattle. cattle is a term for something alive that serves the purpose of some greater entity, and in the garden of eden, all life served man. all of it was cattle collectively. even the bugs.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
where in the bible did it say that?
Because bear and dogs are not the same kind like the Bible said.
what if the bear gets a little more slender, a little smarter, a littler more social. same 4 legs, tail, snout, fur. why not include dogs?
a few more changes... solitary, stealthy, adapts to the night, bigger eyes... cats.
actually most cats are closers to bears with huge size and immense power.
so why not say God made a couple of general mammalian carnivores that became bears, cats, dogs, etc?
They are still bears. It is equally likely all the species of bears in the world came from a couple of bears God created.
what would happen if a single species is split into 2 separate groups, and both of those groups develop slightly different adaptations. could that differentiate them into polar bears and brown bears?
could one become more large and powerful while the other becomes slender and agile? perhaps one groups develops more pack skills while the other chooses the solitary hunter approach, increasing night vision and eye size....
as all these changes build up constantly, more and more. whatever point you choose to look at these species, double the time, triple it
won't these changes eventually add up to something that no longer looks the same as it's now very distant cousin?
lactose tolerance in humans is a very new adaptation. shorter wings in birds that fly near highways.
Is there any legitimate beneficial mutations?
It cannot create new abilities.
Adaptation could only go so far. A rat who lives in the mountains cannot get food faster by growing wings but by only expanding on the abilities it has.
Adaptation is of course beneficial because an animal adapts to a environment to survive. Adaptation is not the same as mutations.
adaptation is the end result of evolution.
natural selection weeds out any unbenefitial mutations leaving only the ones that help the species adapt.
Evolution is the change over many generations. This happens because some adaptation is beneficial, resulting in better survival of those with the trait.
Adaptation is different from evolution.
A few minutes of research yielded the following:
He's uses the same red herring argument many creationists use (macro-evolution vs micro-evolution). He accepts the concept of micro-evolution sure. However he questions this red-herring concept of macro-evolution. In reality, macro-evolution is simply a cumulative effect of micro-evolution. So if you believe in micro-evolution you also believe in macro-evolution.
He states, in one of his essays :"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation."
So he already admits that he doesn't understand evolution. He is a chemist and as such weighs in on the current state of abiogenesis. The only thing he's been able to demonstrate is that we don't have a theory of abiogenesis. However, nothing he's said, done, or published has put into question the theory of evolution. He is simply stating that which every scientist would state: "we don't know how abiogenesis could have occured.".
Let's talk about this: "getting 'close' to an exact date using modern dating methods might be 'good enough', but it hardly extrapolates out to millions or billions of years with any degree of credulity."
When we talk about accuracy we measure it as a percentage. So if I have a method of dating that is accurate to within 99%, so if I date something that may dating method says is 100 yrs old, it is between 99-101 yrs old. If we examine radiometric dating, we can see that it has an accuracy of 99.993%.
So, if we have a 1 billion yr time frame we have about a 700k yr leeway on either side. In geological time, that's nothing.
Also, you don't need to get to 100% accuracy to make a claim about the fossil record. You simply have to know which layer is older and which is younger. So the challenge still stands: find a more advanced structure in a fossil layer not containing the precursor (cornea before a retina, a humanoid before apes, flowering plants before seeds, etc...).
"you've been so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are incapable of seeing the impossible before your eyes."
I believe in evidence. You have not presented a single shred of evidence that discredits any of the science for evolution. You have questioned the fossil records based on ignorance of how fossilization occurs and a preconceived notion of what you'd like the fossil record to show rather than what it can show. You have argued that dating methods are based on fossil layers only (which I've shown you is false). You tried to claim that absolute dating methods are arbitrary. You tried to question the accuracy of radiometric dating, however r=0.99997, so it's not a valid challenge.
You have tried to conflate evolution with abiogenesis (the two are different areas of study). While I agree that abiogenesis is a missing piece in science, and I will readily admit that a theory of abiogenesis is a ways off, the claim that a lack of a theory for abiogenesis somehow diminishing the validity of the theory of evolution is absurd.
I've shown you how to falsify evolution via the fossil record, you can use the same principles to disprove it via molecular biology, or any line of inquiry.
The reason I keep telling you that you need to learn is because you can't make a valid argument against evolution if you are ignorant of the science that supports it. You simply don't understand the theory of evolution and yet you try and argue against it. That just makes no sense.
btw, the chemist i mentioned earlier is James Tour. give him a Google.
i accept your apology. no hard feelings here. this is all in fun. cheers!
you need to learn, you need to learn, you need to learn... you're a broken record. you've been so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are incapable of seeing the impossible before your eyes.
being able to date something within a few thousand years is not the same thing as claiming accuracy in dating over millions of years.
you know how if you're sailing, and your compass is only half a degree off, you'll never reach your destination? well, getting 'close' to an exact date using modern dating methods might be 'good enough', but it hardly extrapolates out to millions or billions of years with any degree of credulity.
formation of coal depends on degree of alteration. i.e. heat and pressure. Lignite ( the lowest quality of coal) is altered to bituminous . Bituminous is altered to anthracite( the best quality of coal)
dude there are different types of coal, peat ,sub bituminous , bituminous and anthracite, lignite.
Which type of coal?
How is coal formed?
That last bit sounded a bit more a$$hole'ish than intended. My apologies if I offended you. I do stand by the larger point though.
How can you make this claim "these baselines are bases upon commonly held assumptions" when you don't even know how we validate radiometric dating or really know anything about the process or the science involved? Your bias is painfully obvious here.
We have validated radiometric dating with known events like volcanic eruptions (like Vesuvius). We have cultural records of these events and know the dates to a fairly high degree of accuracy and can date rocks from those events.
"they found human footprint and dinosaur fossil footprints side-by-side."
You need to figure out how to evaluate your sources.
Literally 3 minutes of research would have led you to academic articles which clearly show many of the Paluxy River Tracks to be frauds. The few genuine tracks which appear human are actually attributed to Apatosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus.
Stop using information you get from answersingenesis.com, talk origins, the institute for creation research, etc... These "sources" (if you can even call them that) are known to pedal false information. You really need to learn how to actually use research databases, scholarly search engines, etc... It is painfully obvious you never learned how to research in school, so it's definitely time you caught up. You need to learn to evaluate sources, you need to learn the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, etc... These are things most people learn in highschool, so I'm always surprised when people don't understand these concepts.
Your local library has classes on this though. Go spend an hour learning how to source information so you don't look so ignorant and gullible. While you're at it, take your son. He has the same shortcoming in his education
So I looked into it. You are wrong.
Rather than saying "look it up" how about you start providing evidence to support your claims?
If that's true then they didn't have to occur at the same time at all..
BTW, they found human footprint and dinosaur fossil footprints side-by-side. Look it up.
we have been using such dating methods for a scant few years. we therefore LITERALLY have no viable baseline by which to corroborate half lives of millions of years. these baselines are bases upon commonly held assumptions.
Science had not only killed the human kind it has also rooted our culture and tradition
radiometric dating measures radioactive decay of various isotopes with different half lives. So if isotope x has a half life of 10,000 years, we know that in quantity "n" we will have 1/2n radioactive isotope x after 10k years and 1/4n after 20k years, 1/8n after 40k, etc... Different isotopes have different half lives, so can use different isotopes to get the most accurate number for the time frame we're looking at. We have validated this method in labs (actually measuring the decay rates) and by dating known events.
electron spin resonance dating uses the fact that certain crystal matrices develop "holes" by surrounding radiation at a given rate (different crystals have different rates) we then measure the amount of damage and can infer an age. Again, this method is verified by lab experiments and by dating known events.
thermoluminescence measure radiation accumulation rather than decay and let's us know when certain layers came into existence (igneous rocks) or when they saw sunlight (sedimentary rocks).
paleomagnetism is the study of the record of the Earth's magnetic field in rocks, sediment, or archeological materials. Certain minerals in rocks lock-in a record of the direction and intensity of the magnetic field when they form. This record provides information on the past behavior of Earth's magnetic field and the past location of tectonic plates. The record of geomagnetic reversals preserved in volcanic and sedimentary rock sequences (magnetostratigraphy) provides a time-scale that is used as a geochronologic tool.
These are absolute dating methods because they give us an absolute measure of the age of a rock.
However, even if you used relative dating (faunal dating), you could still prove evolution wrong. If you find a mammal in a layer which is linked to the Cambrian period, then you'd still have disproved evolution. If you find a modern human fossils or modern mammals in the Morrison formation (sedimentary rock from the Jurassic period) you'd still have proved evolution wrong since we know that particular rock formation had to have formed before the first human ancestor.
I'm about to pass out, but are not all of those methods drawn from pre-assumed baselines of dating?
Straw man accusation: Where did I argue a weaker version of your argument?
While we can do "relative dating" through fossil records, to claim that it is the only dating method we have is simply ignorant of the facts again. In fact, it is only one method of doing relative dating. We have Superposition, Crosscutting Relationships, and Inclusions to do relative dating without the use of fossils.
You can use absolute dating methods to date various strata.
Have you heard of radiometric dating, electron spin resonance, or thermoluminescence? These are all absolute dating methods.
6 methods not based of fossils not enough?
how about paleomagnetism?
how about optical stimulating luminescence?
straw man argument. you will claim any less developed genus comes before the more developed in chronology, simply because of said development. there is no absolutist dating method of fossils, or the creatures they represent, as there is no absolutely geological strata by which they can be dated.
fossil layers are dated by the fossils they contain. it is circular reasoning in the extreme.
let me ask you, how long can genetic materials exist that can be dated with semi-reliable scientific methods? soft tissue and such?
"you know I was reading a nat geo decades ago, and a paleontologist was making the claim that according to darwinian evolution, there were so many trillions of fossil species, that every time someone found a new fossil, it should be a transitional form."
we've come a long way in decades. The fossil record is becoming an ever more minor line of inquiry for evolution. You need to start looking to molecular biology for current information.
As to your DNA claims.
It's more likely that life originated from RNA, not DNA.
"he also notes that in DNA there is a mechanism designed to correct errors in the code, but there is no mechanism for mutation"
This is not true. Bacterial conjugative plasmids are a method for altering DNA; sexual reproduction is a methof for altering DNA, polyploid plants have methods for changing their existing genome.
"DNA is an error correcting program"
no, it is a storage, replication, and recombination program. It actually is really easy to manipulate and change. Just look at viruses. We can also measure the rate of genetic mutation. We have about 64 mutations per generation by the way.
"do programs program themselves? do they happen by chance?"
that's a silly way of introducing the watchmaker argument.
"All you have to do, is find an example of a more complex system existing before it's more rudimentary precursor (i.e. find an eye with a lens before retinas evolved, find a flowering plant before pollinating insects, find a mammal in the pre-cambrian period, etc....)"
Doesn't that depend on what you believe? If we have 2 fossils on a table, and one looks similar to another, and I say the more complex one created the less complex one, and you say the opposite, isn't that just the way you look at it? You're setting up a criteria of evidence that is only able to be mrt if you have your worldview.
Find a new requirement that doesn't require your worldview to meet, just evidence
well from "each appears in the fossil record complete and fully functional" I can only garner that you either mean that each fossil if physically complete (i.e. is completely present). Or you mean that things like formed limbs are present. I figured you'd understand evolution enough to not mean the second. However, if you believe that anatomical features like the eye appeared fully formed somewhere in the fossil record without a more simple predecessor you truly are clueless about evolution. I was really hoping that's not the point you were making. So please clarify your actual position so I can address it properly. It may help if you just provide actual examples of your points rather than non-descript talking points.
"EVERY species must be at some point a successful enough species to produce a daughter species"
no it doesn't. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from. Natural selection, in fact, dictates that only some species will survive to have a progeny. So evolutionary dead ends are not just the exception, they are predicted by the theory of evolution.
"you are blinded by your absolutist faith in evolution, if you cannot see the sad excuses you are making for the universal dearth of transitional species in the fossil record."
I will make this very easy for you. I will give you the criteria by which you can falsify evolution. All you have to do, is find an example of a more complex system existing before it's more rudimentary precursor (i.e. find an eye with a lens before retinas evolved, find a flowering plant before pollinating insects, find a mammal in the pre-cambrian period, etc....). That's all you have to do. In turn, can you give me the evidence required to falsify your claims? If you can not, who here is blinded by absolutist faith?
mutations might change your body. it might give you certain extra traits.
How often are mutations good? How often are mutations good in humanity (Being immune to diseases isn't because of mutation, it's because of our immune systems)
Mutations may be good sometime. Due to the presence of a dominant allele achieved from the other species, they can have better withstanding power towards heat, diseases, etc.
Are they good mutations? Is inbreeding good?
mutations occur by environmental factors. It can also occur due to geographical isolation or due to Cross breeding between different species of same genus.
that's the theory.
there is a chemist, his name escapes me, but he's one of the handful of scientists in the world capable of building nano-machines. anyway, he has challenged a myriad of other scientists to show him any process by which abiogenesis could occur. nobel prize winners, staff of elite schools, heads of the various fields of science, and nothing.
he also notes that in DNA there is a mechanism designed to correct errors in the code, but there is no mechanism for mutation. on the contrary, the error correction mechanism would do it's best to eliminate mutations whenever possible.
DNA is an error correcting program.
let that sink in.
do programs program themselves? do they happen by chance?
you might as well roll a rock off a cliff and expect it to become the statue of David at yhe bottom of the hill.
evolition is science. species have evolved with time. Species have evolved from protoplasmic level to cellular level to tissue level to organ level to organ system level. If you look at the animal kingdom, there are animals with simple bodies to complex bodies. If you look at the phyla porifera, it consists of simple cellular organisms. However phylum like Coelenterata, Cnetophora have tissues. As we go further we see that Platyhelminthes, Nemathelminthes, Annelida, Arthropoda, Mollusca, Echinodermata, Hemichordata, they begin to form complex bodies. And finally we have chordates where we human belong to possess a notochord. So this proves animals have evolved from simpler body structure to complex body structure. We humans have evolved from a marine fish.
you know I was reading a nat geo decades ago, and a paleontologist was making the claim that according to darwinian evolution, there were so many trillions of fossil species, that every time someone found a new fossil, it should be a transitional form.
Darwin thought so, too, and assumed that over the decades, the fossil record would bear out his theory with countless transitional creatures.
The fossil record proves the contrary.
you make me laugh. you think I meant that each fossil is a complete set of bones? lol.
the rest of your diatribe still fails to convince. the fact is nearly every fossil species has multiple copies, and EVERY species must be at some point a successful enough species to produce a daughter species. TRILLIONS of species later, you get the modern taxonomy.
you are blinded by your absolutist faith in evolution, if you cannot see the sad excuses you are making for the universal dearth of transitional species in the fossil record.
"...of the BILLIONS of extant fossils mankind has discovered in the world over the past century-and-a-half, we have only ever found about 250,000 fossil species. each appears in the fossil record complete and fully functional"
This is not true, not all fossils are complete and functional. This is a flat out lie. In fact, the most common kind of fossilization is "partial fossilization".
"...then of the countless TRILLIONS of species necessary to create the speciation existing in the world today and the countless darwinian dead ends...we should find that nearly every single fossil we find is a unique transitional species"
You're argument displays a complete ignorance of the facts so it's hard to take you serious on the subject, but I will explain why the basis of your argument is invalid.
You should know that fossilization is most likely for body parts which are mineralised. This means that fossilization of soft-bodied animals is so rare that if we find one, it is celebrated in the scientific community as a huge find. Since 2/3 of all animals that have ever lived are soft bodied, you already have to eliminate 66% from ever being part of the fossil record in any significant way. Add to that the fact that fossilization predominately occurs in the ocean and you eliminate a huge percentage of animals from ever being a part of the fossil record.
Evolutionary dead ends are predicted by the theory of evolution and thus actually support the theory (natural selection).
" we find sometimes MILLIONS of the SAME fossils. in fact finding only ONE copy of a species fossilized is extremely rare. we find copies. copies, copies, copies."
this is exactly what you'd expect though if speciation through evolution is right though. Since you'd have smaller populations of some species (due to fitness) and larger populations of more successful species, you'd expect a larger number of the more successful species to be fossilized (chance/probability). You'd also expect to find more aquatic species due to the fact that most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. Indeed there may be whole species of land animals in which no fossil record has been discovered. By far the most common fossil remains are those of shelled invertebrate sea loving creatures such as snails, corrals, and clams. This is because their shells can sink and become buried even after their body decays.
"No, I would say it would be a miracle if every species to ever have lived was part of the fossil record. Random members of random species fossilizing throughout millions of years seems entirely consistent with the probability rates of fossilization."
now ask yourself if that is what we find in the fossil record?
It is not. of the BILLIONS of extant fossils mankind has discovered in the world over the past century-and-a-half, we have only ever found about 250,000 fossil species. each appears in the fossil record complete and fully functional.
and we find sometimes MILLIONS of the SAME fossils. in fact finding only ONE copy of a species fossilized is extremely rare. we find copies. copies, copies, copies.
but... if, as you just said, " Random members of random species fossilizing throughout millions of years seems entirely consistent with the probability rates of fossilization.", then of the countless TRILLIONS of species necessary to create the speciation existing in the world today and the countless darwinian dead ends...
we should find that nearly every single fossil we find is a unique transitional species.
"you have a problem with the fossil record. "
Actually we don't. A problem would be finding a more complex structure before it's less complex predecessor. However, nothing of the sort has been found. So please do explain the "problem" in the fossil record and stop being cryptic about your points. Just make them.
"ask a chemist how abiogenesis could have occurred. nobody even has a viable theory, yet we are supposed to just believe that something so complex that the greatest scientific minds in the history of the world cannot even figure out a valid THEORY, much less create life in the lab"
You must not be keeping up with the latest science. We have already created synthetic life in the lab.
We have discovered natural processes which create the organic molecules necessary for RNA. We have discovered 2 precursor enzymes called Urzymes. These urzymes were came from very simple peptides. The most important part about the urzymes is that they could have been present BEFORE life. This resolves a lot of the "RNA world" issues like replication accuracy without ribosomes. This issue of replication accuracy has produced the kinds of probability estimates that you claim make abiogenesis impossible. Yet here is the solution to the problem.
"....happened by sheer chance? It is ridiculous. laughably so."
This would be called an argument from incredulity, a special case of the argument from ignorance. Congratulations, your argument is based on a fallacy.
"in fact, I have heard a biologist say that it is a miracle that any given species finds it's way into the fossil record. would you concur?"
No, I would say it would be a miracle if every species to ever have lived was part of the fossil record. Random members of random species fossilizing throughout millions of years seems entirely consistent with the probability rates of fossilization.
How exactly do you believe science supports a global flood? I have yet to see ANY science support a flood that covers the whole planet.
You are removing the need for logic in your explanation with the claim that God doesn't need to follow natural laws. God can make matter out of nothing, create life put of clay, and therefore it works. The problem is that even an unlikely theory is more plausible since it doesn't depend on the assumption that magic was involved.
You keep saying time is our magic bullet, but the only ones using a magic bullet are creationists.
ummm.... where did you get the idea that the pre big bang singularity is spinning? we only know what happened with classical matter and energy milliseconds after the big bang and beyond. we know literally nothing about the conditions before that. spin included.
and what came out of the big bang is energy so hot not even sub atomic particles could not exist until the universe cooled down. all the matter was in its energy form, and do my knowledge, energy doesn't "spin" like matter does.
wow, my really long answer got deleted... what the heck...
About the God of the gaps argument: we don't point out one thing and say God did it. We're trying to say that we got it all together compared to an experimental theory called abiogenesis. Creationism is using current science that is observable to prove creation and the flood. Evolution needs time and that time is supposed to explain how we got here. The Big Bang is not scientific either. A supposed tiny spinning dot like this. exploded and all the matter and galaxies flew away from it. If the dot was spinning clockwise, why are some planets are not spinning clockwise. The law of circular momentum states that when an object spins and breaks apart, its parts spin clockwise. Therefore if the Big Bang is scientific, then all planets would spin clockwise.
that it isn't perfectly complete, therefore throw them all away and pretend we didn't find them?
my point about 'any given species' is that although according to evolutionary thought, there have been untold trillions of species through the epoch of time on this planet, right?
and while it's also believed that fossilization is extraordinarily rare, so rare that it can be said any given species being fossilized is practically a miracle... you have a problem with the fossil record.
can you figure out what that problem is?
time does not make the impossible possible. it's your magic bullet, but time isn't even on your side.
so fossilization, although rare, is explained by the cast multitude of species, even within the most simplest of lines.
abiogenesis is explained by BILLIONS OF YEARS. as opposed to the lottery that can be won weakly, so your analogy is not far off, we agree. it is possible :)
are we talking about fossilization or abiogenesis? can we stick to one topic?
people win the lottery regularly, it happens many times a year, sometimes even weekly. your example about fossilization had the words "ANY GIVEN SPECIES." how many species are there? how many ancestors did they have, how about the ones that don't have offspring today, so many more broken lines of species.
the point of that biologists answer was to counter the everlasting "missing link" argument that demands every possible prehuman species be found and identified before evolution can be considered. your best move was an out of context statement with the hope that the nuance of "ANY GIVEN SPECIES" would go unnoticed.
it was hyperbole. but not by much.
because we are never taught how ridiculous those explanations are. ask a chemist how abiogenesis could have occurred. nobody even has a viable theory, yet we are supposed to just believe that something so complex that the greatest scientific minds in the history of the world cannot even figure out a valid THEORY, much less create life in the lab.... happened by sheer chance?
it is ridiculous. laughably so.
And you base this estimate on what exactly?
Why do you believe it is foolish to believe in the most probable explanation offered?
i have not posited an answer. i am merely showing you the foolishness in believing the answers evolution provides.
it is ok to say 'i don't know'. :)
the odds of winning the lottery are about a billion to the billionth power better than life abiogenesis occurring.
the nation wide mega millions for example
what are the odds of winning the lottery?
You extrapolate incorrectly.
The problem is that you are interpreting questions we cannot yet answer as proof that your answer is correct. Without proof, you cannot claim "God did it" and expect sceptical people to simply accept it.
As to your final statement, being atheistic doesn't require faith in the impossible. It is a lack of faith in God, not any kind of belief system. An atheist could simple not believe in any theory that is not proven, including God.
btw, please answer: you are correct that fossilization is extraordinarily rare. in fact, I have heard a biologist say that it is a miracle that any given species finds it's way into the fossil record. would you concur?
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
you assume evolution is true, therefore evolution must be true. any evidence to the contrary is simply misunderstood.
that is not science, that is religion.
regardless how many generations of bacteria or fruit flies or anything else scientists try to mutate, they never get anything NEW. all mutations are either benign ot malignant, none is ever beneficial.
I extrapolate the uncountable bazillions of generations of bacteria to show that nothing ever comes from bacteria BUT bacteria to show that TIME isn't a magic pill that makes the impossible possible. no matter if you had a billion years to make the millions of genetic mutations necessary to get from a wolf-like creature to a whale, there is not enough time for that ALONE to happen, nevermind getting from a single reproducible amino acid to a human being.
but you believe it must be so, therefore it must be so.
i don't have enough faith in the impossible to be an atheist.
"what did the platypus evolve from"
it evolved from a group of animals called monotremes (genetics tell us the platypus split from the mammalian line about 166 million years ago.....)
"how many generations of the whales ancestor pakicetidae were there before the next species evolved"
This question is nonsensical.....there is no way to tell how many generations of on particular animal there were before a new species evolved. We only have estimates, but we can make some educated guesses on the subject.
What we can know though is that pakicetidae was in fact a cetaceans (the same infra-order as modern whales, thus it is considered the first whale). This was discovered through genetics and of course due to the anatomy of the inner ear. Pakicetidae actually has very little in common with wolves, it was simply a size comparison. Pakicetidae was already a semi-aquatic animal.
Now, lets actually talk time here. Pakicetidae lived around 50 mya. The next distinct evolutionary split we have is Ambulocetidae which lived about 49 mya. So it took at least 1 million yrs to go from Pakicetidae to Ambulocetidae. If we say an average generation is 2 years (2 years from birth to first offspring) we get about 500k generations for this split to occur. Then we move on to Remingtonocetidae which took another 2-5 million years. So we have another 1-2.5 million generations for this split to occur. That brings us to Protocetidae which was another 5 million or so years, so another 2.5 million generations. Then we finally get to Basilosauridae (the first cetacean to be fully aquatic). This took another 2-3 million years so 1-1.5 million generations. Just to go from a semi-aquatic land animal to a fully aquatic animal of the same infraorder took over 5.5 million generations (about 11 million years).
well that depends. evolution depends more on natural pressures than the steady mutations. if the environment is stable, evolution is slower.
idk about whales, but based on fossil record, it took about 20million years for felines and canines to split from their mutual ancestors.
Alright, how many generations of the whales ancestor pakicetidae were there before the next species evolved?
a dog didn't become a whale, dogs only existed a few thousand years.
How many generations do you assume it took for the wolf thingy to evolve into a whale?
lol just for fun, what did the platypus evolve from?
You obviously have no grasp of the timelines involved in regards to evolution. For a prokaryotic cell like a bacteria to become anything but a bacteria it would have to evolve new organelles, a nuclear envelope, we would have to introduce a second type of bacteria (something like an early version of the mitochondria) which would have to co-evolve into forming a symbiotic relationship, you would then need to evolve a form of sexual reproduction, etc... How do you suppose we create enough evolutionary pressures to select for these occurances, and how do you suppose you go about creating an experiment that would run over enough time to actually allow those changes to manifest?
It took the Lenski experiment 31,000 generations (about 14 years) to evolve the ability to metabolize citrate in the lab. So, your argument is simply not a valid critique of evolution due to the timescales involved. You are simply making an argument from ignorance, not fact. Again, please inform yourself on the subject before you spout nonsense.
"....simply because it's the best explanation that ALREADY suits your preconceived world view means that you are willfully ignoring evidence that CONTRADICTS your world view"
So once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. First of, the evolution of the whale is shown to be true from multiple lines of inquiry, meaning that multiple scientific disciplines have shown the evolutionary pathway of the whale. Second, off there is no factual evidence that contradicts evolution as a whole. You are more than welcome to try and find a more complex structure before the existence of it's more simple predecessor. However, no one has been able to do so. It's a fairly simple proposition. It really doesn't take much to disprove evolution.
Bacteria is the simplest form of life that scientists can observe replicate in a lab environment, they can stress and irradiate and try to force mutation on more generations of bacteria in a single year, and in populations of billions or more, yet no bacteria EVER evolves into anything other than A BACTERIA.
That is an undeniable FACT.
that you excuse the EXTREMELY limited population of whales as having evolved from a wolf-like creature simply because it's the best explanation that ALREADY suits your preconceived world view means that you are willfully ignoring evidence that CONTRADICTS your world view in order to maintain said preconceptions.
"why doesn't bacteria ever evolve into anything other than bacteria"
we have some pretty good evidence that they did evolve. Now the notion that all bacteria must evolve into something more complex is absurd and shows you lack the basic understanding about evolution to even ask intelligent questions about the subject. Don't worry kid, I'll school you a bit.
Evolution is the process of new traits being selected for by environmental pressure (natural selection). If becoming more complex doesn't create a competitive edge, then there is no mechanism by which evolution would occur. Now, we have seen bacteria evolve in the lab (i.e. develop new traits) in the Lenski experiment and in the case of nylon eating bacteria.
"how do you really believe that a whale had time to evolve from a 'wolf like creature' in a scant few million years with such a limited population and a 12-15 year maturity time?"
because that's what the evidence suggest. If we look at comparative anatomy, molecular biology, bio-geography, paleontology, embryology, biochemistry, etc.... we see no other explanation, nor have we found any evidence that would falsify evolution.
You seem to lack an understanding as to what types of claims evolutionary biologists make or even the basic principals of evolution....please do some reading on the subject and don't ask stupid questions like "why doesn't bacteria ever evolve into anything other than bacteria?" which you would have known the answer to had you actually studied up on the subject for even just a few days.
you are correct that fossilization is extraordinarily rare. in fact, I have heard a biologist say that it is a miracle that any given species finds it's way into the fossil record. would you concur?
So, first things first. Google is not research. You need to look at scholarly databases to find reliable sources.
Now, let's talk about the fossil fallacy that you're committing. Fossilization is actually a pretty rare process which is why you don't have every transitional fossil that has ever lived. It is either a disingenuous argument or one born out of ignorance. If I show you a transitional fossil between ape and human (call it "x") you now want the transitional fossils between the ape and "x" and between "x" and human. It's a never ending cycle that possibly be satisfied with the fossil record.
So let's look at some skulls then: Here we have Homo rudolfensis. Doesn't look like Homo Sapien at all
We can look at Homo heidelbergensis to see another example of a skull that has no resemblance to homo sapien
here are homo sapiens
"how does the fossil record support evolution?"
Because the way to disprove evolution is very simple. All you have to do is find a structure more complex than it's predecessor anywhere in the fossil record and you would have disproved evolution. Now, if we look at it conversely, every structure ever found has been built from the less complex to the more complex. Meaning that you won't see an eye with a lens before you see one with a retina and so on. You also won't see mammals before reptiles, you won't see any flowers before the cretaceous period, etc...
"Can you prove that evolution is true?"
I can prove that evidence from multiple lines of inquiry have substantiated evolution to a high enough degree of certainty to be called a scientific theory.
bacteria replicate trillions of times each year, if not more. why doesn't bacteria ever evolve into anything other than bacteria?
and if they can have that many generations and literally countless strands in every square cm of the planet.... how do you really believe that a whale had time to evolve from a 'wolf like creature' in a scant few million years with such a limited population and a 12-15 year maturity time?
i look forward to your excuse.
RNA is information. information does not spontaneously erupt.
there is no mechanism in nature whereby information is created out of whole cloth.
iow, you can't get here from there.
If the transitional stages of homo sapiens are true, why aren't there thousands and millions of skeletons? Also, in our current society, the variation in skeletons and skull sizes and shapes are so vast, many of the skulls of the missing links are easily attributed to that. This is a more logical conclusion given that there are very few missing link bones (with most of the body and skull being fabricated out of thin air and not actual bone.) Compare the skulls of africans, asians, australians, and Caucasians and tell me that they don't look like they're missing links. Look it up right now on google. You don't need a big archaeological expedition to do that.
Also, how does the fossil record support evolution?
I understand what macro evolution and micro evolution are. I was just using that comparison to show the absurdity of one species turning into another.
Can you prove that evolution is true?
It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove. You obviously have no background in evolutionary biology since you don't even seem to understand that not all cells are equal (bacteria are very simple compared to eukaryotes for example). We also know of much simpler cell types pre modern bacteria.
Witnessing macro-evolution is also an absurd standard to ask for due to the fact that it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years for speciation to occur. By this statement you are showing your ignorance of the types of evidence supporting evolution, including anatomy, molecular biology, geological evidence, the fossil record, etc...
You should inform yourself on the topic you want to discuss before posting nonsense. Please read some actual scientific literature on the subject before posting or risk being perceived as ignorant on the subject.
Okay, does anyone here even know how complicated a single cell is? Also, nobody has witnessed Evolution occur, so therefore it is in the realm of philosophy, not Science. I believe in adaptation, but I don't believe in a cat becoming a dog.
I simply believe the data. All the modeling data tells us that even given perfect parameters and perfect mating you'd need at least 50 individuals (50/500 rule).
If you were to bring it down to that number, you'd need every woman to have as many children as possible, with as many men as possible. The breeding would have to be monitored and assigned based on genetic markers though. You also couldn't have anyone dying prematurely for several generations. So, even in the most extreme cases, I don't see how you could possibly make a case that is consistent with the science that could get you anywhere near 2 individuals being the start of our species.
There is simply no reconciliation between the inbreeding and genetic variation needed to keep a species as complex as us alive.
As to the genetic mutation and detrimental traits. I think you're missing the fact that many mutations lead to cancers and diseases like Huntington's (cancers being the most common). Many viral infections have been shown to cause cancer as well. You're also simple dismissing scientific evidence with "I believe our genes are more stable then you believe". I believe in the data and what it shows me when it comes to molecular evidence for evolution, nothing else. So you'll have to actually find some data, not a set of believes, to dismiss the MVP evidence.
oh, I am not making a God claim. I'm just considering the hypothetical possibility of a 2 person bottleneck surviving in an ideal gene scenario.
you stated 64 mutations per generation. the majority of them are neutral, but even the detrimental ones are hardly fatal the majority of the time. we have sufficient redundancy so now you would have to take a fraction of the detrimental factors that affect something actually vital.
overwriting a few of the sugar materializing proteins would be no big deal. even for ancient humans food was not difficult to come by, our intellect lead to the (not fully proven but imo extremely logical) overkill hypothesis and the known lightning fast spread throughout much of the land area of the planet. til this day being efficient with sugar (slow metabolism) is something we would rather do without (1st world).
that was an extreme example where we would prefer the detriment, however it shows it can affect small things that we can survive without handicap. also not all detriments are full detrimental. less color vision may impede spotting poison fruit, but improves night time hunting ability. a weakness can be a strength depending.
I believe our genes are more stable then you believe, and assuming a perfect start (which is obviously wrong outside of a God scenario) a man and a woman, might survive.
obviously the odds are against them. not only disease, but getting eaten or just cracking your head on a rock while running would wipe them out, but given luck, it is possible.
Yes, these mutation rates are for gametes, and these are extrapolated from averages through multiple generations. So I'd say it's fair to say those rates are comparable to rates in early humans. Even if we take very conservative numbers and say that we needed only 2k individuals to maintain a population (less than half of most estimates) you'd still have to make a huge leap to try and get to a world with only two individuals establishing a population.
The other way we can definitely say that we have evolved is the fact that we can find evidence of interbreeding between different hominoid species. So we know that homosapiens bred with Neanderthals. The molecular evidence supports this to a pretty high degree of certainty.
It would be really hard to argue that God created Adam and Eve and then created a less evolved species of humans just so we can interbreed with them and then have them killed off.
I never said they werent. I said neutral mutations dwarf both of them.
You are mistaken. Detrimental mutations are far more common than beneficial.
the complexity issue is true, but humans are different. I'm not referencing technological accomplishments of even ancient history. I'm referencing their rise to domination of all land areas well before prehistory resulting in the mass extinction of all the megafauna outside of africa.
the ability to adapt to so many environments in such a short time and to dominate all other forms of animal life is very rare. their intellect will increase the chances a catastrophe will not wipe them out even without large numbers. many animals can migrate from a catastrophe, few can so easily adapt to completely different environments and climates without special evolutionary adaptations.
of course they can't escape disease, but we are assuming a perfect creation with no abnormalities to begin with. also in our industrial, chemical, and to some effect nuclear world, was our mutation rate as high back before industry?
and finally. you are right that positive mutations are exceptionally rare, but to put detrimental into the same level as neutral is misleading. the rate of detrimental is far closers to the rate of benefital, with neutral mutations being the by far most common type. most of those mutations are inconsequential.
I'm also assuming your mutation rates are for gametes, not somatic cells as those mutations mean absolutely nothing beyond the specific individual.
mvp must be an average"
It is. Obviously, the more complex the organism and the more time between generations, the more individuals you need for a population to be viable.
"whereas humans can use their intelligence to increase their odds"
Maybe in a few decades when we can reliably cure genetic diseases, but if we're talking about people back in pre-stone age, no. There is nothing they could have done to overcome the detrimental effects of inbreeding or genetic drift. We could have overcome certain environmental factors, but not genetics.
"the alterations in the gene would be gradual. and may grow as the population grows. are you certain genetic vulnerability will happen before sufficient diversity?"
A human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations/generation. So within just two generations you'd have about 128 mutations, the majority of which occur on the male side. This works out to a rate of about 2.5x10^-8 per basepair.
The mitochondrial DNA mutates faster, about 2.7x10^-5.
Unfortunately, the majority of mutations are detrimental or neutral rather than beneficial. So you can very quickly have either a maternal or paternal line which is no longer viable in small populations.
Since only the paternal line can pass down the y chromosome, a population with a bad y chromosome is doomed. The maternal line is the only way to pass down mitochondrial DNA, a bad mutation in that line (given a small enough population) also means extinction.
DNA viruses and bacteria have a mutation rate similar to the male sperm rate. RNA viruses are closer to mitochondrial rates. However, a human generation is about 20 years, while viral and DNA viruses have a generational timeline of about 20-30 minutes.
So without a sufficient population to keep up with viral and bacterial mutation rates and adaptation, we'd be wiped out by disease pretty quickly.
There are a bunch of MVP studies out there for various reasons (multi-generational space travel, extinction events, etc...) Most of these analysis shows that humans would need about 10k individuals to be left in the population in a mass extinction event in order for our species to survive for more than 40 generations. That number can be cut to 500 in the absence of disease and with selective breeding (I.e. individuals are paired based on genetics). So at bare minimum, with genetic testing and modern medicine you need at least 500 individuals closely who are closely monitored for many generations.
the mvp must be an average as it will most definitely be different for different species. insects for example survive through sheer numbers often, whereas humans can use their intelligence to increase their odds. thus I think an mvp set specifically for humans could be much lower.
I'm not following the genetic drift section, but I'll just Google it for more context before responding.
however the God created gene pool... the alterations in the gene would be gradual. and may grow as the population grows. are you certain genetic vulnerability will happen before sufficient diversity?
"there have been shrinks in gene pools in numerous species in history. dubbed bottleneck events, although I doubt it was ever reduced to 2 individuals"
Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. Minimum viable population is usually estimated as the population size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95 percent probability of survival between 100 and 1,000 years into the future.
An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.
"correct me if I'm wrong but inbreeding doesn't actually create problems. it magnifies existing ones."
This is sort of true. Inbreeding causes genetic issues to be magnified in a small population, so you'll have higher rates of genetic diseases (in humans that would be things like Lupus, huntington's, etc...) So while inbreeding doesn't itself cause an issue, a population of less than 50 will go extinct with certainty due to the magnification effect of genetic diseases. The other factor is genetic drift (random changes in gene frequencies). To correct for genetic drift, you need at least 500 individuals in a population. Combining the two factors you get what is called the "50/500 rule".
"if God created them with no gene abnormalities, and a sufficient immunity, (which he would) the lack of diversity may not be an issue"
even if this was the case, God would have to constantly modify genes for multiple generations as mutations would occur in both people and pathogens (a person with AIDS typically has 8 different strains of HIV due to the rapid rate of mutation, the flu mutates even faster). So, you'd not only need an initially perfect population, but also constant upkeep.
would you like to see more recent evidence for evolution?
the more technical evidence is all over the place. every aspect of biology comes together logically with the evolutionary explanation. however there was a recent show that summed up the basic reasons and concepts quite effectively.
it was episode 2 of "the cosmos" with Neil degrass tyson. it doesn't go to deep, but also avoids all the technical lingo. it's a great place to start.
it's very obvious that you haven't kept up with the research surrounding abiogensis. Statements like "some evolutionists believe that we came from a rock." is proof of this. You really need to actually do research on the subject instead of reading nonsense from religious websites and blogs that misrepresent the views of evolutionary biologists.
Please go look at academic sources before you try and spout nonsense like "textbooks use Haeckel's diagrams as proof for evolution" when we have molecular biology organizing the phylogenetic tree.
I agree. I'll provide some context to my claims.
planetary seeding is not actually that controversial of a theory.
You can see Ceres has been found to have plenty of organic compounds which is why I brought up planetary seeding as an alternative explanation to an earth based abiogensis.
But if we focus on earth based abiogensis, I agree that the process was similar to evolution in that simple molecules begat more complex molecules.
RNA isn't really as difficult an issue as you'd think. We have a pretty good understanding of pre-RNA structure. The bigger issue is the replicating enzyme. Since ribosomes didn't exist yet, we need a precursor catalyst. We are getting a lot closer to that as well though too. We have discovered 2 precursor enzymes called Urzymes. These urzymes were came from very simple peptides. The most important part about the urzymes is that they could have been present BEFORE life. This resolves a lot of the "RNA world" issues like replication accuracy without ribosomes. This issue of replication accuracy has produced the kinds of estimates that we see about it taking ".... much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication". The discovery of urzymes resolves this temporal issue.
Let's forget about this Haeckel argument. It would have been reasonable if you were currently using it as scientific evidence.
what textbook are you referring to?
the diagram looks decent. it is missing both bacteria and fungi.
why would an outdated theory from 100 years ago be used as a notable defense now?
OK, I looked it up. He attempted to create a "tree of life" connecting species through shared ancestors. Not sure how that helps your case. His beliefs shared some aspects with current scientific consensus, and had some differences which have since been dismissed (such as that human races evolved separately in parallel). Could you provide a link to why he is a fraud rather than an early scientist who built a model on the information available at the time, some of which has been shown to have been incorrect.
no one believes we came from a rock and I've never heard of a diagram of haeckel.
are you getting your information about evolution from the same sites/people you get your anti evolution information from?
Why do textbooks use Haeckel's diagrams as proof for evolution? I have no problem with evolutionists trying to find evidence but I have a problem with using frauds to prove evolution to the next generation.
It's simple logic. The Bible says God spoke and everything came together. It might not sound as scientific as evolution but it beats what some evolutionists believe that we came from a rock.
there have been shrinks in gene pools in numerous species in history. dubbed bottleneck events, although I doubt it was ever reduced to 2 individuals.
correct me if I'm wrong but inbreeding doesn't actually create problems. it magnifies existing ones. someone with a recessive abnormality will be guaranteed to get 2 copies of it and show it generation after generation while dominant abnormalities are reinforced with both Genes exhibiting them.
also they will be vulnerable to a disease since there wouldn't be any "resistant" people as all are the same and the species can be wiped out. it is definitely a disadvantage but may not be a de facto death sentence. as the population grows and mutations happen over time, problems should subside.
so if God created them with no gene abnormalities, and a sufficient immunity, (which he would) the lack of diversity may not be an issue. although the claim that he created the earth before the stars is a bit... silly.
I am hoping that @christian will respond to my point that the Bible leaves out HOW God created life, and that it in no way negates that he could simply work his magic through the natural processes he created.
While there are people with multiple strands of DNA (chimera see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) for information) that would not help to prevent inbreeding issues of such a limited population, and I have never seen or heard of any evidence of individuals with increased genetic load able to spread that load to create a viable population has ever been found. If you have something, I would be interested to see it.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
About genetic inbreeding: Adam and Eve didn't have the same genetic load we have today.
i do like to take the opportunity to Have a discussion within science whenever possible.
I believe abiogenesis would be subject to forces similar to evolution and natural selection. in our ignorance of the actual event we try not to think of it in detail and think of it like a sudden event, yet much like everything else in biology I believe it would be a slow and steady event with no defined borders.
my preferred hypothesis is from the protein up, where a semi unstable preRNA molecular would go though gradual changes thru mutations (evolution) in a battle for limited resources (loose atoms/molecules) which results in natural selection, gradual perfecting the best molecules and reactions to develop life, which results in even better ability to gather needed resources.
you confused Zues with atlas.
I've heard a similar scientific explanation to the creation of the universe. they (Stephen hawking) made the case that it might be useless to ask what came before the universe because time was created with the universe and there was no before the universe (since terms like before and after involve relative time)
to both you and Stephen hawking I say the same thing. without time how can you have events. if there was no time before the universe, then the event of creation would never happen. events have to happen in time. if God exists outside of time, then the event of creation, or any other action he would take would never occur since there is no "time" within which it would occur.
I believe the whole concept of "outside of time" to be utterly ludicrous and I hope you acknowledge my equal opportunity application of that to both scientific hypotheses and religious explanations. God may exist in his own space/time which may be separate or greater than ours, but no actions can happen without time.
regardless. the natural explanation is very compelling as well. when the bible states God created the universe and life... does it detail how? no! then why would it be so absurd to believe he worked through the natural processes he created? a system of constant improvement is as close to perfection as anything can be in this imperfect world, so evolution would be the logical tool of a perfect being.
The same logic as applied to inbreeding.
I don't doubt there have been floods. But there is no evidence of the catastrophic, world covering flood depicted. Smaller floods happen constantly, but the genetic diversity of the world and the geological records show that there could not have been a flood covering the whole planet.
The date given for the flood is around 2000 BC most places I have seen. That is roughly the same as the building of the earliest pyramids. How would that work? It would have happened sometime between the bronze/copper age and the iron age. How did technological development continue if everyone died except Noah and his family?
Adam and Eve
Logic. If you and your wife were the only people, you have kids. Your sons then have sex with your daughters. Their kids, all your grandkids, pair off and have more kids. The amount of genetic diversity leads to severe inbreeding.
If you have disproven Adamson and Eve and Noah's flood, I like to see your argument.
"Can evolution be correct without abiogenesis?"
Absolutely. Since evolution is a matter of speciation, not origin, you don't need abiogenesis for it to function. So, if you had life occur synthetically for example (some alien race creates cells and seeds the universe for example) evolution can still be true. If you have conditions on another planet that is more conducive to producing organic molecules and has parameters more suitable for their interactions and you get some kind of planetary seeding event (asteroid) you can still have evolution occurring on earth without ever having abiogenesis happening on earth. So evolution and abiogensis are connected sure, but one is not dependent on the other.
In essence, the theory of evolution stands even without a complete theory of abiogensis.
"Is it logical to think that life was created by God or life came from non life"
sure, but it is not logical in insert "God" just because we don't have an answer to the question of abiogensis yet. In fact, it seems very illogical to forego abiogensis without first proving "God" created life. I would argue that to claim that "God" created life is a much bigger jump in logic than saying some form of abiogensis occurred somewhere on earth or in the universe (the latter must also have a seeding event of course).
The reason that I think it is more logical to accept abiogenesis as the default position is simple logic/probability. I can point you to a million phenomena that on their surface appear divine (and were thought to be the work of the divine at some point in human history), but have been found to have natural causes. There is not one instance you can point to, with certainty, that can only be the work of the divine.
So if we're looking at sheer probability here, I'd say that abiogenesis, while still a ways off from being a comprehensive theory, has more evidence behind it than intelligent design does. Abiogensis also makes the least amount of assumptions about the nature of the universe (following Occam's razor). Abiogensis is also a natural explanation to the issue of life and that certainly is the predominant trend of causation in the universe.
If you want to argue against Evolution, you have to argue against it on it's own merits and data. You can't simply point out an unknown and go "but we don't know this portion, therefore God". That is called the "God of the gaps fallacy". Fallacies are errors in logic which lead you to wrong answers.
We have also disproven Adam and Eve and Noah's flood.
That is my problem with organized religions. My views of them are no different than their views of any other religion. I doubt Christianity the same way Christians doubt Hinduism or Greek mythologies. I ask for proof and for explanations for why somethings in the religious dogma is contradicted by observable facts.
well on zeus we have disproven him by finding no giant man hiding the earth on his back.
on Ra thats all about good deeds so it is debatable if u believe right and wrong aren't absolute.
don't know anything about this one.
But that them begs the question, do you mean Zeus, Ra, or Viracocha?
@ Psych Dave
We can't pray the frog back to life. God made the frog in the first place and I think He knows how to put it back together. On the other hand, some evolutionists believe that we came from a prebiotic soup. So the frog example is a good example of this.
You have the wrong conception of God. If God was limited by time, space and matter, then your question would defeat my argument. But if God is not limited by time, space and matter, it is not appropriate to ask who created God because God created time.
If you put that frog in blender, can you pray it back into being a frog? If not, how does that lend your argument any validity?
hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen.
I Would honestly say nonlife.
we have good understanding of the mechanisms that create the complex molecules that compose life. while proof of what specifically happened eludes us, we can imagine several scenarios in which it would happen.
however, if the God answer begs the question, who created god? how did this sentient hyper intelligent being come to existence, or by what logic could he have always been there. that's a leap of faith.
you blend a frog, you won't get frogs out of it, but with energy input, time, and proper density (so they interact) you will get some sort of life. probably bacteria like. all the ingredients are there. most life is just H,C, and O. fats, sugars, proteins, and all pretty much just those 3 naturally reactive elements.
We evidence that non-life exists, so it is more likely.
Is it logical to think that life was created by God or life came from non life.
Can evolution be correct without abiogenesis? I'm not saying that evolution is the same as abiogenesis but I'm saying that evolution needs abiogenesis in order to begin with.
What you're asking for is a theory of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the theory of speciation not life. So the principals of evolution don't apply to abiogenesis.
While you are correct, that abiogenesis and evolution go hand in hand (to some degree); you are wrong when you try to equivocate the two or when you try to use abiogenesis to disprove evolution. There is nothing that keeps the theory of evolution from being true without a working theory of abiogenesis.
As for the state of a theory of abiogenesis, we don't have one. It's as simple as that. We simply don't know yet. However, we do have some pretty good leads and some good research on the subject coming out. We have already created synthetic life in labs. That is to say we made living, reproducing cells with just the building blocks of life.
We have also discovered various natural processes that produce organic molecules necessary for life. We have also discovered simple proteins capable of RNA replication. We have found RNA only bacteria. So we have discovered natural processes to make the building blocks for RNA, we have discovered natural processes for organizing cell membranes, natural processes for RNA replication. The only thing really left to do is to put it all together.
So, if your only reservation about evolution is a separate theory, your criticism is weak at best.
well to begin with. no one can explain it. many say they know, and many of them don't agree with each other either. but so far only one has put forth even hints of evidence to this mystery.
we are not all knowing beings, if we had all the answers, science would have been dead.
there are several hypothesis regarding the very beginning. however they are currently about as valid as your story. just like the big bang, we know from a certain point forward very well, but the very starts are still a mystery.
If you put a frog in a blender and pour it out, will you be able to make a frog again? You have all the materials and the cells. Try to make it come alive with electricity and other stuff. If evolution is true, how did we get life from non life? Some people tells me that's not part of evolution but can people who believe in evolution explain this?
2 interesting recent developments which fit well with evolution but not so much with a designer are the gut brain and the microbiome. I mention these together because it is the interplay that really raises the biggest issue with a creator.
the gut brain is a recent uncovering of massive amounts of neural gatherings around the gut. almost as much as in our actual brain.
the microbiome is the part of us that isn't us. and apparently most of us isn't us. I've seen estimates from 50% to 95% of our cells are not our cells, and do not have our dna. mostly bacteria. and the vast majority of them live in our gut.
the connection comes in when we change the variety and quantity of the bacteria in our gut it can change not only how our bodies function, but how we act and behave.
so if these foreign bodies influence our very thoughts.... what happened to the soul? why would a creator make such a convoluted system intentionally (unless he created evolution from common ancestry and this is the natural result of that, there is no conceivable reason to make such a system from scratch as is)
the gut brain has many other functions besides following bacterial orders, and the microbiome is so much more than just our gut, being everything from an extra layer of protection on our skin and other membranes to being central to our immunity throughout our lymph nodes and other areas. but this interplay is quite fascinating.
1 particular species of bacteria seems to make us more fearless. people with it tend to enjoy extreme sports like sky diving or tend to Jay walk a lot etc. the full extent is still being researched.
well there is one example of life simplifying. viruses. of course this is on going research, but the prevailing hypothesis is that bacteria evolved first, and some may have shed some genes in order to simplify and specialize into viruses. however, macroscopic life has never done that.
it's also very possible to regress, not through evolution, but a mass extinction that wipes out say... all mammals, or all multicellular life. life will have to start from the simpler surviving lifeforms.
Evolution is a fairly settled theory. However, there is still plenty of evidence coming out each month on the subject. If you look for more specific topics, you'll likely find more recent evidence. If you search for molecular evidence for example, you'll find a lot more of the recent research. Phylogenetics also constantly shed new light on evolution, reclassifying relationship based on genetic markers rather than physical appearance.
Evolution has evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which makes it significantly more robust, but also means you have to know which lines of inquiry are the most recent.
As for evidence against evolution, there is a very easy way to disprove evolution. All you have to do is find a more complex form before a less complex form. So if you see an animal that has an eye with a lense before any animal had evolved retinas, you'd have evidence against evolution. This goes for any structure. If you can find a more complex version before a simpler version evolved, then you'd have disproven evolution.
However, no animal or plant with more complex structures has ever been found that lived before it's more simple predecessor.
I was talking more specifically on evolution but I do love biology as well.
are you looking for specifically evolution or general advancements in biology?
will look now. I have looked a couple months but I like to check up and see.
you asked if official scientific research is pursuing new evidence... so I asked if you looked into the new research or just assumed it didn't exist. I wasn't referring to personal research.
I don't have the resources. I search in my life to gather evidence of any kind and compile it but I will be far less successful Than a group of scientist with funding
there is only 1 time when legitimate science does look for specific evidence, but not for a theory but against one, as part of the peer review process. definitely not during original research tho.
that's not how science works...
science doesn't "look" for evidence. especially not for or against a specific theory. that's how fake pseudoscience like intelligent design work. they seek confirming evidence that matches what they believed before. the scientific method was designed specifically to stop such a fraudulent approach.
science asks questions, and then devises experiments or studies that objectively answer the questions.
then they fit those answers (the evidence) into the larger picture which includes all the other evidence and come up with a theory to explain it.
and then comes the peer review... which can be vicious.
so no, there has been no "searching for evidence of evolution". there has been more digging for fossils. not to prove evolution, but because they are there and we are curious. why? how? when? etc. but I'm more interested in other subjects like virology and the microbiome that are blooming fields with groundbreaking discoveries. their results, along with all other findings in all fields of biology, fit seamlessly into the evolutionary model... not so well with any other model.
my question to you is, did you not find any search for evidence? or did you not look?
In which case there isn't a right or wrong answer (barring those that have been disproven). I have no issues with faith,as long as it is not ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
but what happens when u cannot find any evidence but need answers? there will always be questions that at that time have no definitive answer and so must be based on ur opinion.
Fair enough. There is a quote that sums up why I have more faith in scientists than religious leaders.
When asked what it what would or could change his mind, Ken Ham said that, as a Christian, nothing could. When asked the same question, Bill Nye said evidence.
I am paraphrasing since both gave longer responses, but that is essentially how I form my opinions. If you present me with evidence that somethings I believe is wrong, I will look at it. If it proves to me that my belief is wrong, I will change it. I have no choice since otherwise I am lying to you and to myself. It does take sufficient evidence to disprove my current belief, which is why a single murderer doesn't prove to me that all people are bad, but I can and have changed my beliefs when confronted with new evidence.
idk. sometimes it seems pushed to support it. not that I don't in a way. as we have talked about. it makes me wonder and ponder so that is why I am here
It isn't that no one is looking anymore. Scientists are constantly researching anything we don't have an answer to or anything we don't have a thorough understanding of. The various associated disciplines are constantly trying to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. New fossils, geological evidence, genetics, and every other branch of science is constantly seeking to expand our understanding. So far, all available evidence supports evolution.
is anyone searching for evidence? it seems the science community is content with this. I would prefer it to search deeper. gather more and more evidence.
can anyone point to an alternative explanation with evidence behind it?
we got only a few elements from the big bang. mostly helium. the rest were cooked up using fusion in the center of stars, and then spread out into new solar systems after an explosive supernova.
Again, elements have nothing to do with evolution since they are not living. So that is a different topic. You should know this if you had a basic understanding of evolution.
You're criticism of nylon eating bacteria also seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. A new trait appeared from a genetic mutation I.e. frameshift mutation (one of several types of mutations) which introduced a new trait which can be passed down through different generations and is beneficial to the species. That is evolution.
You are simply moving the goal posts here.
As for observable speciation due to mutations
Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein “key” on the surface of sperm that binds to a “lock” on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm. The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed.
Sickle cell anemia is another good example of a mutation causing a new trait (immunity to Malaria).
Mutation doesn't have to add information to be relevant to evolution, although the HOX gene is a great example of added information into the genome.
About the elements: how did we get all these elements from the big bang?
About the nylon eating bacteria: isn't that an example of adapting to the environment
It adaptation tells us it could adapt to the environment, not evolving
So since you didn't address any of my points I'm going to assume you accept them without repute.
Obviously elements are inorganic and thus not subject to evolution. You should know this if you had even the most basic understanding of evolution.
Now, as to your new traits argument.
New traits can be established through selective pressures which over time cause extreme adaptations like the giraffe's neck and heart. New traits can also come about through mutation.
One of the best examples is that of flavobacterium sp. k172, also know as the "nylon eating bacteria". The ability to digest nylon (a synthetic substance not present before the industrial age) came about through a frame shift mutation causing the creation of a new trait.
So since you didn't address any of my points I'm going to assume you accept them without repute.
Obviously elements are inorganic and thus not subject to evolution. You should know this if you had even the most basic understanding of evolution.
Now, as to your new traits argument.
New traits can be established through selective pressures which over time cause extreme adaptations like the giraffe's neck and heart. New traits can also come about through mutation.
One of the best examples is that of flavobacterium sp. k172, also know as the "nylon eating bacteria". The ability to digest nylon (a synthetic substance not present before the industrial age) came about through a frame shift mutation causing the creation of a new trait.
So where is the problem?
So half a wing has a purpose. So does our seemingly vestigial organs.
I gave you a link explaining essentially what you are looking for. Did you read it?
But no new information is added. Information is either duplicated or scrambled.
Single generations, absolutely. Over hundreds, thousands or millions of generations, minor changes add up.
Natural selection can only select genes it can only select from. Cockroaches can become resistant to pesticides but it would never become resistance to a sledgehammer. Mutations have limits.
Again, cars and planes are inanimate and cannot evolve at all. That is a flawed analogy.
As better question would be about the evolution of wings in birds, insects and mammals.
Elements don't evolve. They are inanimate.
How did all the elements evolve?
To ask for macro-evolution as an observable phenomenon is to ask the impossible. It is a intellectually dishonest or at least ignorant standard to ask for. Since macro-evolution happens over many generations, it is impossible to observe. How do you suppose a species (like us) who has been around for only a couple of hundred thousand years should observer macro-evolution which takes millions of years? How could observation be a fair standard of evidence?
There is however plenty of evidence of macro-evolution in genetics.
Studies like this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003350020026
Show that multiple phyla are actually related through genetics.
Can you dispute genetic evidence for evolution?
Can you dispute the fossil record showing you the evolutionary steps of wings (without using the god of the gaps fallacy?).
Molecular biology shows us how plants evolved from bacteria to be capable of photosynthesis
How do you dispute these lines of inquiry?
Evolution is about more than macro-evolution and our understanding of it is far greater than just observational science. We can actually do regressive DNA analysis and figure out just how long ago a common ancestor lived. So we can in fact find what are affectionately called mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam. The strength of the theory of evolution, even granting the obsurd criticism of non-observation remains strong through different lines of evidence.
Can you please show me any evidence that evolution didn't occur? Genetics, complex structures being found before their predecessors (I.e. seeing a mammal fossil in a geological layer before they could have evolved, etc...).
There is a difference. You are assuming that since microevolution is reality so macroevolution is true over a long period of time but microevolution has limits. Microevolution is a theory. It hasn't been observed. But microevolution or variations is a fact because it has been observed many times. What Darwin saw is microevolution or variations in birds.
Horses might change to a zebra over a long period of time but the change will only be limited to similar kinds like donkeys. It will not fly.
So, you accept that small incremental changes happen naturally over time, you agree that these changes occur due to natural pressures (natural selection), you agree that these changes differentiate "variations" of the same "kind", I assume that you agree that these changes can eventually cause reproductive isolations between "variations"(speciation).
Essentially you agree with evolution except that you don't use the term species, you use the term "variations" and the word "kinds" rather than class.
You're argument seems to simply be one of definition. Do you have any actual argument against evolution except for terminology? Because at this point your opposition to evolution seems rather weak.
These changes can happen naturally because they are adapting to the environment.
You're just replacing species with variation and class with kind in the phylogenetic tree.
Do you believe that small incremental changes occur in a varieties over time and do you believe that these changes occur naturally?
A bird is a kind of animal.
So, are hawks a variation of a grey-jay? how do you differentiate between species vs variation?
Variations in birds like longer wings or Darwin's bird beaks.
what is the difference between variation and species in your opinion. Since no scientific literature defines, acknowledges, or deals in "variation", what is your definition and why is it more reasonable to view life through "variation" rather than "species"? What about reproductive isolation between variations? Why does it exist and how does it fit into your theory of "variation"?
are you talking variations such as different species of cats? differences among cats?
I'm not quite sure exactly what your referring to so I can't quite address your point.
what kind of variations?
and what causes those variations?
I believe things that we see today as variations.
I was hoping to pursue this topic that you ressurected.
do you believe in "micro-evolution" only?
If you honestly want to understand more about the evidence supporting evolution, here are some resources.
For specifically human evolution
We have a fossil record of millions of years of small changes leading to big changes.
yeah, but highways only existed a few decades... keep adding up those changes over centuries, millenia, eons.
let me guess, you believe in "microevolutions" only?
That's proof of variation no kidding. But its still a bird.
we have seen, and understand the mechanisms that are involved in mutation of genes. we have even edited DNA ourselves already.
an example of evolution in action is the shrinking of wings in several bird species that live near highways.
You claim to have evidence. Perhaps you could show me?
Evolution is also supported by all scientific evidence to date.
that is the better way to say it.
*evolution was discovered using the process of science.
evolution is based on the process called science