Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

Reply to 1. Abiogenesis is the attempt to create life from the elements under conditions which replicate early earth primordial soup oceans. It has never been done, so there is no solid evidence - only speculation - that life arose spontaneously. God is not a permitted factor in Science, so big bang is the best that can be said for life's origins on earth.

abiogenesis
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

I would emphasise that the use of the word evolution is not in the sense of evolutionary biology - it's merely referring to the change from one state to another.
(basically the original emergence of life from inorganic substances.)

Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.

Worthy of debate on a religious discussion forum.
Not considered worthy of debate in any serious biology or general scientific research.

Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution through natural selection, if it is so clearly false or unevidenced? (87% for natural selection specifically, 97% for evolution in this study)
(http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ ... er-issues/)

Reply to 3. The website you reference indicates only final species, not transitional species. Darwin believed there must be many intermediate species before a new specie would emerge. Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the failure to find intermediate species. "But what if the�links [necessary in the paleontological record for Darwin�s theory of evolution] are missing not only from the world of the present but of the past as well? �What geologists� [have discovered] was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. (46) Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediaries must have been immense (48).� According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years.� Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary��the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next.� (51)"

Once again, you call them final species.
Calling them final species is already taking evolution as false.
There are no 'final species' in evolution, except the ones that die out without descendants.

It's analogous to looking at a family tree, saying that each family member is was created as a final person, and then saying that reproduction is a myth.

How do you know that they're final species?
Do you accept that they share similarities with other species?
Do you accept that some species appear transitional in both physiology, genetics and timing?

(Birds evolved from dinosaurs... not the other way around. That's probably why there's no evidence of birds to dinosaurs. @ your response to star, relevant to the example)
E.g. that the archeopteryx - which looks kinda like a dinosaur and kinda like a bird - lived in the time after dinosaurs had appeared and before birds had appeared.

Reply to 4. Read Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. �Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.� Nature, 31-36 to find out about Mitochondrial Eve, the unique ancestor of all human females and read Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. �Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.� Science 268: 1183-1185 to find out about Y-chromosomal Adam, the unique ancestor of all human males.
Obviously when the human species began, there would have been less than 1000 - like 2. You can speculate all you want, but that's not what the data reveals.
kenblogton

No, there were not 2 humans at any time. This is a misunderstanding of evolution. If there were 2 humans, the human race would almost certainly have died out within a very short time. How could this possibly have worked? Would they have been babies without parents, surviving the plains of Africa against lions and other such carnivores?

When we talk of the recent common ancestor, this means that the other people living in their time either didn't have children, or their children died off, or their children's children, etc. Their descendants, at some point, stopped, while the RCA's descendants are still going.

First, what you appear to be thinking of is a the recent common ancestor.
Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam are the Matrilineal and Patrilineal recent common ancestors (respectively) - not the literal recent common ancestors.
Mitochondrial Eve, as wikipedia puts it "This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. "
(She's called mitochondrial eve because mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother without mix with the father - it's similar for Y Chromosome Adam, as the y chromosome only comes from the father)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg

They're believed to have lived anywhere from 100-200 (eve) and 100-600 (adam) thousand years ago.
The most recent common ancestor on the other hand could be as recent as 5 thousand years - because they don't need an unbroken line of mothers or fathers for this title. Not only this, but no kind of Recent Common Ancestor supports your ideas - the reason they're called recent common ancestors is because they had parents who had parents who had parents. If you're thinking of an oldest common ancestor from whom all humans ever descend then you're out of luck, unless you subscribe to evolutionary theory, in which case it wouldn't be a human (see last universal ancestor).

Second Reply to 1. My original point was that abiogenesis, the simulation of spontaneous life generation, has never occurred. You have avoided the point!

Second reply to 2. Why so many scientists believe in evolution is obvious: it permits a naturalistic explanation for the different species and avoids the necessity for God! Perhaps you should ask yourself why so many people believe in God?

Second reply to 3. Final species or viable species are species that are fit enough to survive; intermediate species are not fit enough to survive, which is why they are intermediate or transitional species.

Second reply to 4. That there were never 2 original humans is neither a misunderstanding of evolution or of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam. All species start somewhere with 1 or 2 specimens, as your quote states "back until all lines converge on one person." That's where all homo sapiens originated.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1301 by Danmark]

Johnson's Darwin on Trial references all solid data sources. Asking for a peer review of the book from an evolution believer is like asking for a balanced or neutral review of the Bible from an atheist.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1306 by Danmark]
Clearly you don't understand intermediate species and the logic of evolution. Intermediate species are transitional' but not fit enough to survive, and so are replaced by fit enough to survive species.
To use pejorative comments to discredit a source is not the scientific approach. The author provides evidence; the scientific approach is to provide evidence disputing the findings, not an attack on the author.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

.

Reply to 1. Abiogenesis is the attempt to create life from the elements under conditions which replicate early earth primordial soup oceans. It has never been done, so there is no solid evidence - only speculation - that life arose spontaneously.

Sure enough, we don't know how life originated. Some biologists and physicists who actually study such things have offered several hypotheses – none of which have been verified.

Many religionists who do NOT study such things have claimed KNOWLEDGE (based on reading an ancient text by unknown religion promoters expressing opinions and telling stories about supposed supernatural entities and events).

The only reason this topic comes up in debate outside advanced professional level, that I can see (correct me if I am wrong), is when Theists attempt to claim to know that their favorite god originated life – and follow that with "since you can't show how life began its origin MUST be my favorite god."

Many do much the same regarding origin of the universe – "If you can't prove how the universe formed it must have been that God did it, just as my ancient text says."

Could religion promoters be right? Of course that is possible – and it is also possible that someone who has never played golf could win the Master's.

God is not a permitted factor in Science,

Correction: God WOULD be a "permitted factor in science" IF any of the proposed "gods" could be shown to be involved. Speculation, opinion, and unverified ancient stories are not accepted in science or reasoned debate.

so big bang is the best that can be said for life's origins on earth.

Correction: "Big Bang" is an hypothesis about the origin of the universe – NOT the origin of life on Earth.

Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.

Correction: EVERY species is an "intermediate species" because life forms change through the process known as evolution (genetic change through generations).

Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediaries must have been immense

Many Theists are STILL attempting to debate Darwin – who died 150 years ago. Perhaps they do not realize that during the century and a half a great deal of research has been conducted by thousands of scientists and that many advances in knowledge have developed without most Theists participating or even being aware.

Obviously when the human species began,

HOW, exactly, did the human species begin? Based on what evidence? Are you (generic term) jumping back and forth between Theology and Science looking for any possible support for preconceived notions?

You not too cleverly miss the point. The point is that there is no solid data-based scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, of life, and of the different species. Deists and theists have an explanation which pejorative comments do not refute, they only avoid.
You also misunderstand Science as indicated by the following:
kenblogton wrote:

God is not a permitted factor in Science,

Zzyzx wrote: Correction: God WOULD be a "permitted factor in science" IF any of the proposed "gods" could be shown to be involved. Speculation, opinion, and unverified ancient stories are not accepted in science or reasoned debate.

kenblogton replied: Science is the study of physical nature and natural phenomena. That excludes God.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Second Reply to 1. My original point was that abiogenesis, the simulation of spontaneous life generation, has never occurred. You have avoided the point!

You mean abiogenesis has never occurred in a lab. (Which has been addressed, but I'll do it again)

Abiogenesis does not specifically refer to the creation of life in simulated conditions. It means the change from inorganic material to life.
Whether or not abiogenesis did occur is a separate matter to whether or not it has occurred specifically in labs.

As I said at the top, I'll address this.
Abiogenesis took up to 1 billion years.
1 000 000 000 years.

Across the entire ocean. 1.3 billion cubic metres.
1 300 000 000 metres³

and only had to happen once.
1 time.
(though it could have occurred multiple times and died out)

I'm unaware of any labs that have had more than 10 years and 10 cubic metres to simulate this.

This is analogous to looking at a particular river for a few years, and then saying that the lack of a new canyon disproves erosion.

Second reply to 2. Why so many scientists believe in evolution is obvious: it permits a naturalistic explanation for the different species and avoids the necessity for God! Perhaps you should ask yourself why so many people believe in God?

There are other ways to avoid God, if you really wanted to.
Why evolution specifically?

Do you believe they are convinced by the evidence? Where are they going wrong?

Second reply to 3. Final species or viable species are species that are fit enough to survive; intermediate species are not fit enough to survive, which is why they are intermediate or transitional species.

I'm not even sure what you mean. It's nothing like the picture of evolution.
There aren't "final species" - everything will continue to evolve.

Not to mention that environments change. Forests become deserts and vice versa, ice ages occur and recede.

Going by what you've said, given that 99% of species are extinct, 99% of species aren't "viable to survive". Does that make 99% of species transitional?
I don't even see what you're trying to say here.


Species that evolve don't have to be "flawed" or even worse survivors, if you take a population of leopards and put them in an Arctic environment they'll either evolve or die out.

Species that are very good at surviving in their environment can and do continue to evolve.

Traits that aren't always or aren't themselves beneficial to survival can become popular because they come along with traits that are, or make little difference and just 'get lucky' - for instance, if a predator evolves sharper teeth and greener eyes, the greenness of the eyes likely won't make a difference - but the teeth will, and it's children won't just inherit the teeth.

Evolution doesn't always add - sometimes things that are not beneficial, i.e. are neutral or make survival worse can be removed.

Species that die out aren't always "flawed" - put some leopards in an Artic environment, and they won't thrive (but you think they're "final species"). Situations change. At the very least even if you did believe animals could evolve to the point where they stop evolving, a change in environment (e.g. an ice age) would make them no longer suited.

Evolution isn't like design - there are many "flaws" - useless deprecated "vestigial features" exist - for instance, we have muscles in our ears. We can't control our ears like monkeys can - our ear muscles don't develop because they serve little purpose. We have an appendix - which has no observable significant function - but it can get diseased and need to be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

There's a nerve called the laryngeal nerve - it's wired terribly.
In fish, it goes directly - but as fish evolved, and grew necks, the nerve was on the wrong side of the heart. So as the neck got longer, the nerve was trapped in a kind of U shape, rather than just a straight line. In giraffes this means the nerve takes a 4 metre detour. This is the kind of thing we'd expect from evolution.

If you actually found significant number of fossils for a specific creature that was literally terrible at surviving in its environment and had been for its entire history, that'd be evidence against evolution, as under evolution it'd be unlikely for the creature to thrive in the first place to get that kind of population. It'd be much more likely in that case, for the entire set of creatures to have been put there.
Under evolution, if it was terrible at surviving it probably wouldn't have many descendants.
(In small populations and in other scenarios there can obviously be exceptions)

Second reply to 4. That there were never 2 original humans is neither a misunderstanding of evolution or of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam. All species start somewhere with 1 or 2 specimens, as your quote states "back until all lines converge on one person." That's where all homo sapiens originated.
kenblogton

All CURRENT lines. Some lines die out. Not everyone has a line at all.

"All species start with 1 or 2 specimens"
This is a bit unintuitive, so you might not get this at first.
Here's an analogy that might kind of give you the right idea.
If you put your hand in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, you won't always notice. But in retrospect, you might think "hmm, this is warmer than it used to be" - but there isn't a time when you say "this is no longer cold. this is now warm." while it is raising the temperature. It's not like it reaches the magic 10 degrees or whatever and you suddenly change your mind.
But if you put your hand in cold water then immediately in hotter water, you will notice the change. (Similar to the retrospect, especially since memory stimulates our senses)

Similarly with animals.
All animals are the same species as their parents.

Lets go with one or two standard definitions of species (there can be arbitrary differences on occasion, I think):
A) a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding
B) a kind or sort

So, one animal has a child. It's slightly different - very similar, but it can still breed with its parent. (and probably it's parents parent and so on for some distance)
Fits A? Yes.
Fits B? Yes.

We keep doing this. Eventually the newest child is still only slightly different from its parent, but significantly different from the first animal.
Fits A? With it's parent, yes. With the original animal, no.
Fits B? ^

So when you say "there is always a first individual of a new species" - where is it?
We'll never be able to tell a difference in species between a parent and child in most forms of evolution (I daren't rule out significantly extreme cases)

[dianaiad]

.......

You not too cleverly miss the point.//

Moderator Comment

Telling someone that he is missing the point is fine. Telling him that he's 'not too cleverly" missing the point is a personal attack and uncivil. Some adjectival phrases are best not used.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1306 by Danmark]
Clearly you don't understand intermediate species and the logic of evolution. Intermediate species are transitional' but not fit enough to survive, and so are replaced by fit enough to survive species.
To use pejorative comments to discredit a source is not the scientific approach. The author provides evidence; the scientific approach is to provide evidence disputing the findings, not an attack on the author.
kenblogton

What 'pejorative comments?' I gave a lengthy critique quoted from Wikipedia. The book is simply not science.
I understand 'intermediate species and the logic of evolution' just fine. But I don't accept your attempt at redefining them with biased sources. Essentially, your argument against mainstream biology and biologists in the area of evolution is analogous to an astrologist claiming mathematicians, astronomers, and other scientists are all biased against astrology and therefore their views should be discounted.

We have yet to see you find one credible source for this creationist view of 'evolution.' And that is no surprise because there are none. You are simply promulgating misinformation to fit a religious viewpoint. The courts, including judges who are devoutly Christian have said this very thing. "Intelligent Design = Creationism and it is religion dressed up in pseudo science and it cannot be taught in public classrooms as 'science.'

The argument against evolution and for creationism is over, except in some narrow religious circles. And for that reason I'm out.

[Star]

Intermediate species are transitional' but not fit enough to survive, and so are replaced by fit enough to survive species.

What you're describing is similar to the crocoduck. It's half one kind of animal, half another kind of animal, and not fit enough to survive.

This is a strawman. Evolution doesn't say anything of the sort should ever happen.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency. Imagine bell curves in certain genes shifting slowly in a population over many generations. Once a population is so genetically distinct it can no longer produce viable offspring with the species it descended from, speciation has occurred. This occurs for millions of years.

Transitions are nothing more that changes in noticeable features that everyday people can identify. Examples I posted are reptiles with feathers, and Homo erectus, with ridged brow-line, sloped face, and small brain case.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1312 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes but the analogy really represents the world. It is full of building blocks for life.

The problem I see with my argument is that abiogenesis might be happening but we don't observe it.

The advantage of my argument is that it highlights the difficulty of believing abiogenesis occurred under what clearly must be worse conditions then, when there was only inorganic matter, than there are now.

Can abiogenesis ever be anything more than a faith based proposition? Even if a scientist makes life in the lab from non life doesn't that just show that you need a designer as well?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1312 by DanieltheDragon]

Yes but the analogy really represents the world. It is full of building blocks for life.

The problem I see with my argument is that abiogenesis might be happening but we don't observe it.

The advantage of my argument is that it highlights the difficulty of believing abiogenesis occurred under what clearly must be worse conditions then, when there was only inorganic matter, than there are now.

Can abiogenesis ever be anything more than a faith based proposition? Even if a scientist makes life in the lab from non life doesn't that just show that you need a designer as well?

Is 'your argument' you reference,

My sardines analogy is hardly debunked. It should be the case that circumstances today, with many of the building blocks of life in place, should make abiogenesis easier.

What is fair to say is that abiogenesis might be occuring and we don't see it.

Can you explain why abiogenesis isn't occurring more often under more favorable conditions?

If so, I would say it is totally 'debunked.' I'm not sure if you are using an analogy or if you are claiming that 'since life does not emerge from a can of sardines, how can abiogenesis take place since life emerging from inorganic matter is a more challenging prospect?'

In the latter case, we know that life will indeed emerge from a can of sardines. That is the reason we 'can' sardines. The sardines will 'spoil' [provide nutrients for bacterial life] if they are not 'canned' and eventually will result in unwanted bacterial life even if canned.

If you are suggesting an analogy only, I do not see any power in the mere analogy. We know life exists. We know that complex organisms evolved from less complex life forms. The questions are, 'Where did the original life form come from? How did it arise from lifeless organic chemicals?'

At this point the theist throws up his hands and says "God did it."
The non theist or scientist asks "How did this happen?"