I posted this definition on another board, but it applies equally well here. This definition was first propounded in four points by Barbara Kingsolver in her book 'Small Wonder', which goes a little more in depth. In summary, these were Darwin's hypotheses:
- Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to reproduce.
- There are natural variations among these offspring.
- Specific traits are inherited - passed down to following generations.
- In each generation those that live to reproduce do so because they possess some advantageous trait that others don't, and because they survive, the next generation is more likely to inherit this trait. Ergo, the occurrence of that trait will eventually increase in the population.
That's it, folks. Simple, elegant and (as Ms. Kingsolver would say) irrefutable. These are observations made by a keen observer, Charles Darwin, and study has confirmed that this is indeed the way nature seems to work.
An Episcopalian myself, I cannot find any reason why this simple statement of fact should be detrimental to mine or anyone's faith in its acceptance. God's genius in the creation of such an efficient and elegant system in the world is self-evident, all the more so if it took hundreds of millions of years. My question is, then, why do creationists find these hypotheses so damaging to their respective faiths?
The Theory of Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #21
jose:
So the odds are low...so what? They are not zero. I can (and have) go into the lab and get out my fruit flies and look for mutations in specific genes, causing specific traits, and I can find them if I look through enough flies. If I add a mutagen (X-rays, for example), I can increase the mutation frequency to where it isn't even a big chore to find the mutation! The odds may be low, but they are not zero. This is what geneticists and crop breeders, dog breeders, and chicken breeders rely upon for their trade.
Speaking of fruit flies
Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11 days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the effects over many,many generations.
Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately cause mutations in the fruit flies.
The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new species belonging to a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within the permanently fixed kinds.
So the odds are low...so what? They are not zero. I can (and have) go into the lab and get out my fruit flies and look for mutations in specific genes, causing specific traits, and I can find them if I look through enough flies. If I add a mutagen (X-rays, for example), I can increase the mutation frequency to where it isn't even a big chore to find the mutation! The odds may be low, but they are not zero. This is what geneticists and crop breeders, dog breeders, and chicken breeders rely upon for their trade.
Speaking of fruit flies
Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11 days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the effects over many,many generations.
Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately cause mutations in the fruit flies.
The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new species belonging to a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within the permanently fixed kinds.
Post #22
jose:
This confuses me. Why do you think it is necessary to have the same mutation occur over and over? It only needs to occur once. After that, it is inherited, from parent to offspring, according to their kind. Maybe it will take many generations for the mutation (now part of the "already existing gene pool") to become common, or fixed in the population. But, certainly, the mutation doesn't have to happen over and over in different individuals. If this kind of repeat-mutation is part of your understanding of the "flawed theory of evolution," then I agree, it's flawed. But, it's not part of the real theory of evolution.
It is necessary because in order to "evolve" a new trait the body part undergoing the morphological change requires mutations.
Of coure we all know that it requires more than one mutation to complete the morphological change....in fact it might require millions of mutations.
The mutations must occur in the DNA region responsible for coding and then developing into the "bodypart/appendage/system" of the species undergoing said change.
When you are building a house you don't change the blueprint for the chimney when you want to change the outlet on the second floor back bedroom.
The mutation over generations must occur in the same DNA region in future generations...AND...the mutation must occur over and over and over many many times as I mentioned before.
The odds of this occuring, especially when one system is dependent on the other and both systems must receive complmentary mutations renders evolutionsim as bogus....ESPECIALLY when you realize that the mutations are RANDOM and very very very few actually ever increase the fitness of an animal.
This confuses me. Why do you think it is necessary to have the same mutation occur over and over? It only needs to occur once. After that, it is inherited, from parent to offspring, according to their kind. Maybe it will take many generations for the mutation (now part of the "already existing gene pool") to become common, or fixed in the population. But, certainly, the mutation doesn't have to happen over and over in different individuals. If this kind of repeat-mutation is part of your understanding of the "flawed theory of evolution," then I agree, it's flawed. But, it's not part of the real theory of evolution.
It is necessary because in order to "evolve" a new trait the body part undergoing the morphological change requires mutations.
Of coure we all know that it requires more than one mutation to complete the morphological change....in fact it might require millions of mutations.
The mutations must occur in the DNA region responsible for coding and then developing into the "bodypart/appendage/system" of the species undergoing said change.
When you are building a house you don't change the blueprint for the chimney when you want to change the outlet on the second floor back bedroom.
The mutation over generations must occur in the same DNA region in future generations...AND...the mutation must occur over and over and over many many times as I mentioned before.
The odds of this occuring, especially when one system is dependent on the other and both systems must receive complmentary mutations renders evolutionsim as bogus....ESPECIALLY when you realize that the mutations are RANDOM and very very very few actually ever increase the fitness of an animal.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #23
I think Jose has hit the nail on the head and that the problem with people who dispute the scientific validity of evolution is that they are not familiar with the theory itself, but only with popularized versions of it which are usually gross misrepresentations. I am no biologist, but I'll add that another problem is that humans are notoriously bad at estimating probability (otherwise casinos would be out of business) and that we assume that genetic variation is entirely random. Also, the popular concept of species is not, as I understand, identical with the scientific concept. Since I am not a specialist, I am not prepared to explain the ins and outs of the theory, but it does seem testable, scientific, productive and useful. It also seems to fit well with observed data. Can creationists/ID theorists say the same about their theory?
It may be true that there were no human witnesses when speciation occurred, but neither were there human witnesses for Creation. However, if for a hypothesis to be testable it has to predict something other than what it aims to explain, evolution clearly passes the test. It passes tests in genetics, immunology, biochemistry and molecular biology. Creationists make testable claims too, but their claims fail the tests. All their claims fly in the face of well-established scientific data about the age of the Earth, its geographical features, etc. Can they prove all species were created at the same time?
I read somewhere that Noah, in order to save all living creatures, would have to have accommodated in his Ark at least 25,000 species of birds, 15,000 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 2,500 species of amphibiams, and more than 1 million species of insects, including termites who would have a hazard for the Ark itself. How can this be done? Speaking of testable hypothesis, how about an experiment to test this one? I bet any employee of any zoo in the world would tell you it's crazy.
Accepting creationism would mean having to discard all of modern science, not just biology. Creationism doesn't help us predict anything, and actually assumes more than evolution does without answering any of the questions it raises. Duane Gish has said:
We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. [...] We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator (Quoted in Murphy, Evolution, Morality)
In other words, Creationism puts the brakes on science and explains nothing! What good is a theory which explains nothing?
It may be true that there were no human witnesses when speciation occurred, but neither were there human witnesses for Creation. However, if for a hypothesis to be testable it has to predict something other than what it aims to explain, evolution clearly passes the test. It passes tests in genetics, immunology, biochemistry and molecular biology. Creationists make testable claims too, but their claims fail the tests. All their claims fly in the face of well-established scientific data about the age of the Earth, its geographical features, etc. Can they prove all species were created at the same time?
I read somewhere that Noah, in order to save all living creatures, would have to have accommodated in his Ark at least 25,000 species of birds, 15,000 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 2,500 species of amphibiams, and more than 1 million species of insects, including termites who would have a hazard for the Ark itself. How can this be done? Speaking of testable hypothesis, how about an experiment to test this one? I bet any employee of any zoo in the world would tell you it's crazy.
Accepting creationism would mean having to discard all of modern science, not just biology. Creationism doesn't help us predict anything, and actually assumes more than evolution does without answering any of the questions it raises. Duane Gish has said:
We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. [...] We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator (Quoted in Murphy, Evolution, Morality)
In other words, Creationism puts the brakes on science and explains nothing! What good is a theory which explains nothing?
Post #24
bigmrpig:
I don't understand how it is speculative assumption, when appendages have been added to amphibians due to single mutations (they don't even need to be accumulated) in our lifetimes. It is undeniably possible that mutations have the ability to create new appendages (or take them away) because it has in the last few decades occured.
You fail to realize that the genetic coding for the amphibians appendage had already been established.
The mutation only stuck it in the wrong spot...this really isn't evolution in the true sense of the term when applied to descent with modification.
The question is, how does a new appendage evolve? Care to speculate?
I don't understand how it is speculative assumption, when appendages have been added to amphibians due to single mutations (they don't even need to be accumulated) in our lifetimes. It is undeniably possible that mutations have the ability to create new appendages (or take them away) because it has in the last few decades occured.
You fail to realize that the genetic coding for the amphibians appendage had already been established.
The mutation only stuck it in the wrong spot...this really isn't evolution in the true sense of the term when applied to descent with modification.
The question is, how does a new appendage evolve? Care to speculate?
Post #25
diletante presented the following sentance:
Creationists make testable claims too, but their claims fail the tests.
Considering that you made this claim, can you present 3 examples....or did you type it because you thought it sounded pretty good in your speil?
BTW:I addressed the Noahs Ark issue you presented above in a new thread.
Creationists make testable claims too, but their claims fail the tests.
Considering that you made this claim, can you present 3 examples....or did you type it because you thought it sounded pretty good in your speil?
BTW:I addressed the Noahs Ark issue you presented above in a new thread.
Post #26
I know very little of the specific science involved with the replacement of alleles, production of genes, etc. to speculate how it could evolve. I'm not a professor on the matter and I won't claim to be.YEC wrote:bigmrpig:
I don't understand how it is speculative assumption, when appendages have been added to amphibians due to single mutations (they don't even need to be accumulated) in our lifetimes. It is undeniably possible that mutations have the ability to create new appendages (or take them away) because it has in the last few decades occured.
You fail to realize that the genetic coding for the amphibians appendage had already been established.
The mutation only stuck it in the wrong spot...this really isn't evolution in the true sense of the term when applied to descent with modification.
The question is, how does a new appendage evolve? Care to speculate?
My point wasn't that it was evolution, my point is that a very small, single mutation can have enormous effects on an organism, and that they're not astronomically rare.
Also, it is the occurrence that is random. Some of the things you've said have led me to believe that you think where the mutation occurs is random is well. I may be mistaken about your view, but it seems to me that if these five-legged frogs, for example, have developed several times, independent of each other, the odds of a mutation occuring in whereever it's occuring in the frogs must be relatively high, especially compared to other potential mutations. This is just what I'm gathering from the fact that several of these frogs have existed, and I may be wrong on the matter. Again, I'm not a professor.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #27
YEC wrote
With pleasure. Here are the 3 examples of testable Creationist claims you request:
Creationist claim 1: The universal flood. This claim fails the test because there is not a shred of geological or anthropological evidence that a worlwide flood took place during the last 10,000 years. Such an event would have left traces, but the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Creationist claim 2: The universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This claim fails because the age of the universe can be calculated by determining how far apart the galaxies are and how fast they are moving away from each other. Scientists agree that the universe is considerably older than the 6,000-10,000 years claimed by creationists, probably over 15 billion years old. Also, the speed of light proves the existence of galaxies so far from us that it has taken their light millions of years to reach us.
Creationist claim 3: All species were created at the same time. Creationists must then give an explanation to the fact that the simplest fossils appear at the lowest point in fossil beds. Their standard explanation brings us back to this universal flood for which no evidence is provided. When asked how today's animal and plant species manage to survive the flood, the Noah story is brought up. But the Noah story raises new questions which need to be answered too, such as how Noah managed to build a square box big enough for all those animal species plus the humongous dinosaurs, since creationists believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted for a while. Next, they need to explain how on earth Noah and his family managed to feed, water, and clean up after them. This contradicts the law of parsimony, since each claim leads us to assume more and more stuff. So the claim fails.
Is that what you wanted?
Considering that you made this claim, can you present 3 examples....or did you type it because you thought it sounded pretty good in your speil?
With pleasure. Here are the 3 examples of testable Creationist claims you request:
Creationist claim 1: The universal flood. This claim fails the test because there is not a shred of geological or anthropological evidence that a worlwide flood took place during the last 10,000 years. Such an event would have left traces, but the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Creationist claim 2: The universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This claim fails because the age of the universe can be calculated by determining how far apart the galaxies are and how fast they are moving away from each other. Scientists agree that the universe is considerably older than the 6,000-10,000 years claimed by creationists, probably over 15 billion years old. Also, the speed of light proves the existence of galaxies so far from us that it has taken their light millions of years to reach us.
Creationist claim 3: All species were created at the same time. Creationists must then give an explanation to the fact that the simplest fossils appear at the lowest point in fossil beds. Their standard explanation brings us back to this universal flood for which no evidence is provided. When asked how today's animal and plant species manage to survive the flood, the Noah story is brought up. But the Noah story raises new questions which need to be answered too, such as how Noah managed to build a square box big enough for all those animal species plus the humongous dinosaurs, since creationists believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted for a while. Next, they need to explain how on earth Noah and his family managed to feed, water, and clean up after them. This contradicts the law of parsimony, since each claim leads us to assume more and more stuff. So the claim fails.
Is that what you wanted?
Post #28
It's easy to speculate, but you won't care for the answer: by modification of existing structures. "That doesn't count! The appendage was already there!" So it was already there...that's how it works. It doesn't help your case to insist that evolution can't be true because some incorrect idea isn't true. You should ask about the actual theory of evolution.YEC wrote:You fail to realize that the genetic coding for the amphibians appendage had already been established.
The mutation only stuck it in the wrong spot...this really isn't evolution in the true sense of the term when applied to descent with modification.
The question is, how does a new appendage evolve? Care to speculate?
Remember, lobe-finned fish had appendages, albeit fins. I don't recall, offhand, the current thinking on early fish evolution, so I can't tell you about the origins of fins. However, the lobe-fins had fin bones, the modification of which was sufficient to give feet. There are lots of fossils that show different variations along the way.
It is incorrect to say that the genetic coding for the amphibian appendage was already there. It wasn't. What was there was the genetic coding for a fish fin. Uhh...unless you accept the idea that a fish fin and an amphibian leg are the same thing, and therefore fish and amphibians are the same "kind." Hmmm...you'll have to add reptiles, birds, and mammals to this "kind" as well, since they all use the same appendages with what you would call the same "genetic coding." I guess, we'll have to add humans to that "kind" also, since our arms and legs are the same thing. Sure, there are slight differences in how the shh, hox, bmp, fgf, and other critical genes are expressed, but that's just "tinkering." We all have the same appendages, so we must all be the same kind.
But, how is this not really evolution? It is descent with modification--and a really good example, at that. Or is your reasoning that "it's just microevolution" so it doesn't count? It's all microevolution!
Panza llena, corazon contento
