The myth of evolution

[Willum]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by Willum]

Why has crazy ideas like simulation theory and panspermia increased in popularity even among scientist?

Because you say so, obviously!

Neither of these theories can be tested.

Actually, evolutionary scientists are even today discovering organic materials from outer space, no life yet that I have heard of... but certainly enough material that the hypothesis is valid. Much better than talking snakes hypothesis.

Evolution theology still has not answer for the cambrian explosion. Verbal "sleight of hand" imagery is no substitution for facts.

I don't know why you don't think it fails to explain this. Once life became viable and capable of evolution, it should "explode" to fill natural niches.

I guess you are just infringing your theists myths on real science, again.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 40 by Bust Nak]

And I suppose by your count, these comments counts as doubts that 20 million years isn't enough for the Cambrian explosion?

Quote:
People can read all about it in "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer

And I suppose by "according to [evolution's] own mathematical calculation" you meant Stephen Meyer's calculation?

Sure if that makes you feel better. Are you saying that "evolution" is occuring at the same rate today as it was during the cambrian explosion? I do not know of any serious scientist that says "evolution" is not occurring at the same rate today than during the Cambrian Explosion. Or to put it in terms of the Biologos article. "What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time?" I am sure that the study of this time will spawn a lot of great new stories or I mean theories.

This problem is not new problem it has been around since Darwin's time.

Wallace Arthur a population ecologist who became intensely interested in the process of major morphologic changes. Wrote a book in 1997 entitled " The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology". Wallace's book discusses the major problems with achieving major morphological shifts but also an attempt at a solution. On page 14 of his book he discusses a major problem of morphological shifts.

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

So if I may paraphrase: “Early developmental genes produce the differences in body plans, but these genes can’t be mutated without disastrous results. But we know they have evolved despite this evidence because evolution happened.�

Arthur addresses the primary problem for a neo-Darwinian approach of accumulating small mutations to produce a major morphological shift.

"In a developmentally explicit approach it is clear that many late changes can not accumulate to give an early one. Thus if taxonomically distant organisms differ right back to their early embryogenesis, as is often the case, the mutations involved in their evolutionary divergence did not involve the same genes as those involved in a typical speciation event, where usually the early embryogeneses of the daughter species are virtually identical."


Quote:
Both of these theories propose that life did not start on this earth. 20 years ago no serious scientist would ever even consider either one of these theories as possibility for the origin of life. But now these ideas have become practically mainstream "science".

That doesn't answer my question, if you know that these theories are about where or how life started, why did you present them as alternatives to evolution?

Quote:
And I have to put "science" in quotations because neither of these "theories" could ever be tested. Therefore they are not theories but beliefs.

Simulation? Ok maybe it's unfalsifiable; but I don't know why you think panspermia can't be tested. Having said that, I will grant you that these are at best hypothesis and are far from scientific theory like evolution is.

Quote:
The only reason why "theories" like the the ones above would be entertained would be the utter failure of evolution to explain life.

You are just restating your claim, I asked you to explain why you believe this, given that even if evolution is false, it wouldn't make either of these any more or any less true.

I do not believe either one of these are true.

There would be no need for the theories above if evolution has not failed to life as we know it.

If all mutations in genes that are associated with early development are always deleterious then any change in body plans by the mechanism of evolution would be impossible. So a new theory of life would have to be developed, which is what we are seeing with the popularity of these wild "theories".

[Diagoras]

The following quote is from an article on Biologos entitled "Does the Cambrian explosion pose a challenge for evolution". An article which supports evolution theology, makes the following comments.

"Most scientists are persuaded that something significant happened at the dawn of the Cambrian era and view the Cambrian Explosion as an area of exciting and productive research."

"Further discoveries will no doubt reveal more clearly the relationship of Precambrian organisms with the creatures found in the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang deposits."

"What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time?�

You omitted a rather important point, made twice in the same article:

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor.

Part of the ‘puzzle’ is simply because the evolution of hard exoskeletons meant fossilisation was suddenly more likely to occur. Richard Dawkins explains this very clearly in ‘The Greatest Show On Earth’ using the example of flatworms. I’ll try and find an online extract, as it refutes the argument that the only alternative explanation is a creationist one.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by EarthScienceguy]

Are you saying that "evolution" is occurring at the same rate today as it was during the Cambrian explosion?

There are fewer available niches available today, therefore greater competition for available resources, and less need for new life-forms to fill niches...

I am pretty sure that is in line with a non-fantastic version of evolution.

[Diagoras]

From a couple of quick searches:

The Cambrian period came between two ice ages, one during the late Proterozoic and the other during the Ordovician. During these ice ages, the decrease in global temperature led to mass extinctions. With the retreat of Proterozoic ice, the sea level rose. Lowland areas flooded and much of the world was covered by shallow inland seas. This event opened up new habitats for marine invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Plants had not yet evolved, and land was inhospitable to life as we know it. Photosynthesis was only by bacteria and algae in those shallow seas. During the Cambrian, the oceans became oxygenated when there was a sufficient reduction in the number of oxygen-depleting bacteria to permit higher oxygen levels in the waters - meaning more available energy to animals by burning food, rather than anaerobic respiration. This dissolved oxygen may therefore have been another significant trigger (along with warmer temperatures, expanded habitats and more evolutionary niches available after a mass extinction) for the "Cambrian Explosion" — when most of the major groups of animals, especially those with hard shells, first appeared in the fossil record.

Short version: “many conditions were suddenly just right.�

[Bust Nak]

Sure if that makes you feel better. Are you saying that "evolution" is occuring at the same rate today as it was during the cambrian explosion?

Lets say "on par" instead of the same.

I do not know of any serious scientist that says "evolution" is not occurring at the same rate today than during the Cambrian Explosion.

Do Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould not count,?

Or to put it in terms of the Biologos article. "What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time?" I am sure that the study of this time will spawn a lot of great new stories or I mean theories.

Will? There are already plenty of theories.

This problem is not new problem it has been around since Darwin's time.

Hence plenty of theories.

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

Is it still a problem when there is a solution addressing it?

I do not believe either one of these are true.

That doesn't seem to be relevant to my question.

There would be no need for the theories above if evolution has not failed to life as we know it.

Go a bit deeper with your explanation, why do you believe these theories wouldn't be needed, if evolution has can explain life as we know it? To help guide your answer, I once again point out these theories are not alternatives to evolution, please focus your answer around this point.

If all mutations in genes that are associated with early development are always deleterious then any change in body plans by the mechanism of evolution would be impossible.

Perhaps you should read Wallace Arthur's book to find out why this isn't true?

So a new theory of life would have to be developed, which is what we are seeing with the popularity of these wild "theories".

It's still not clear why you believe that. None of these wild "theories" as you called them, are alternatives to evolution.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Willum]

I don't know why you don't think it fails to explain this. Once life became viable and capable of evolution, it should "explode" to fill natural niches.

Anyone that believes in evolutionary theology has to believe the above, but this is impossible.

Again Wallace,

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

This is an established fact. Now if people want to wish reality is not what it is and believe in fairy tales, I cannot do anything about that everyone is free to believe how they wish. Until some mechanism is discovered how genes that can control very early development which control basic body plans are not always "extremely disadvantageous" evolution is nothing but a made up theology.

This problem is not lost on scientist who are willing to think critically about the problems of evolution.

[Diagoras]

Until some mechanism is discovered how genes that can control very early development which control basic body plans are not always "extremely disadvantageous" evolution is nothing but a made up theology.

<bolding mine>

I can point everyone to an ‘Evolution 101’ website which explains exactly those mechanisms:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0_0/evo_18

Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Addressing our ‘general readers’ here, the above link explains evolutionary processes very simply - it’s an excellent primer for such a broad (and fascinating) topic.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 48 by Diagoras]

Ok, maybe you did not not read my original point or maybe you are just ignoring my original point. My original argument was as follows:

Wallace Arthur a population ecologist who became intensely interested in the process of major morphologic changes. Wrote a book in 1997 entitled " The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology". Wallace's book discusses the major problems with achieving major morphological shifts but also an attempt at a solution. On page 14 of his book he discusses a major problem of morphological shifts.

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

So if I may paraphrase: “Early developmental genes produce the differences in body plans, but these genes can’t be mutated without disastrous results. But we know they have evolved despite this evidence because evolution happened.�

Arthur addresses the primary problem for a neo-Darwinian approach of accumulating small mutations to produce a major morphological shift.

"In a developmentally explicit approach it is clear that many late changes can not accumulate to give an early one. Thus if taxonomically distant organisms differ right back to their early embryogenesis, as is often the case, the mutations involved in their evolutionary divergence did not involve the same genes as those involved in a typical speciation event, where usually the early embryogeneses of the daughter species are virtually identical."

Observation indicates that any mutation in genes that control early development cause very causes changes that are very disadvantageous and late changes cannot accumulate to give an early change.

Could we please stay focused?

[Bust Nak]

Observation indicates that any mutation in genes that control early development cause very causes changes that are very disadvantageous and late changes cannot accumulate to give an early change.

What observation are you referring to here? Do you think that's what the Wallace Arthur's book says?