Evolution

[keithprosser3]

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

[help3434]

Evolution is an ancient and unverifiable story that some religionists believe in. It's the 'not god' creation story.

I know what you mean. How long have these religionist scientists been doing this and how do we stop them? I mean, now we have religionist scientist meteorologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for thunder and storms without even considering the possibility that Thor is responsible, we have religionist scientist seismologists daring to claim that there are natural explanations for earthquakes without even considering the possibility that Poseidon is responsible. What do you suggest we do to reverse this terrible trend so we can get rid of this terrible "science" and have these scientific "religionists" start believing in gods again?

Well, as Wootah points out, evolution (which includes abiogenesis) is an "ancient story," so these religionists (aka modern biologists) must have been practicing evolution for at least 2,000 years.



Seriously though, there's so many common fallacies in that post, it gets tiring having to debunk them repeatedly. Eg., the can of sardines is nothing more than the peanut butter myth re-canned, pun intended.

I love a statement from the rationalwiki article on that video.

Critics of the argument have pointed out that sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, multimillion-year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays.

Neither are cans of sardines.

[Wootah]

[Replying to help3434]

As I said earlier, "Yes but the analogy really represents the world. It is full of building blocks for life."

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1323 by Danmark]

So what happens when you open the can is that bacteria in the environment lands on the can. Another way of saying this is that existing life lands on the sardines and start eating it. New life from abiogenesis is not being created.

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

Ultimately true for the theist and the non-theist. 'How did this happen?' is a recurring question that can always be asked. At some point we settle on a creation story.

[instantc]

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

This doesn't simply follow from being a theist though, does it? One could conclude that in his mind the most rational conclusion is creatio ex nihilo or some other kind of a miracle, and he might still be inclined to keep looking for a more definitive answer.

I think that this accusation of pretending to know things might be a gross misrepresentation of the common position of theism. Having talked to believers, I have noticed that there are two lines of argumentation. On one hand there are supernatural subjective experiences, by virtue of which many people claim to know things about gods, spirits and such for certainty, and one the other hand there is natural theology. Natural theology is the main subject of these debates, and theists who study these arguments don't tend to claim that they could prove God's exitence or that creationism would directly follow from the arguments. Rather, they suggest that God would be the 'best explanation' or the more likely explanation for some things that we observe.

[kenblogton]

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)

Third & final reply to 1. What evolutionary theory maintains happened on early earth was "spontaneous generation" of life from earth matter. Abiogenesis is the attempt to replicate that event through simulation of early earth conditions. It has NEVER been done. It obviously does not take millions of years to achieve if the theory & replication of conditions are correct. In light of the failure to achieve it, life big bang is a scientifically accurate term for the origin of life.

Third & final reply to 2. The only other way to avoid God besides evolution to explain the origin of species is to use the term big bang, which is a scientifically accurate term for the origin of species.

Third & final reply to 3. There is much solid evidence for evolution within species, as in dog or cattle breeding; there is no solid evidence for evolution across species. There is no solid evidence, for instance, in the transition from sea to land, of creatures with emerging limbs or modified lungs. At the website http://unmaskingevolution.com/10-intermediates.htm, it gives some useful definitions and comments, which I'll cite here below:
The general public understand the meaning of the following evolutionary terms to be:-

'Ancestor' - the true predecessor of an organism.

'Intermediate' - an organism that was truly between two different types of organisms.

'Transition' - one of the true steps in the change of one type of organism into another.

'Lineage' - the true history of the ancestors of an organism.

The early Darwinists believed that they would easily find the history of the evolution of all organisms in the fossil record, but this failed to materialise. Despite this lack of evidence, many evolutionary trees have been displayed in museums and textbooks.

•"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." D.M. Raup, Science, July 17,1981 p:289


•"... biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history." N. Eldredge "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill Pub Co: New York, 1989 p:134

Third & final reply to 4. As you say "All animals are the same species as their parents." Two parents. With humans, Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

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.

Perhaps you'll find the following useful:

At http://unmaskingevolution.com/10-intermediates.htm, it states:
The general public understand the meaning of the following evolutionary terms to be:-

'Ancestor' - the true predecessor of an organism.

'Intermediate' - an organism that was truly between two different types of organisms.

'Transition' - one of the true steps in the change of one type of organism into another.

'Lineage' - the true history of the ancestors of an organism.

The early Darwinists believed that they would easily find the history of the evolution of all organisms in the fossil record, but this failed to materialise. Despite this lack of evidence, many evolutionary trees have been displayed in museums and textbooks.

•"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." D.M. Raup, Science, July 17,1981 p:289


•"... biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history." N. Eldredge "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill Pub Co: New York, 1989 p:134

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

.......

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.

Apologies!
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

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.

Your pejorative comments "Another anti science creationist blog. I won't bother reading that nonsense. At least get your facts from reputable sources, even if you don't like the theory for religious reasons."
It appears you believe that views contrary to your own regarding evolution are not worthy of consideration or even of a courteous reply.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

I'm starting to worry that you aren't actually reading, or just not considering it.

Third & final reply to 1. What evolutionary theory maintains

"Evolutionary Theory maintains... [abiogenesis]"
No. You know this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Abiogenesis is the attempt to replicate that event through simulation of early earth conditions.

No.
Oxford dictionaries: The original evolution ([emergence/change from]) of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances
Merriam Webster: the origin of life from nonliving matter

It has NEVER been done. It obviously does not take millions of years to achieve if the theory & replication of conditions are correct.

"Obviously it does not take millions of years if the theory and conditions are correct"
False. In what possible way is this obvious?

We don't know if abiogenesis happened more than once. It had up to 500 million years and the entire planet to occur. We've never observed it.

EVERYTHING tells us that all of human civilization - let alone a human lifespan - probably isn't long enough to observe it occurring.
Your expectation for abiogenesis to have occurred is entirely unreasonable and without basis.

Third & final reply to 2. The only other way to avoid God besides evolution to explain the origin of species is to use the term big bang, which is a scientifically accurate term for the origin of species.

...the term you've been using?

How about this:
Every now and then, a species gradually appears, materialising out of thin air.

There, a theory that has no God requirement. In fact, it's almost like theistic biogenesis just with God removed.

Do scientists support a round Earth hypothesis to avoid the truth of the World Turtle?

Oh, and why are there so many Christians that believe in God AND evolution if evolution was invented to avoid God?

Third & final reply to 3. There is much solid evidence for evolution within species, as in dog or cattle breeding; there is no solid evidence for evolution across species. There is no solid evidence, for instance, in the transition from sea to land, of creatures with emerging limbs or modified lungs. At the website http://unmaskingevolution.com/10-intermediates.htm, it gives some useful definitions and comments, which I'll cite here below:
The general public understand the meaning of the following evolutionary terms to be:-

'Ancestor' - the true predecessor of an organism.

'Intermediate' - an organism that was truly between two different types of organisms.

'Transition' - one of the true steps in the change of one type of organism into another.

'Lineage' - the true history of the ancestors of an organism.

There is solid evidence and it has been given.
Your refusal to acknowledge transitional species by labelling them as "final" is begging the question by assuming the falsity of evolution in order to disprove evolution.

The early Darwinists believed that they would easily find the history of the evolution of all organisms in the fossil record, but this failed to materialise. Despite this lack of evidence, many evolutionary trees have been displayed in museums and textbooks.

�"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." D.M. Raup, Science, July 17,1981 p:289


�"... biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history." N. Eldredge "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill Pub Co: New York, 1989 p:134

I doubt that they seriously expected to find evidence of everything. If they did, they are very bad at predication.

Third & final reply to 4. As you say "All animals are the same species as their parents." Two parents. With humans, Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam.
kenblogton

Yes, your quote mining of two sentences that aren't directly contradictory to you amongst paragraphs of objections clearly proves you are right.

In fact, your lack of any response to anything raised AT ALL in the entire post, aside from the assertion that abiogenesis should occur in a small lab in 10 years because it occurred once in 500 million years in the entire planet, is well received as clear evidence for controversial opinion that the majority scientific consensus is wrong, as well as the fact that you ignore 99% of the articles (Adam&Eve) from which you cite as evidence for genesis.

"Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

"Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent."

Second paragraph of both of the articles. Did you read that far?

[Star]

�"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." D.M. Raup, Science, July 17,1981 p:289


�"... biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history." N. Eldredge "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill Pub Co: New York, 1989 p:134

Discredited articles from 1981 and 1989 don't tell us what fossils and DNA evidence have been discovered in the decades since. You'll have to provide valid evidence if you want to debunk anything we say. The Homo erectus skull, for example, was excavated, along with four others, relatively recently. Who cares what 1981 says?