If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Goat]

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

Um.. it has been confirm in the lab. There are a number of experiments that can be done, and have been done in the lab that are repeatable that shows it happens.

It also has been observed to have happened (as in new species , i.e. macro evolution).. in the wild.

I was talking about abiogenesis not ToE

Well, no it hasn't. However, there have been key parts that would be needed that have been observed.. for example, self replicating RNA, which became more effective over time due to mutations.

And, I now observe that you are conflating abiogenesis with evolution.. a common creationist tactic that shows a high degree of dissembling. Abiogenesis is not evolution, it is not micro evolution..

The TOE does not care about HOW life happened, only about how it changes over time.

[Autodidact]

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

Um.. it has been confirm in the lab. There are a number of experiments that can be done, and have been done in the lab that are repeatable that shows it happens.

It also has been observed to have happened (as in new species , i.e. macro evolution).. in the wild.

I was talking about abiogenesis not ToE

Then start a thread. This one is about ToE.

[Autodidact]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

You are mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation on which ToE rests. In fact, abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE. It's not a complicated concept, so you should be able to grasp it. We know the answer to how species diversified; it's ToE. We don't yet know the answer to how the first one came into existence. Get it?

So let's accept your explanation for abiogenesis, whatever it may be, and move on to the subject at hand, ToE.

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

I'm sure you would like to believe that confidence in science is the same as religious faith, but in fact it is the opposite. My confidence is based in evidence, not retained without or even despite the evidence.

Are you asserting that the evidence does not support ToE, but science has accepted it anyway? I suppose you know all about what that evidence is, then, and can explain why it's insufficient, and all the Biologists are too stupid to see it?

You seem to think that creation scientists are just shooting in the dark. They are no different than evolution scientists. They look at facts and they interpret them. They just interpret them differently than you do.

There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." It's an oxymoron. Creationism is not science; it's religion. "Creation science" is just a bunch of anti-scientists wearing lab coats and trying to sound sciencey.

There are not really "evolution scientists," just scientists, some of whom study evolution.

So-called "creation scientists" are not just shooting in the dark, they are actively lying. Science doesn't interpret facts. It looks at facts, constructs hypotheses, and makes predictions. If they predictions turned out to be correct, the hypothesis is confirmed.

Science, that is, the entire science of Biology, accepts ToE. It is the prevailing, foundational, consensus, mainstream, uncontroversial theory of modern Biology.

Now, as I was saying, do you or do you not know what the evidence is that caused modern Biology to accept ToE and be based on it? If so, exactly what about that evidence do you find insufficient. If not, would you like to learn what the evidence is? If so, I would be happy to lay it out for you. Just be forewarned that it takes a long time, because there's a lot of it.

[Autodidact]

Zetesis: evidence? Any interest at all?

[nygreenguy]

You seem to think that creation scientists are just shooting in the dark. They are no different than evolution scientists. They look at facts and they interpret them. They just interpret them differently than you do.

See, I hear that a lot and I have a few issues with it. Firstly, many creation "scientists" are not scientists at all. If they have a degree, it is rarely in a relevant field. Additionally, a lot of what they call "research" are just reviews. Rarely do they do any of their own original research.

So if they lack credibility, background, and research, how can we call them scientists? And if they lack the credibility and the background, how can we trust their "interpretation"?

I will agree on many issues in science there are issues of interpretation, but in this case it is like saying calling the earth flat vs. round is a matter of interpretation. Creation science is opposed to legitimate science on so many levels, it goes beyond mere interpretation. "Creation science" relies on nearly everything we now believe about how the natural world works being wrong and if we look at the amount of evidence and the amount of evidence that is supported by practical application, it is pretty much a statistical impossibility for science to be wrong and creation "science" to be true.

[Critical_Thinker]

Critical:

It would be very helpful if you would master the quote function. Would you like a lesson?

You yourself said that Lamarkism is not correct. Dr. Grasse advocated Lamarkism. Therefore, you yourself agree that Dr. Grasse was incorrect. Since we agree on this point, there is no need to argue it.

Finally, I do not understand what you are asking for. I suspect that like most people who do not accept ToE, you do not understand it. ToE predicts that we will never see new "life forms" as you describe them, arising from an existing population. ToE asserts that "saltation," (which is what you seem to be asking for) does not occur. Therefore, it has not been observed; it does not happen. If it did, ToE would be incorrect. Do you understand why, or do I need to explain it?

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1-5-2012:
Hi Autodidact. Thank you for your reply. I believe that since I do not know how to use the quote function properly, you did not see my other comments.

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, it would be helpful if you explained how this works [how to use the quote function]. All I do is click on “quote� on the right-hand side of the screen. I would indeed appreciate an explanation of how the quote function works. Thanks.

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, we both agree that the view Lamarck advocated, that: "As an organism develops, it acquires many individual characters, due to its particular history of accidents, diseases, and muscular exercises.� (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8), was false, as August Weismann proved back in the late 1880s.

“Lamarck suggested that a species could be transformed if these individually acquired modifications were inherited by the individual's offspring, and further modifications were added through time." (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8). I was not aware that Lamarck believed that changes in an organism could only go so far.

Where we disagree is with Grasse's views is the claim that if an organism acquires an excessive amount of mutations, possibly over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, that eventually any additional changes would be detrimental. Grasse is not the only person who advocates this position.

There are others who also believe that there are limits as to the effectiveness of mutations. “Each time a mutation tampers with the cell’s machinery, it narrows the range of conditions under which the organism can function. This makes it harder and harder for the organism to adapt to it environment. This effect increases over time, eventually forcing the organism into a macroevolutionary dead end.� (Dan I. Anderson and Diarmaid Hughes, “Muller’s ratched decreases fitness of a DNA-based microbe,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93 (January 23, 1996): 906-907. In: Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)

There are still other researchers who believe that a noticeable change “requires a great many coordinated changes to transform one system into another without losing function in the ‘in-between’ steps. The more the individual parts of a system depend on each other, the harder it is to change any one part without destroying the function of the organism as a whole. Since hox genes affect so many genes and systems, it seems unlikely that they could be mutated without damaging the way some of the genes are switched ‘on’ or ‘off.’ (Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)
^^^------------------------------------------------------^^^


Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
In response to your (Autodidact) comment:
“I don't understand what you're asking for. My "position" is that science works, and the mainstream, consensus, foundational theory of modern Biology is correct. Sources include any introductory Biology textbook or course. Good sites to learn about it include
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/, http://explore-evolution.unl.edu/, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/, http://www.talkorigins.org/.
Within Biology, there is no controversy about this "position," because it is the position of modern Biology itself.�

I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).

Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.

I have read a great deal of information provided by talkOrigins.org. I too agree that science works, that is, the type of science that deals with facts. I believe in many theories that explain certain things in our world, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. The difference between the theory that Copernicus and Galileo proposed was about things that exist in the present. The Theory of Evolution involves things that occurred in the unobserved past. Evolution does not totally believe in facts. Some conclusions are assumed where evidence has not been obtained. Conclusions are reached as a result of the evidence. The evidence needs to be interpreted.

I admit that today much has progressed and more scientific evidences have been obtained to verify the theory of evolution than existed during Darwin’s day. My point is that there appears to be many assumptions made that are based on the evidence. Just because some creatures have similar bodies and existed around the same time does not necessarily indicate that one evolved from the other. It could and it could not. It is debatable, as it is not a proven fact. I would need to see a sequence of fossils that represented a steady progression. It is a fact in the minds of those who are convinced evolution accounts for every living thing in existence.

Many people seem to only mention evidence that would support this view. No one seems to be conducting experiments today to falsify the theory of evolution, mainly because I suppose that evolution (all aspects) is now assumed to be true. The assumption is that small changes (micro-evolution) gradually lead to major changes (macro-evolution). Mutations may change a trait in an organism, but how far could these changes go?

Mutations, gene flow, and sex are the main causes of change in a creature. Gene flow and sex components of evolution changes are natural and could cause slight changes in a species. Dogs, horses, and people, vary in size and appearance, and also some creatures have been artificially bred (artificial selection), but they are still dogs, horses, and humans. Mutations are not so normal (natural), although sun radiation may cause a mutation to a gene.

---

The “Understanding Evolution� web site (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) you suggested provides a great deal of evolutionary information. The “Introduction to Evolution� information was well organized and very visual. It seemed to be geared for high school and younger audiences, but it is also helpful for anyone who is not familiar with the theory and wants to know more about evolution. I especially liked their explanation of phylogenies, clades, and some processes used to determine the age of things, and some of the processes of evolution. The illustrations were very well done. This web site should help clear up some misunderstandings about the subject.

As the Berkeley web site “Introduction to Evolution� (you suggested) states:
“Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not ‘try’ to supply what the organism ‘needs.’ In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be… Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. 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.�

The “Introduction to Evolution� Berkeley web site also mentions:
“Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are ‘naturally-occurring.’ For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation…�

I do not know for sure, but I believe that possibly the above statement may be referring to point mutations (the result of what happens when a single chemical ‘letter’ [A, G, C, T?] in the DNA sequence is changed as a result of heat, chemicals, or radiation.) If this is true, I am not sure whether these types of mutations would be effective enough to cause any noticeable changes, even if multiple small mutations occurred over multiple of generations. Would the mutations be related in any way to a creature to cause a substantial change?

The “Introduction to Evolution� Berkeley web site also mentions:
“Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.�

Would exposure to chemicals and radiation ever be beneficial to an organism? I suppose if only a very slight exposure occurred that only a minor change or changes might occur, however, I would say that the majority of exposure to chemicals and radiation would prove to be detrimental (harmful) rather than beneficial (advantageous).

The last paragraph quoted above also mentioned that a cell has the ability to repair DNA.

I read elsewhere that “As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence [A, G, C, T?] of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.�

Do you believe the above explanation of how the DNA repair system works is accurate? If so, do you know how this process could have developed? What would have been its purpose while it was in the process of developing into the DNA repair system?

What do you suppose would have happened if and when a cell encountered a copy error prior to the development of the repair system? Do you suppose that cells would have been able to continue to exist or do you think they would have mutated to the point of becoming nonfunctional?

---

The “Explore Evolution� discuss by Richard Dawkins (http://explore-evolution.unl.edu/) did not provide much new information for me.

I have read a great deal of information in the Talk Origins web site (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Some is very interesting and informative, while other information is debatable. If you have a specific Talk Origins web page that you would like me to read, let me know.

---

The “Fossil Evidence� information that appeared on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) was interesting and very informative, although I have reservations about some of the information included in this web site. I believe that some of the information provided is debatable, such as the “Fish to Amphibians� discussion. On this web page there is an illustration that appears to be stating that Eusthenopteron (385 mya) is an ancestor of Tiktaalik (375 mya) and that Tiktaalik is an ancestor of Ichthyostega (367 – 362 mya). I believe that in reality this is only speculation rather than fact. From reviewing the fossils (although I am no paleontologist), I am not sure that one could have evolved from the other, as the limbs do not appear to represent a progression. I believe that the forelimbs of Ichthyostega may have been similar to those of Acanthostega but no one can be sure since the forelimbs of Ichthyostega were not preserved in the fossil record.

I read elsewhere:
“… paleontologists have placed the evolution of limbs connecting fish and reptiles in a proposed sequence which sounds impressive: Glyptolepis—Sauripterus—Eusthenopteron—Panderichthys—Tiktaalik—Acanthostega—Ichthyostega—Tulerpeton. But these extinct fossil creatures differ considerably among themselves and are not an obvious evolving sequence. Their order is doubtful. Panderichthys ‘dated’ earlier than its supposed predecessor Eusthenopteron. Acanthostega’s skull is more tetrapod-like than Ichthyostega’s while the latter’s shoulder and hips are more robust and land-animal-like than Acanthostega.� (http://creation.com/review-neil-shubin-your-inner-fish)

“Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land. While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing. Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.�
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lking-fish

“… no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking� in only the most trivial sense of the word.�
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lking-fish
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... fishy-fish

“[the limbs of land animals] differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. It is significant that the “earliest� true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless. Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking� in only the most trivial sense of the word.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... fishy-fish

“One of the fundamental issues with claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil is it’s fin. The fin was not connected to the main skeleton, and could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, which is similar to the claim that the Coelacanth’s fin, but when the “living fossil� was discovered in 1938, it was found that the fin was not used for walking, but for deft maneuvering when swimming. In fact, Coelacanths have been seen swimming backward, upside-down, forward, side to side, and even standing on their head – but never walking.�
http://theendtimesarehere.com/2011/03/2 ... sing-link/

Possibly Tiktaalik was similar to an alligator or a crocodile, but it is not known for sure. It is also not know for sure how fish fins actually evolved into amphibian legs. I do not believe there are any fossils of fish whose fins are in the process of developing into legs. I believe that it is questionable whether Tiktaalik’s front limbs are intermediate between fins and legs. They may be a form of a fin. Without the meaty portion of the creature, it is difficult to make a definite conclusion. Without a sequence of fossils leading from fish with fins to amphibians with legs, I would prefer that any fish to amphibian literature would indicate that the information is based on the existing evidence and is sheer conjecture rather than portraying it as fact.

----

The “Reptiles to Mammals� discussion on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) is also debatable. Only the skeletons of Velociraptor (83 mya), Archaeopteryx (155-150 mya) and Yanornis (120-110 mya) were discussed. I was pleased that it was acknowledged that Velociraptor was actually younger than Archaeopteryx and Yanornis and that they could not actually be descendents of Velociraptor. It was not mentioned that most reptiles have a 3-chamber heart and that most mammals have a 4-chamber heart.

I read elsewhere that some reptiles, crocodilians such as crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gavials, do have four-chambered hearts, however, it is unlikely that these reptile four-chambered hearts could have evolved into mammals. There are three reasons for this. First, the crocodilians are not among the mammal-like reptiles that are thought to be ancestral to the first mammals. Second, even if crocodiles were ancestral to the mammals, there would need to be an explanation of how the crocodile’s four-chambered heart first arose from the three-chambered heart of the typical reptile, since Darwinian common descent stipulates that all living things evolved from a former ancestor.
(Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, /Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. Pp. 130, 132.)

----

The “Land Animals to Aquatic Mammals� discussed on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) is also debatable. This web site states that: “Ambulocetus … toes were webbed like those of modern mammals adapted for swimming.� From looking at fossils, I am not sure how it could be known for sure Ambulocetus had webbed feet. Even some dogs are able to swim, but dogs are strictly land animals.
----
I also believe that the discussion of “Quadrupedal primates to bipedal primates� discussed on the Nova web site is highly debatable. It is questionable as to whether Australopithecus afarensis is an ancestor of humans or not. “Lucy� is an example of this genus-species, although I have some reservations about this specimen.

I read elsewhere that:
Australophithecus afarensis stood about 4 feet tall and is often described as the “ape from the waist up� and “human from the waist down.� Best known from the famous fossil named “Lucy�, this pre-human had a cranial capacity of 400-500 cubic centimeters, which is a little larger than a chimpanzee’s (370-380 cc). A. afarensis walked upright on its legs and, as footprints from 3.5 million years ago reveal, in a fashion similar to humans. Lucy is an example of Australopithecus afarensis and is dated sometime 3.2 mya and was made up of fossil fragments.
The knee that gained Lucy the reputation of walking upright was found 1.5 miles away from the other fragments. It wasn’t until years later that those who reconstructed Lucy admitted that the knee was found 200 feet lower into the ground. The fossils that make up Lucy were most likely not all from one ape-like creature, but most likely were a composite of ape and human bones. Thirteen years after Lucy was discovered, bones virtually identical from those of modern man were found under the bones where Austalopithecus fossils were found. Other Australopithecines seem to be 4 or 5 my old. But there is no agreement among anthropologists as to whether they are really those of human ancestors.
sources :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why Evolution is True. New York (NY): Viking Penguin Group. Pp. 203-204
Briski, D. 2004. Impressive Deception—Creation or Evolution—You Decide. Shippensburg, (PA): Ragged Edge Press. P. 118.
Parker, G. 1980. Creation Facts of Life. Green Forest (AR): Master Books. Pp 183. Lubenow M. 2004. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids (MI): Baker Books. Pp. 301-302

Would you give me your opinion on these comments?
---
The “How Did Life Begin� (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... begin.html) (Posted 07.01.04 NOVA) interview did not provide a great deal of information, although it was interesting. Paleontologist Andrew Knoll, in this interview, did not go into very much detail about how he believes life began and did not discuss many of the obstacles and hurdles that needed to be overcome for life to arise from non-living chemicals, although he did state:
“…we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.�

I would say that those who advocate that life evolved from chemicals, at this time, do not have much evidence or plausible theories on which to go on. Those who believe that life originated from chemicals are pretty confident that life did indeed arise from non-living matter, as even Paleontologist Andrew Knoll believes: “We know that it [that life originated from non-living chemicals] happened, so it's possible.�

Paleontologist Andrew Knoll did admit that to explain how life began or this planet is still unknown: “The hard part [in living evolving from chemicals], and the part that I think nobody has quite figured out yet, is how you get them [the chemicals and the environment] working together. How do you go from some warm, little pond on a primordial Earth that has amino acids, sugars, fatty acids just sort of floating around in the environment to something in which nucleic acids are actually directing proteins to make the membranes of the cell?... “

I was pleased that Paleontologist Andrew Knoll did not attempt to portray that he knew for sure how life evolved from non-life, as I have read in some text books (mostly biology books). Although he did state that he thought the process was most likely rather simple, he did not pretend to know actually how it could have happened by natural means. I appreciate his honesty. Do you know of any more recent theories as to how life may have begun on this planet?

[TheJackelantern]

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inheritedtraits found in inter-breeding populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical orbehavioural characteristics, that result from gene–environment interactions. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation,genetic recombination andgene flow. This process has produced all the diversity of living organisms.

Twitching lizards are an example of evolution. However, to better understand other aspects of evolution, you can read the following:

--

Here is the definition of Micro Evolution:

Microevolution is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

--

Here is the definition of Macro Evolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

--

Here is the definition of speciation:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages. Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.

[b]Example difference between micro a ... 95Hy-te7-E

And how about more specific papers on electromagnetism and life:

http://www.biotele.com/EL/ELTOC.html
http://n.b5z.net/i/u/12000008/f/MSelect ... ook_1_.pdf

Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electromagnetism is also the force which holds electrons and protons together inside atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons inside and between atoms.

In short, you can't have a living organism without the electromagnetic force to which is one of the prime drivers to self-organizing molecules. And we can look into Organic compounds vs inorganic compounds:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -life.html

scientists have discovered that simple peptides can organize into bi-layer membranes. The finding suggests a “missing link� between the pre-biotic Earth’s chemical inventory and the organizational scaffolding essential to life.

“This is a boon to our understanding of large, structural assemblies of molecules,� says Emory Chemistry Chair David Lynn, who helped lead the effort, which were collaborations of the departments of chemistry, biology and physics. “We’ve proved that peptides can organize as bi-layers, and we’ve generated the first, real-time imaging of the self-assembly process. We can actually watch in real-time as these nano-machines make themselves.�

Organic – Inorganic Nano-Hybrid Materials

Or:

in 1828, a chemist named Friedrich Wöhler accidently created urea. Urea was a compound that mammals produced to get rid of excess nitrogen. Urea is secreted in their urine. Friedrich created it using inorganic (non-living) salts. Everyone was surprised, but chemists then knew that it was possible to create chemicals found in the body using chemicals from the ground or air (non-living sources). So now organic compounds were not defined as only those compounds from organisms, but compounds based on carbon.

http://www.chemistryland.com/Elementary ... rganic.htm

--

EVOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE TO INFORMATION SCIENCE:

The following below is an example electromagnetic phenomenon:

I will give you examples of how information theory works in biology and evolution. This falls under Physical information theory and information theory that deals with any pattern of information that influences the transformation of other patterns into new patterns of information. Here information is not lost, it just simply changes value, function, purpose, state, or behavior. So All of which is below are examples of physical information theory. This includes Chaos theory in regards to "sefl-organization"

Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything
Synthetic Life 1
Video: Synthetic Life 2
Self Orgainization and Complexity
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA
Gene self-organizing maps
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization

Enzymes and self-organizing collective dynamics:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

RNA:

* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162009.htm
* http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/

Further synthetic life links:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html

DNA Robots:

* http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php
* http://lcsr.jhu.edu/wiki/images/e/e6/Ch ... 200711.pdf

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://anguishedrepose.com/2010/06/01/s ... nside-you/

The Self-organized gene:

* http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/th ... ne-part-1/

The human Genome in relation to apes. Its the fusion of a chromosome 2:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Genotypic speciation of heterotrophic bacteria:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

Introduction: to species and speciation in micro-organisms:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /1897.full

Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feedback in which order comes from a system of chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other as noted below:

* "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern

* what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value. Example: genetic or, genetically transmitted information.

* Computing data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.

* a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

So lets look at a direct example:

We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means, and how it's related to evolution:

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/vie ... 32&t=13429

We can prove physical information theory and evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ing arrangements play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

Furthermore, we can get even deeper into information theory and evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... -sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

And here is a lot of things we learned from self-organizing organisms, Genes, DNA, and the processes we find in the evolution of life:

CalResCo, an extensive website about complexity, self-organization and related subjects, including a self-organizing systems FAQ
PCC- Complexity Theory Resources, including Lecture notes on "Complexity: A New Science For A Postmodern World "
Complex Adaptive Systems and Artificial Life: an extensive list of links including conferences
Phil Goetz's complexity page, including a [url=http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/%7Egoetz/dict.html]complexity dictionary
Yaneer Bar Yam's Guide to Complex Systems
the Complexity Digest: a weekly list of summaries of articles related to complexity that appeared in various journals, a most useful service provided by G. Mayer-Kress
Evolution of Complex Systems: Umur Ozkul's collection of thoughts, essay and links
T. Tolman's Complexity of the Universe page
Complexity Online: a quite elaborate server with Hypermedia papers and pointers to other places
Complexity International: refereed electronic journal on Complex Systems Research
Information on Complex Adaptive Systems in different parts of the Internet
Bruce Edmonds's extensive Bibliography on Measures of Complexity
Santa Fe Institute for the Sciences of Complexity (ftp-server)
Science on the Edge of Chaos: an interactive multimedia service on complexity and chaos including a series of TV programmes
Nonlinearity and Complexity home page at Democritus University of Thrace
Center for Complex Systems Research
Australian National University Bioinformatics
Non-linear Science E-print archive with papers and conference announcements on chaos, adaptation, self-organization etc.
Complex Systems Links on the Web
Complexity, Complex Systems and Chaos: [at] Brint (Business & Technology Research)
resources relevant to the journal "Complexity"
Self-organizing systems Home page (mostly about cybernetic philosophy)
Self-Organizing Systems: a tutorial on the processes and patterns of organization and complexity in natural systems, by Ethan H. Decker
Complexity discussions from the point of view of constructivism and Robert Rosen's theories
Complex Systems research: an extensive list of links
Parameterized Complexity Home Page -- Todd Wareham, U Victoria
Complexity Home Page at Virginia Commonwealth University
[url=http://bayes.wustl.edu/]Bayesian Theory As Extended Logic -- Ed Jaynes
An Introduction to Synergetics
Chaos, Complexity, and Everything Else: a long list of links on chaos, complexity, artificial inteligence, genetic algorithms, and fractals
New England Complex Systems Institute, including the self-organizing, peer-reviewed Interjournal
Complex Adaptive Systems in Finance and strategy, by Mark White

Alife, Evolutionary Systems and Simulations

Artificial Life Online service with lots of info (news, bibliography, journals, ...)
The New Alife Database: Searchable Database of Alife-Related Sites Gathered by a Search Bot
T.S. Ray: An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology (paper on artificial life)
Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems research at the University of Sussex
Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab
Interactive genetic art (evolves according to user preferences)
Genetically programmed music
FAQ's on Genetic Algorithms
[url=ftp://ftp.cognet.ucla.edu/pub/alife]Artificial Life[/url] ftp server
Karl Sims' Virtual Creatures: 3D, animated "life forms", developed through simulated evolution
Intelligent Systems: Brendan Kitts's reflections on life, AI, and their future developments, with many useful references
CWRU Autonomous Agents Research Group
MIT Media Lab Autonomous Agents Group, headed by Pattie Maes
Intelligent Software Agents
Web resources on Intelligent Software Agents
University of Vienna Dep. of Theoretical Biology, with research on systems theory of evolution, alife, constructivism, cognition and evolutionary epistemology
Boids , Flocks, Herds, and Schools: a Distributed Behavioral Model
The Swarm simulation system: a software system for complex system simulation devloped at SFI
Liverpool Biocomputation Group (Announcements)
Brian Keely's bibliography on Artificial Life
Boston University's Center for Adaptive Systems
Evolutionary Systems and Artificial Life: lecture notes by Luis Rocha
Bibliography of Alife publications: a very rich collection of online papers, maintained by Ezequiel Di Paolo, covering topics such as complexity, self-organization, evolution, social behavior, robotics, etc.
Biota.org: an organization stimulating the development of digital tools and environments for the study of living systems, with impressive visual and virtual reality examples of digital organisms
Nicholas Gessler's site on artificial culture and computational anthropology

---

We can also address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... rFact.html

Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):

Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Commission on Science Education
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Society for Microbology
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Society of Parasitologists
American Sociological Association
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association of Southeastern Biologists
Australian Academy of Science
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology and Computing
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education
Illinois Federation of Teachers
InterAcademy Panel
Iowa Academy of Science
Kansas Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences

National Association of Biology Teachers

New Mexico Academy of Sciences
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Pennsylvania Academy of Science
Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists
Philosophy of Science Association
Reaearch!America
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre
Royal Society
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society of Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society for Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertabrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Tallahassee Scientific Society
Tennessee Academy of Science
Tenessee Darwin Coalition
The Paleontological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science

American Society of Plant Taxonomists
American Statistical Association
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science
Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester (UK)
Science Museum of Minnesota
Union for Reform Judaism
Association of Science-Technology Centers
European Network of Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite)
International Committee for Museums and Collections of Natural History (NATHIST)
Australian Museum
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Museum of the Earth (Ithaca, New York)
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
New York State Museum

...and a recent updated, reaffirmation -

http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92

NABT (National Association of Biology Teachers) Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

The frequently-quoted declaration of Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in the science of biology. As such, evolution provides the scientific framework that explains both the history of life and the continuing change in the populations of organisms in response to environmental challenges and other factors. Scientists who have carefully evaluated the evidence overwhelmingly support the conclusion that both the principle of evolution itself and its mechanisms best explain what has caused the variety of organisms alive now and in the past.

The principle of biological evolution states that all living things have arisen from common ancestors. Some lineages diverge while others go extinct as a result of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and other well-studied mechanisms. The patterns of similarity and diversity in extant and fossil organisms, combined with evidence and explanations provided by molecular biology, developmental biology, systematics, and geology provide extensive examples of and powerful support for evolution. Even as biologists continue to study and consider evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors and that the process of evolutionary change through time is driven by natural mechanisms.

Evolutionary biology rests on the same scientific methodologies the rest of science uses, appealing only to natural events and processes to describe and explain phenomena in the natural world. Science teachers must reject calls to account for the diversity of life or describe the mechanisms of evolution by invoking non-naturalistic or supernatural notions, whether called "creation science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent design theory," or similar designations. Ideas such as these are outside the scope of science and should not be presented as part of the science curriculum. These notions do not adhere to the shared scientific standards of evidence gathering and interpretation.

Just as nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, nothing in biology education makes sense without reference to and thorough coverage of the principle and mechanisms provided by the science of evolution. Therefore, teaching biology in an effective, detailed, and scientifically and pedagogically honest manner requires that evolution be a major theme throughout the life science curriculum both in classroom discussions and in laboratory investigations.

Biological evolution must be presented in the same way that it is understood within the scientific community: as a well-accepted principle that provides the foundation to understanding the natural world. Evolution should not be misrepresented as 'controversial,' or in need of 'critical analysis' or special attention for any supposed 'strength or weakness' any more than other scientific ideas are. Biology educators at all levels must work to encourage the development of and support for standards, curricula, textbooks, and other instructional frameworks that prominently include evolution and its mechanisms and that refrain from confusing non-scientific with scientific explanations in science instruction.

Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 2011. Revised 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011 (Original Statement 1995). Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, 1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998.

Evolution Theory in modern medicine:

There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -medicine/
http://evmedreview.com/
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.htmlv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicinev

Evolutionary medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. It provides a complementary scientific approach to the present mechanistic explanations that dominate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_science]medical science, and particularly modern medical education. Researchers in the field of evolutionary medicine have suggested that evolutionary biology should not simply be an optional topic in medical school, but instead should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences.

Such adaptations concern:

The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individual’s immune system.
The processes, constraints and trade-offs of human evolution.
The evolved responses that enable individuals to protect, heal and recuperate themselves from infections and injuries such as immunity, fever, and sickness behavior, and the processes that regulate their deployment to maximize fitness.
How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene.

We also have this:

Antibiotic resistance

Microorganisms evolve resistance through natural selection acting upon random mutation. Once a gene conferring resistance arises to counteract an antibiotic, not only can that bacteria thrive, but it can spread that gene to other types of bacteria through horizontal gene transfer of genetic information by plasmid exchange. It is unclear whether the genetic information responsible for antibiotic resistance typically arises from an actual mutation, or is already present in the gene pool of the population of the organism in question.

For more details on this topic, see antibiotic resistance

Virulence

The effect of organisms upon their host can vary from being symbioticcommensals that are beneficial, to pathogens that reduce fitness. Many pathogens produce virulence factors that directly cause disease, or manipulate their host to allow them to thrive and spread. Since a pathogen’s fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offspring to other hosts, it was thought at one time, that virulence moderated and it evolved toward commensality. However, this view is now questioned by Ewald.

For more details on this topic, see virulence, virulence factors and optimal virulence

Immune evasion

The success of any pathogen depends upon its ability to evade host immunity. Therefore, pathogens evolve methods that enable them to infect a host, and then evade detection and destruction by its immune system. These include hiding within host cells, within a protective capsule (as with M. tuberculosis), secreting compounds that misdirect the host's immune response, binding its antibodies, rapidly changing surface markers, or masking them with the host’s own molecules.

For more details on this topic, see manipulation of the immune system by pathogens, andevasion of the innate immune system

OBSERVED EVOLUTION:

Evolution has been observed. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - June 2008

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 211022.htm

ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Lungless salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzii) live in a horseshoe-shape region in California (a 'ring') which circles around the central valley. The species is an example of evolution in action because, while neighboring populations may be able to breed, the two populations at the ends of the arms of the horseshoe are effectively unable to reproduce.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... Whales.pdf

"...evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record."

Thus we suggest paying special attention to the sections of the paper devoted to embryological stages and vestigial traits:

It makes no sense, for example, for some modern cetaceans to have useless, atrophied skeletal structures, such as pelvises and tiny hind-limbs, unless they evolved from animals that needed these structures to walk on land.

The fact that modern whales have genes which cause them to grow fur during the course of their embryological development, only to have it disappear before birth, also points to the fact that their ancestors were furred mammals.

The evolution of whales

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

HOW CREATIONISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION:

And the following, provided by JackOL, is the type of argument Creationists use in debates such as these:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... ctive.html

Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.

This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.

EXAMPLE:

Theist states:

As for the Bacteria, its still bacteria, its changes , regardless of lateral mutation, loss, or any type of supposed gain, its still bacteria. Its not turning into a fish, or a human.

Well, evolution does not state that bacteria will magically change into a human or fish.. However, it does state that it could evolve into more complex organisms should evolution select for it. And this of course would be time scales you know would be in the millions of years. So of course we are not going to witness bacteria instantly changing into a fish. But a guarantee that you will never witness a walking fish magically appear on your desk either! However, let's educate ourselves on Bacteria:

Protozoa (from the Greek words π�ωτό, proto, meaning first, and ζωα, zoa, meaning animals; singular protozoon or also protozoan) are a diverse group of single-cell eukaryotic organisms, many of which are motile. Throughout history, protozoa have been defined as single-cell protists with animal-like behavior, e.g., movement. Protozoa were regarded as the partner group of protists to protophyta, which have plant-like behaviour, e.g., photosynthesis.

Protistans are eukaryotes. They have a nucleus, large ribosomes, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and golgi bodies. Many species have chloroplasts. Some protists divide by way of mitosis, meiosis, or both. The majority of protistians are single-celled, but nearly every lineage also has multicelled forms. Protists are important for the use of food. Saprobes resemble some bacteria and fungi, and some predators and parasites resembles animals. Some are heterotrophs and some are autotrophs. Chytrids, water molds, slime molds, protozans, and sporozans are heterotrophs.

These evolved from bacteria.. But let's get a better picture:

Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolu ... -life.html

Written by Dr. T. M. Wassenaar Tuesday, 06 January 2009

Bacteria have an extremely important place in the evolution of life. Our knowledge of bacteria helps us understand, observe, and investigate evolution. This exhibits explains what we know about the origin of life on Earth and the role bacteria played and still play in this. As described in this Lecture on the Origin of Life all life originated from a common ancestor (Source: UTDallas). Our other exhibit explains how we can observe mutations in bacteria directly.

Archaeabacteria are a diverse group of bacteria (prokaryotes that do not have a nucleus) and are considered a major group unto themselves. This group is called the Archaea (from Greek, 'old') for short and to distinguish them from the other prokaryotes, all other bacteria are then called Eubacteria.

What are Archaea? They are more similar to eukaryotes than to bacteria in several ways: their cell-wall does not contain peptidoglycan (a component of each bacterial cell). There are other characteristics that Archaea share with eukaryotes, however they do not have a nucleus (which all Eukaryotes have). They form a group by themselves.

The Kingdom Monera is the taxonomic kingdom that comprises all prokaryotes: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. Monera has been contrasted with the kingdoms of eukaryotic organisms (protists, fungi, plants, and animals).Archaebacteria emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago and are the oldest life forms.There are several theories about the exact phylogenetic relationship (what was derived from what) between archaea, eukaryotes, and eubacteria, as can be seen in two versions of the Tree-of-Life. New insights dictate that eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged from one another near the time of the origin of life, and that eukaryotes were derived from eubacteria.

Let's ignore the details. Important is that bacteria (Eu and Archae) have been on earth much longer than eukaryotes; they are probably the oldest forms of life and have populated Earth for most of the time our planet exists. Going back in evolutionary history, the Archaea evolved some 3500 million years ago. Fossiles are mostly not quite as old as that, but occasionally we do find bacterial fossiles. Compare that to the age of the first eukaryotes, 1800 million years ago, or the first animals, 600 million years. Earth is truly the planet of bacteria in this respect!

Look at a cut-up prokaryote to see what is inside
Do you believe the scenario of "Jurassic Park" could come true? Maybe we can't generate dynosaures, but what about bacteria from "jurassic park".

The first inhabitants of Earth did not need oxygen to breath, in fact oxygen was toxic to them, and this gas was rare in the atmosphere in those days. However the cyanobacteria that inhabited Earth in the Precambrium produced oxygen as a waste gas and so helped establish an aerobic ecosystem. Read more about Cyanobacteria. They grew in shallow sea water where they formed mats, and used incoming sunlight for photosynthesis. When such a bacterial mat was covered by mud or sand, light could no longer penetrate and the organisms died. A new mat could form on top of this, and the fossilized buildup of millions of layers resulted in the formation of Stromatolites, which can be seen to this day.

There are three major known groups within the Archaebacteria: methanogens, halophiles, and thermophiles. The methanogens are anaerobic bacteria that produce methane. They are found in sewage treatment plants, bogs, and the intestinal tracts of ruminants. Ancient methanogens are the source of natural gas. Halophiles are bacteria that thrive in high salt concentrations such as those found in salt lakes or pools of sea water. Thermophiles are the heat-loving bacteria found near hydrothermal vents and hot springs. You can read more about these Extremophiles in another exhibit.

This lecture on Diversity of bacteria and archaeans explains the differences in more detail--and in more jargon.

The presence of Archaea and Bacteria changed Earth dramatically. They helped establish a stable atmosphere, and produced oxygen is such quantities that eventually life forms could evolve that needed oxygen in stead of producing it. The new atmospheric conditions calmed the weather so that the extremes were less severe. Life had created the conditions for new life to be formed. It is one of the great wonders of Nature that this could take place.

Last Updated on Friday, 06 March 2009

Now let's go back to this Theist argument:

Once again regardless of what tests are done, it is still basing it off of assumptions.

Incorrect. It's not based on purely assumption like Your GOD THEORY that has zero empirical value or evidence... NASA's research, fore example, has a lot to do with empirically supported data to which includes extremophiles, and even thermophiles. This also includes studies involving arsenic based life forms. I even wrote an article posted an article on possible self-replicating metals:

Scientists take first step towards creating 'inorganic life'

We can also look more into synthetic life:

Synthetic' chromosome permits rapid, on-demand 'evolution' of yeast; Artificial system has built-in diversity generator

... Last Word...

I have posted just a mere fraction of what I could have posted, and I took the time to sit here and convert links and format this information for your own consumption and education.. Though I doubt creationists will bother to actually read the material. If anyone would like me to, I can post a boat load more material here.. Including information theory / science that deals with biochemistry and evolutionary processes. And what Creationsists don't comprehend is that these same processes that are involved in evolution are also --->REQUIRED<--- to support the complexity and basic functionality of cognitive dynamics and a conscious state. More specifically noted under complex adaptive systems with feebdack that deal with information flow, processes, cognitive system dynamics, interactions, interference, and reactionary response systems. Hugely important in bio-chemistry!

Have an nice day and remember:

Nothing begins with consciousness. Everything begins and ends with information: Information: The Material Physical Cause Of Causation

[TheJackelantern]

You seem to think that creation scientists are just shooting in the dark.

Actually, if you actually read their actual journals they lack any notion of "Creationism".. In fact the journals that are actually published do nothing to support Creationism. What you see on Creationist websites is redistributed content out of context in the public domain to which is skewed in a format for creationist points of view.. It's all at best pseudo-science.. Supposed Creationist scientists like Sarfati have been repeatedly discredited, especially when they attempt to do science that is not in their field of expertise. Hence, they pretend to be Biologists ect when they are not.

They are no different than evolution scientists. They look at facts and they interpret them. They just interpret them differently than you do. .

They don't interpret, they manufacture bs.. More specifically, pseudoscience. You can feel free to look up the videos: Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At?

Well, it's because the crap they read on their creationist sites is utter garbage that preys on ignorance.. They are no different than Flat Earther's in how they use pseudoscience..You want to learn something about evolution? Well read my post above and actually take the time to visit all the links, watch the videos, and study. Hence, actually make an effort to learn something vs taking the easy route in assuming "GOD DONE IT". And if you need an easy answer, you can simply say "E DONE IT"..

Energy = force = information = causation = existence..

[nygreenguy]

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:


I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).

Yes, fossils. Fossils are observations.

Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.

Everything is. A good example are ring species.

I have read a great deal of information provided by talkOrigins.org. I too agree that science works, that is, the type of science that deals with facts. I believe in many theories that explain certain things in our world, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. The difference between the theory that Copernicus and Galileo proposed was about things that exist in the present. The Theory of Evolution involves things that occurred in the unobserved past.

Everything occurs in the past, and we do not need to sit and watch something to call it "observational". If I put bacteria on a plate with antibiotics on it and come back the next day am I wrong to conclude the antibiotics killed the bacteria even though I didnt spend 20 hours watching them?

If I were to go to the site where Mt. Saint Helens erupted and saw an area where a bunch of trees were knocked down and burnt to a crisp am I wrong for saying the volcano didnt do it since I did not witness those exact trees falling down?

See, with observational science, we examine things and how they work in the here and now. From this, we can extrapolate how thing worked in the past or will work in the future. Then we also use statistical analysis to validate our assumption.

Evolution does not totally believe in facts. Some conclusions are assumed where evidence has not been obtained. Conclusions are reached as a result of the evidence. The evidence needs to be interpreted.

An assumption is a baseless conclusion. Evolution makes no assumptions. Everything is based in evidence. As for interpretation, all evidence is interpreted so that is a moot point.

Just because some creatures have similar bodies and existed around the same time does not necessarily indicate that one evolved from the other. It could and it could not. It is debatable, as it is not a proven fact. I would need to see a sequence of fossils that represented a steady progression. It is a fact in the minds of those who are convinced evolution accounts for every living thing in existence.

This is only true if you do not have a solid understand of science and epistemology and have had access to the body of knowledge out there.

c0nc0rdance on youtube has a good video:

Many people seem to only mention evidence that would support this view. No one seems to be conducting experiments today to falsify the theory of evolution, mainly because I suppose that evolution (all aspects) is now assumed to be true. The assumption is that small changes (micro-evolution) gradually lead to major changes (macro-evolution). Mutations may change a trait in an organism, but how far could these changes go?

Here is the thing, if I assume evolution is true, and it is not, my research will not work.
Same goes for gravity. Do you see people trying to "falsify" gravity? No. We know it is true.

What we DO see is the details being worked out. These theories are tested, albeit indirectly, by every experiment which relies on their truth.

Mutations, gene flow, and sex are the main causes of change in a creature. Gene flow and sex components of evolution changes are natural and could cause slight changes in a species. Dogs, horses, and people, vary in size and appearance, and also some creatures have been artificially bred (artificial selection), but they are still dogs, horses, and humans. Mutations are not so normal (natural), although sun radiation may cause a mutation to a gene.

I believed I previously showed that there are enough mutations in the human population to totally replace the genome in just over 1 generation time.

The “Introduction to Evolution� Berkeley web site also mentions:
“Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are ‘naturally-occurring.’ For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation…�

I do not know for sure, but I believe that possibly the above statement may be referring to point mutations (the result of what happens when a single chemical ‘letter’ [A, G, C, T?] in the DNA sequence is changed as a result of heat, chemicals, or radiation.) If this is true, I am not sure whether these types of mutations would be effective enough to cause any noticeable changes, even if multiple small mutations occurred over multiple of generations. Would the mutations be related in any way to a creature to cause a substantial change?

No, for a couple reasons. First, the error can be simply due to imperfect replication. It doesnt require heat, radiation, or chemicals. Heat and radiation tend to alter the genome BEFORE replication. Secondly, single base pair alterations have been know to have really LARGE effect and little to NO effect. So I wouldnt make assumptions without first examining the evidence.

Would exposure to chemicals and radiation ever be beneficial to an organism? I suppose if only a very slight exposure occurred that only a minor change or changes might occur, however, I would say that the majority of exposure to chemicals and radiation would prove to be detrimental (harmful) rather than beneficial (advantageous).

Ever ate a ruby-red grapefruit? that is a byproduct of forced mutation. Before genetic modification, crops were experimentally planted around a radiation source to hope for beneficial mutations. Turns out it actually worked!

Additionally, I did some undergrad research on the chemical mutagenesis of pine and ginkgo pollen and I was able to get ginkgo pollen which was longer lived and produced superior pollen tube development through chemical mutation.

The last paragraph quoted above also mentioned that a cell has the ability to repair DNA.

I read elsewhere that “As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence [A, G, C, T?] of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.�

Do you believe the above explanation of how the DNA repair system works is accurate? If so, do you know how this process could have developed? What would have been its purpose while it was in the process of developing into the DNA repair system?

Yes and yes. The DNA repair system, like everything else is biology, is "obvious". The same enzyme which ADDS the bases in replication ALSO does the proofreading (DNA Polymerase). So it doesnt take much tinkering to modify an already existing protein to have a job similar to the one it already does.

As suggested before, while I always encourage people to ask questions, it would be difficult for any of us to give it to you do to the time and format available here. So I would suggest such broad and content heavy questions like this be answered by yourself. I think most of us are ok with providing sources, but we cant teach you genetics! Sorry, I hope this doesnt come across as "jerky".

[Goat]