Evolution

[Bronxernijn]

The only point I make is that a discussion over evolution is not scientific, and is a matter of personal belief. This is not ignorance, but pointing out the pointlesness of this discussion. Evolutionists prove evolution is right, thus laming any theists, who do not need to prove their belief anyway. Good job, everybody wins.

Also, I do not see how you see me as a theist, as I do not reject macro-evolution in itself. As a scientist I say evolution is true, because there is no better scientific alternative. I'm having a hard time that there are still real scientists around believing evolution is true, because the facts say so.

how do you explain the lack of genetic diversity shown in native africans as compared to those in other continents?

Bingo! Evolution

Vestigal proponents?
How about new viruses every year????

This is micro-evolution, it has nothing to do with different gene pools. Also, I would like you to explain why you see viruses as organisms, as this is quite debatable. And to those vestigial proponents: a lot of them have actually been found out to have a useful function.

Lysenkoism was the result of the Soviet Union applying this idea to their scientific and agricultural policies. Sad as it may be, the facts are a better indicator of truth than personal or ideological comforts.

All facts related to evolution can also be related otherwise. Therefore those facts are not an indicator of truth.

With a good enough imagination you can think of a million different explanations for a given circumstance. Unless you are arguing for Solipsism and a rejection of evolution on that basis I am not entirely sure how this relates to evolution or anything else in this thread.

I do not reject evolution. I am just stating that you can not prove evolution to be right. (red. macro-evolution)

Is it so wrong to seek scientific and evidence-based answers to the "bigger" questions?

Of course not. But to base your answers on those bigger questions on a theory with big holes, seems a bit dubious to me. An "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable for belief, but not in science. That is exactly why the evolution theory is as much a theory as creationism.

The common definition of macroevolution refers to an idea that is supported not only by overwhelming scientific consensus but also by a wealth of scientific evidence. If you're using a different definition, it would be kind of you to elaborate on it.

I'm not. But for the purpose of clearness, I will. "the origin and diversification of higher taxa". I hope that is clear enough.

All three sentences here betray your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. I can understand if you feel that science or evolution posits a threat to your particular set of religious views, but the way to resolve this is not to embrace ignorance. Theism and evolution are perfectly compatible.

Only the first sentence is nonsense. The fact that you can not empirically prove there is a god, does not mean there is none. Scientifically seen there is no god. It's just about how absolute you see science. But as I said before, I am not pledging for nor against evolution.

The idea that any scientific theory is based entirely on the thoughts of a single person is laughable. Natural selection was not Darwin's idea alone, and early conceptions of evolution preceded and influenced Darwin's own. Furthermore, modern evolutionary theory has advanced considerably since Darwin's time and encompasses a much wider range of phenomena than classical Darwinism.

I find it interesting that you reference Darwin and say that he was "not even a scientist." Not only is this false by any reasonable definition of the term, it also gives me the impression that you are more interested in simply deriding evolution than constructing any sort of rigorous argument against it.

Of course you are right. Obviously you did not see my point here. The evidence evolution is based on, is a bit like reversed science. Although the Miller-Urey-experiment is outdated, it's a good example. As I said numerous times before, I am not rejecting evolution, nor am I trying to prove it wrong.

Saying that there is no evidence to back up evolution is just a plain lie. Please reconstruct your understanding on phylogenetic trees and then attempt to explain their correlations without bringing evolution into it.

It's the root. And that's one of the big holes in the theory. A few amino acids do not make a self-replicating structure.

 

[TheDamien]

The only point I make is that a discussion over evolution is not scientific, and is a matter of personal belief.

Discussion of evolution is no less scientific than discussion about quantum mechanics, relativity or geology.

Also, I do not see how you see me as a theist, as I do not reject macro-evolution in itself. As a scientist I say evolution is true, because there is no better scientific alternative. I'm having a hard time that there are still real scientists around believing evolution is true, because the facts say so.

I originally assumed theistic motivation because I have learned to associate several of your arguments, mannerisms and misunderstandings with creationist theism.

Maybe you can enlighten me: even if the substance of the ancient atmosphere was like found out in the Miller-Urey-experiment, how do a few complex amino-acids make a self-replicating cell? That's a thing I really don't understand, but I'm sure other evolutionists can show me.

Abiogenesis is a complex topic and there are many competing hypotheses, but there is not enough data to draw any particular conclusion with certainty. Since evolution and abiogenesis are distinct concepts, this is not entirely relevant to the discussion.

It is perfectly possible for a person to believe that a god created the first life forms while also accepting evolution.

That leads to the next question: how about truth? I mean, science and evidence are all standards created by humans.

Maybe you have some personal definition of what truth, knowledge and evidence are, but it seems to me that you are applying this selectively to evolution. You wouldn't say, for example, that the justice system is flawed because evidence is simply a standard created by humans and so the guilt of a person as it relates to some crime (another standard created by humans, you might say) can never be proven.

This just seems like obstructionism to me.

I do not reject evolution. I am just stating that you can not prove evolution to be right. (red. macro-evolution)

Evolution has, quite frankly, already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course not. But to base your answers on those bigger questions on a theory with big holes, seems a bit dubious to me. An "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable for belief, but not in science. That is exactly why the evolution theory is as much a theory as creationism.

Evolution is not "full of holes." The underlying ideas are both consistent with each other and the evidence. There may be disputes between scientists as to how certain traits have evolved or how a specific mechanism works, but these are minor things.

Only the first sentence is nonsense. The fact that you can not empirically prove there is a god, does not mean there is none. Scientifically seen there is no god. It's just about how absolute you see science.

In the "scientific" sense, god is simply an unproven hypothesis. There is really not much more to it than that, and god is not relevant to this topic. As I have said, theism and evolution are perfectly compatible.

All facts related to evolution can also be related otherwise. Therefore those facts are not an indicator of truth.

The same can be said for any collection of facts, and is only limited by your imagination.

 

[FhelZone]

Seems like a nice topic to discuss about. But I really have 2 points of view It's because I have two totally different personalities. But too bad I'm having a very bad mood today. Stupid spell check is broken again!

First of all Evolution did not exist. Humans are no ordinary animals, because I believe they have been given "Souls" or the so called "Mind", that's how I define soul. Animals don't have such thing in them they only have "Instincts" which is far from our so called "Mind". Human nature allows him to decide from choosing either "Good" or "Evil" but do animals worry about that? No. And yeah there is a God.

 

[emjlr3]

This is micro-evolution, it has nothing to do with different gene pools. Also, I would like you to explain why you see viruses as organisms, as this is quite debatable. And to those vestigial proponents: a lot of them have actually been found out to have a useful function.

your "Macro evolution" is built upon "micro evolution".....regardless of whether they refer to a population or an individual organisms alleles...

anything living is an organism....viruses multiply, they need fuel to survive....they also contain their own DNA and translated proteins - i fail see the misunderstanding

whether or not so called "vestigal" structures have a use or not - it still is an advocate for evolution - or why would God have given humans a coccyx in the first place? or could it have been for a tails in the no to distant past?


***ROFL to the above - do you think other animals don't have a mind? wow that has to be the dumbest thing i have heard in a while....dogs, cats, they can all make up their mind - hell dolphins have sex for pleasure....

I don't think Bronx has given us one fact that disputes Evolution - and I doubt he ever will (they don't exist) - until then, your argument is a logical fallacy, and thus null and void

 

[Kershbob]

Question; what biological mechanism is there to stop "micro-evolution" amounting to "macro-evolution"?

 

[Bronxernijn]

Question; what biological mechanism is there to stop "micro-evolution" amounting to "macro-evolution"?

A justified question indeed. Here is your answer:

A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

source: Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained, Eddie Snipes

 

[Kershbob]

"No new genetic material can be added"

Doubling of chromosomes happens relatively frequently. There is also addition of base pairs.

Even if that block of text didn't contain such a straight lie; it still would not cite a mechanism.

 

[Bronxernijn]

"No new genetic material can be added"

Doubling of chromosomes happens relatively frequently. There is also addition of base pairs.

Even if that block of text didn't contain such a straight lie; it still would not cite a mechanism.

That block of text shows us why micro-evolution is not a fraction of macro-evolution.

I have a question for you as well. How come life becomes more and more complex over time, while natural selection only gets rid of genetic information?

Note: I will go into other comments as well, I do not have time now.

 

[Kershbob]

That block of text shows us why micro-evolution is not a fraction of macro-evolution.

I have a question for you as well. How come life becomes more and more complex over time, while natural selection only gets rid of genetic information?

Note: I will go into other comments as well, I do not have time now.

Complex phenotypically does not mean complex genetically. Many single celled organisms have more genetic information than higher cordates.

Answer; N/A.

Oh and natural selection does not get rid of genetic information. Well I don't even know what you meant but I'm guessing you mean it favors lower genetic complexity or something which is just obscure. Example; citrate digesting Escheria coli arising in the ~famous experiment which was based on an increase in genetic information (the genes for digestion doubling up if I remember correctly) this is the same sort of thing to happen to the nylon digesting bacteria.

 

[emjlr3]

Bronx - what you cited makes no sense - they keep referring to some barrier - but earlier in the explanation describe how this "barrier" is physically unreachable

it suggests that genetic mutations can not change the phenotype "type" of an organism, and refer to this as some limit - but have no bases for that statement - other then thats just the way it is

this also refers to humans as subjects for such a ceiling- and its generally accepted that humans have figuratively broken natural selection, and thus overwritten evolution as a whole - modern medicine has seen to that

 

[vypur85]

I can see your point in differentiating Micro/Macro-Evolution. But...

Who is Eddie Snipes? The source is very unreliable. You can say anything you want, but not without referencing. "The Earth is... flat... (vypur, 2008)".

Even microscopic evolution shows this problem. We have all heard about the ‘super germs’ that have grown resistant to antibiotics. In reality, they are weak germs. Bacteria that is resistant to drugs are usually destroyed by other organisms. For example, bacterium that has mutated so that it no longer pipes in the toxins that would normally destroy it are weaker than other bacteria because they also cannot pipe in the nutrients that are needed to flourish. It may fail to produce enzymes that enable it to resist the drugs, but this also becomes a crippling factor that limits its survival. The very mutations that make it resistant also make it vulnerable and weak.

The above is... not right. They are resistant to antibiotics but are weak in nature? Probably what he said just occur by chance in some other 'super bugs'. I don't see how MRSA is weaker in growth medium with other bacteria. They can still contaminate some of my other bacteria plates and grow well in there. And MRSA is still MRSA even after a few succesive steps of sub culturing. They quite stable like any other bacteria. I don't see why would they want to go back to becoming normal SA again (they probably could, who knows, but, I have yet to see one personally.).

 

[Kershbob]

The above is... not right. They are resistant to antibiotics but are weak in nature? Probably what he said just occur by chance in some other 'super bugs'. I don't see how MRSA is weaker in growth medium with other bacteria. They can still contaminate some of my other bacteria plates and grow well in there. And MRSA is still MRSA even after a few succesive steps of sub culturing. They quite stable like any other bacteria. I don't see why would they want to go back to becoming normal SA again (they probably could, who knows, but, I have yet to see one personally.).

OT a little bit but I fully enjoy and endorse the microbiology in this post. Most bacteria will learn to pump antibiotics out of their cells but this never really works for them as they just die to quick. Most drug resistance comes from their outer protection and the shape of their proteins altering.

Oh and evolution doesn't have to make things better anyway so that quote is a delicious straw man; mixing news headline diction with a very limited scientific knowledge.

 

[Hatebreeder]

Hmmm... To be Honest, I don't think God plays a Role in anything - People say, that God is the one that created us, but IMO, the People created God.
And to that evolution theory - I don't think that we will ever make greater steps in Evolution. I've read somewhere, that Mankind won't evolve, since it isn't under circumstances, which could threaten our lives... I mean, why should we grow a Tail or something? Useless.

So, all in all, I think mankind came to a halt in Evolution.
Guess it would change if we suddenly didn't have anything more to eat... Then I assume that we'd be growing self nourishing organs, like such that Oisters have...

 

[NoxMortus]

The way I understand it, believing in Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution is to disbelieve in Time.

 

[Zakyath]

There are lots of people who don't "believe" in time, so wouldn't be anything "weird" in not believing in it

 

[Seb!]

There are lots of people who don't "believe" in time, so wouldn't be anything "weird" in not believing in it

I think he means the relative progression of events.

You are right, though, there is a significant amount of people who do not believe in time. This group was diminished severely, however, when Einstein's theories became accepted.

 

[Samael88]

I have not read much about evolution, but I got a little theory of my own:

There are some people that is born with more than 5 toes and/or fingers, more teeth. I think that these things can have a thing or two related to radiation rather than natures selection. There has been a lot of these born in asia for what I know about, and it can be related to the bombs that where dropped during world war 2, hirochima and nagasaki (not sure if I spelled it correctly).

That could explain it, and the fact that there is a few meteorite craters around the earth, and that such an impact could have brought some radiation or something and cause mutations and turn creatures and animals into what they are today.


Then there is the natures selection thing.
Let's take the people in africa for example, scientist say that they have black skin beacuse of the sun there and that the skin procects them, while we from north europe are pale and white beacuse there is not much sun at all here and colder climate wich makes it unnessecary for us to have it.

Then there is another thing about evolution that I have heard about.
Our ancestors where supposed to get bigger brains when they started eating meat. Then I got a few things here that makes me doubt that it is the whole truth:
Carnivores only eat meat, then why does for example lions don't get smarter?

I would say that it has something to do with our all around food. We eat food from the whole food chain(almost anyway). We eat plants, nuts, fish, meat and so on... That is more like it to me. We may have gotten smarter beacuse we added more stuff to our costs.

Another thing I have heard about is this:
There is one bit of all mens gentical code that is identical, there was a couple of scientists that "traced" this gene to a tribe in africa.
They believed that there was one man that had mutated and gotten smarter in their tribe a long time ago, and that he was smart enought to take out the competition and that he is the common ancestor of basically all of humanity or something like that.
I watched a show about it on discovery. They called him something like "The adam of science". It was actually really interesting, and brings thought to the mutation theory and natures selection aswell, if you keep in mind that "the strongest survives" and that a strong mind i also a strenght in its own way.

 

[Kershbob]

I have not read much about evolution, but I got a little theory of my own:

You mean hypothesis not theory >(

There are some people that is born with more than 5 toes and/or fingers, more teeth. I think that these things can have a thing or two related to radiation rather than natures selection. There has been a lot of these born in asia for what I know about, and it can be related to the bombs that where dropped during world war 2, hirochima and nagasaki (not sure if I spelled it correctly).

Radiation is a mutagen; it causes an increase in mutation but is not the source of them. Mutations occur naturally without additional mutagenic effects.

 

[Bronxernijn]

What I actually wondered...

I read in an article about the experiments with pidgeons I believe Darwin did. They changed a lot in a few generations, but the next generations changed little. Also, when placed back in their original habitat, they returned to the original quicker than they changed.

I also read that evolution in laboratories show great changes, but have never shown the developping of something new - only modification of existing traits has been observed. Is this true?

 

[Seb!]

I also read that evolution in laboratories show great changes, but have never shown the developping of something new - only modification of existing traits has been observed. Is this true?

That is what new means. All cells come from pre-existing cells. Species are merely genetic mutations of each other.