The evidence for Evolution.

[Aronbengilad]

What is evident is that the public high schools are doing an absolutely wretched job of teaching the basics of the ToE.

I went to one of those high schools and I studied biology as a subject for the last two years of it. However I can think for myself and don't have to accept something just because it is in a school text or because a teacher says it is so.

 

[Speedwell]

I went to one of those high schools and I studied biology as a subject for the last two years of it. However I can think for myself and don't have to accept something just because it is in a school text or because a teacher says it is so.

It's not a question of accepting it, but knowing what it is. You don't seem to have a very clear idea of what it is the theory of evolution actually says. You don't have to accept it, but you should at least know what it says. If nothing else it would make your arguments against it more interesting.

 

[Gene2memE]

Professor Maciej Giertych stated, "Evolutionists main argument is that there are small positive (beneficial) mutations which occur in the reproductive cells and are then retained by natural selection. These mutations, they say, accumulate and cause one species to gradually change into another. I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all the laboratories around the world where many generations of organisms have been produced, no where have positive mutations ever been observed. For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information. There is no natural process known which will produce these new genes either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible."

And Professor Giertych is wrong here. Demonstrably so.

Multiple beneficial mutations have been observed and recorded in the lab and written up as papers. In fact, these papers have been in publication for better than 50 years. Hundreds of times over.

I suspect that Professor Giertych is not being impartial in his opinions - his ties to a number of pro-creationist Catholic groups would seem to suggest his motivations are less to do with science and more to do with his beliefs concerning creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Professor Giertych is wrong here. Demonstrably so.

Multiple beneficial mutations have been observed and recorded in the lab and written up as papers. In fact, these papers have been in publication for better than 50 years. Hundreds of times over.

I suspect that Professor Giertych is not being impartial in his opinions - his ties to a number of pro-creationist Catholic groups would seem to suggest his motivations are less to do with science and more to do with his beliefs concerning creationism.

Nor is he very honest if he claims to be a geneticist. His area of expertise is dendrology. There is nothing in this article that indicates he has any appreciable knowledge of genetics at all:

Maciej Giertych - Wikipedia

 

[SteveB28]

However if by evolutionary change you mean a change that leads to a cat or dog or elephant no longer being a cat or dog or elephant then I don't accept it.

I most certainly do not!

The branching pattern evident in the descent of species shows us that, indeed, the descendants of cats are cats; and elephants of elephants.

And we can go in reverse order to trace those branches. As well as being a human, I am on the branch which also contains the other primates. I am on a bigger branch that contains the mammals. Further back, the vertebrates, the bilaterians, the eukaryotes.

But, all of my and your descendants will possess all of the characteristics of being hominid, as well as any other changes which may evolve over time, along that branch.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe not but it means much the same thing to most people.

Sadly, most people, even people with strong opinions on the subject of evolution, have no idea what they're talking about.

darwinist evolution

None of the science advocates here accepts or supports exclusively Darwinian evolution. We are all fully cognizant of the modern synthesis.

outside the limits built into their genetic code.

Please, do go on. Tell us all about these limits. We have at least one working geneticist here and I'm sure he'd be fascinated to learn about this new discovery.

I would like to hear your definition of what natural selection is and what micro evolution and macro evolution is and how they differ so that we are understanding each other what is meant by those terms.

Natural selection is a the filter through which mutations either fix or disappear from populations. Basically it's the environment in which a population finds itself and what characteristics are most amenable to survival and reproduction.

I don't differentiate between micro and macro personally, but for the purpose of this discussion, micro is subspeciation while macro is a lager trend in evolution over a longer period of time.

 

[USincognito]

By the way i find it rather strange that the two people who have answered me are Atheists and thus most likely with an anti-religious agenda for being on a Christian forum.

And I find it amazing how many people on the Internet have psychic powers and can read minds.

I've been here since 2003. I joined CF specifically to discuss Creationism and Evolution. I'm still here doing that all these years later.

 

[USincognito]

However if by evolutionary change you mean a change that leads to a cat or dog or elephant no longer being a cat or dog or elephant then I don't accept it.

Good, neither do any of us. Putting it as simply as possible - extant taxa do not and will never evolve into other extant or extinct taxa. Also descendants never stop being what their ancestors were.

So, let's use your chosen taxa.

Whatever cats and dogs evolve into in the future they will never stop being cats or dogs. Cats and dogs similarly, never stopped being Carnivora (carnivores), Eutheria (true mammals), Mammalia, Therapsidia, Synapsidia, Amniota, Terrestrial tetrapods, etc. etc.

The same applies for elephants, but they are Eutheria (true mammals), Afrotheria (mammals that evolved in Africa), Tethytheria (Proboscids and sirenians), Probosciadae (elephants, mammoths, mastadons, gomphotheres) or Elephantidae.

 

[USincognito]

Professor Maciej Giertych stated...

That's nice but science doesn't work by authority. It works by evidence. He's welcome to his opinion, but if he really wants to convince people he needs to provide some evidence to support it.

 

[USincognito]

... it is in a school text or because a teacher says it is so.

Even the laymen in this forum are far beyond high school textbooks and high school teachers as authorities. We've actually delved into the evidence ourselves (as much as laymen and several actual scientists) can.

 

[USincognito]

Every time some one gives an example of this it is merely micro-evolution and is just a another variation within the one kind of creature well within its genetic possibilities. No new genetic information is created or developing with new mutations either, just a loss of information from what I can see.

In humans two mutations that occurred a couple of million years ago spurred our brains to develop to what they are today. The alleles are SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B. Also studies of hemogolobin have shown that the variety of hemoglobin genes found in modern vertebrates are due to two whole genome duplication events in an early population of jawless fish.


2005
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate

2007
The αD-Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates

2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short

2013
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins

 

[sfs]

Professor Maciej Giertych stated, "Evolutionists main argument is that there are small positive (beneficial) mutations which occur in the reproductive cells and are then retained by natural selection. These mutations, they say, accumulate and cause one species to gradually change into another. I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all the laboratories around the world where many generations of organisms have been produced, no where have positive mutations ever been observed. For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information. There is no natural process known which will produce these new genes either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible."

Huh. Well, I'm a geneticist too(*), and Professor Giertych is utterly wrong. We routinely see beneficial mutations in our lab in organisms we're studying. We also know of multiple processes by which new genes are formed.

(*) And I seem to have a heck of a lot more relevant expertise. I can only find one paper by Giertych on any subject at all, and nothing on evolution.

 

[Aronbengilad]

In humans two mutations that occurred a couple of million years ago spurred our brains to develop to what they are today. The alleles are SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B. Also studies of hemogolobin have shown that the variety of hemoglobin genes found in modern vertebrates are due to two whole genome duplication events in an early population of jawless fish.


2005
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate

2007
The αD-Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates

2011
Whole-Genome Duplications Spurred the Functional Diversification of the Globin Gene Superfamily in Vertebrates

2013
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins

Yet I have seen creationist scientists claim that this discovery is a problem for evolution and affirms the creationist perspective. It seems to me the whole molecular clock dates are based on an arbitary assumption that humans and chimpanzees diverged 5 million years ago which has no evidence to support it except more evolutionary story telling by those already convinced in evolution.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Huh. Well, I'm a geneticist too(*), and Professor Giertych is utterly wrong. We routinely see beneficial mutations in our lab in organisms we're studying. We also know of multiple processes by which new genes are formed.

(*) And I seem to have a heck of a lot more relevant expertise. I can only find one paper by Giertych on any subject at all, and nothing on evolution.

Many of these socalled benefits are due to a loss of genetic information in these mutations. I think the Professors point "For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information" is the crux of the matter. Aren't your rather vague multiple processes based on evolutionary philosophical ideas like evolutionary necessity rather than observable evidence.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Well those interested can learn what Professor Giertych has to say from his own lips.

 

[Gene2memE]

Many of these socalled benefits are due to a loss of genetic information in these mutations.

One, this is a pure assertion on your part.

Two, "many" is not all. Degenerative genetic mutational novelty typically outnumbers beneficial genetic mutational novelty, but that still means there are novel genes that have been shown to have benefits that are passed on between generations. And neutral mutations typically outnumber both.

Three, a loss of genetic information producing a fitness benefit is still evolution.

I think the Professors point "For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information" is the crux of the matter.

Sure, and there are hundreds of papers about the development of novel genes via evolution, both in laboratory environments and in the wild.

Aren't your rather vague multiple processes based on evolutionary philosophical ideas like evolutionary necessity rather than observable evidence.

The Theory of Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Concepts like "evolutionary necessity" are used in hypothesising particular development paths for which there is presently insufficient information. They're not philosophical ideas, they're procedural.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It looks like she wants legislation or something to make it illegal to challenge evolution on non-scientific terms.

Well, it wouldn't make sense to do that in a science class, would it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet I have seen creationist scientists claim that this discovery is a problem for evolution and affirms the creationist perspective. It seems to me the whole molecular clock dates are based on an arbitary assumption that humans and chimpanzees diverged 5 million years ago which has no evidence to support it except more evolutionary story telling by those already convinced in evolution.

You really should not use the word "assumption". It is more than clear that you have no clue as to what is an assumption and what is not. Your side lost 200 years ago. Perhaps you should be trying to learn why.

ETA: "Creationist scientists" is an oxymoron. You should avoid that term too. Most creationist sites require their workers NOT to use the scientific method.

 

[USincognito]

Yet I have seen creationist scientists claim that this discovery is a problem for evolution and affirms the creationist perspective.

Yeah, the professional prevaricators working for Creationist organizations say lots of things that aren't true.

It seems to me the whole molecular clock dates are based on an arbitary assumption that humans and chimpanzees diverged 5 million years ago which has no evidence to support it except more evolutionary story telling by those already convinced in evolution.

1. It's not arbitrary or an assumption.
2. As I mentioned in another post, using well poisoning language like "story telling" might impress the rubes in the revival tent, but we're having an actual scientific discussion here. You're going to need to actually address the evidence rather than try and hand wave it away.

 

[USincognito]

Many of these socalled benefits are due to a loss of genetic information in these mutations. I think the Professors point "For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information" is the crux of the matter. Aren't your rather vague multiple processes based on evolutionary philosophical ideas like evolutionary necessity rather than observable evidence.

Oooo! A layman telling a working professional he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I've got the popcorn guys....