Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Hans Blaster]

· Widespread scepticism. In the US, 44% of people do not believe in evolution. This is in spite of a blanket ban on Creation being taught as an alternative in most schools. Some of the finest minds reject evolution. Not all are Christians by any means.

As an American, I find this fact both disturbing and embarrassing. When I first heard about the Scopes trial (probably about junior high), I thought that this was only confined primarily to the past or small, backward towns. Boy was I wrong. (I went to school in a small, rural town, but I never heard of creationism until learning about early 20th century US history.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am fine with the idea and likelihood that speciation is a result of genetic variations. I’ve yet to be convinced that mutations cause the variations. It seems more likely to me that the genetic information was there and the variants were better able to survive. A case in point is the Pepper Moth, long touted as evidence of evolution in action. Now it is obviously two variants of the same species. If the environment changes, so does the survival rate of one or other. If that is “evolution”, then you can claim just about anything as “proof”.

Congratulations! You now accept evolution. [These things *ARE* evolution.]

 

[Gene2memE]

My main gripe is with 'natural selection' being the primary driver for evolution, and how outdated it feels in comparison to recent studies on epigenetics and similar fields. I could get more in-depth with that topic, but right now I don't have the time or energy and I'd have to dig up all of my notes on the subject lol

The jury is still out on how influential epigenetics is to evolutionary development. The current answer seems to be it is quite important for simple organisms with very rapid reproductive cycles (particularly unicellular microorganisms and also some plants and fungi), but not as important in complex multicellular organisms with slower reproductive cycles.

There are also questions about where epigenetics ends and other types of heredity begin - transgenerational epigentic changes can occur at the RNA level, the DNA level, or both. There's also an interplay between genetic and epigenetic inheritance, and where the barriers lie is not fully clear.

What has been clear in recent years though is that epigenetics is still subject to the process of natural selection. Epigenetic changes in structure, RNA and DNA can be conserved or pass out of gene expression just like they do with more familiar modes of inheritance.

It's also become clear that RNA (which is more likely to acquire epigenetic changes) has a greater role in gene expression that we though 10 to 15 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an American, I find this fact both disturbing and embarrassing. When I first heard about the Scopes trial (probably about junior high), I thought that this was only confined primarily to the past or small, backward towns. Boy was I wrong. (I went to school in a small, rural town, but I never heard of creationism until learning about early 20th century US history.)

Creationism is mostly an American problem. Though not only did it spread to other countries, it came back to us from Australia in the way of Ken Ham and "Southeast Australia" in the way of Ray Comfort

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The jury is still out on how influential epigenetics is to evolutionary development. The current answer seems to be it is quite important for simple organisms with very rapid reproductive cycles (particularly unicellular microorganisms and also some plants and fungi), but not as important in complex multicellular organisms with slower reproductive cycles.

There are also questions about where epigenetics ends and other types of heredity begin - transgenerational epigentic changes can occur at the RNA level, the DNA level, or both. There's also an interplay between genetic and epigenetic inheritance, and where the barriers lie is not fully clear.

What has been clear in recent years though is that epigenetics is still subject to the process of natural selection. Epigenetic changes in structure, RNA and DNA can be conserved or pass out of gene expression just like they do with more familiar modes of inheritance.

It's also become clear that RNA (which is more likely to acquire epigenetic changes) has a greater role in gene expression that we though 10 to 15 years ago.

Interesting--I'll save that. Both evolution and epigenetics are incredibly interesting topics, so I'm excited to see what all we learn in both areas in the coming years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

An example. The blood transport system within a mammal. It needs a pump. The whole system starts off extremely small and has to grow with the organism. How does it know when to stop growing? The tubing has to be flexible to permit movement. It needs a temperature regulation system to prevent death by overheating.

If the tubing is punctured, there is a self-healing process that technology cannot begin to match. The system has to recognise a leak, determine the position of the damage and commence repair. If the leak is not repaired, the organism dies. If it takes too long, death occurs. Blood clots in order to patch the defect. If it clots in the wrong place, (within the tube) the organism dies. Veins are different from arteries. They have to have non-return valves or blood does not get back to the heart.

I know how hard it is to get these systems right. Any error in the control system stops the process. How did blood evolve? Did the veins, arteries and heart evolve first? If so, how did the blood get in? If the blood evolved first, how did it get into the system? Blood itself is amazingly complex.

Now I'm no expert on the circulatory system, or its evolution, but I did recall somethings from cutting the poor little creatures up in HS bio class. Not all animals have circulation of blood in vessels (like insects). Here's a nice overview:

Circulatory system - Wikipedia

If we stick just to vertebrates we can see the development of the circulation system from fishes onward:

Evidences for Evolution: The Heart and Circulatory System of Vertebrates - Articles

I don't know about you, but my ancestors have had circulating blood for at least 525 million years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

· Huge numbers of fossils appeared at much the same time. The “Cambrian Explosion” is now thought to be over a period of 10 million years, not 70 million. That goes against evolutionary theories.

Why do you think it goes against it? Some how I don't think your qualified to judge.

I used to work in industry, selling to automation companies.

Yeah it looks like it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From the museum of bad analogies, an exhibit:

To make the jump from say a reptile to a mammal is complexity upon complexity. I liken it to taking an encyclopaedia, encrypting it and expecting the complete works of Shakespeare to be the result. I know about encryption from my Navy career. I don’t care how many times you run the routine, garbage results. That’s the idea, of course.

 

[Hans Blaster]

· Evolutionary explanations usually revolve around drawings of mature animals. That’s not how they start. They are eggs or embryos. 3,000 fruit fly variants demonstrate that producing a new species from an existing species just does not happen.

That doesn't sound like good pedagogy.

Since all us animals grow from a single cell with a package of DNA to control the splitting of cells and differentiation of tissues, "evo devo" offers some nice insights on how new forms can arise from changes in early development. A good book on this is "Endless forms most beautiful" by Sean Carroll (the biologist, not the physicist)

 

[Strathos]

As an American, I find this fact both disturbing and embarrassing. When I first heard about the Scopes trial (probably about junior high), I thought that this was only confined primarily to the past or small, backward towns. Boy was I wrong. (I went to school in a small, rural town, but I never heard of creationism until learning about early 20th century US history.)

I was raised as a Christian in America (and I still go to the same church I was baptized in as a child) but I didn't know that that type of creationism was a real thing until my teenage years. Growing up, I thought that everyone realized that most of the events of Genesis were metaphorical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

3,000 fruit flies are still fruit flies. Just variations on the original. Of course, if you change definitions to suit observations, you can prove anything you like.

The funny thing is that all of those fruit flies are descended from a fly ancestor that was a fly, but unlike the other flies, was a fruit fly. If you'd been around then would you have complained that this new fly was "still a fly"? The same when the first (root) species of flies emerged, was it still "just an insect"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

· Human qualities are at odds with natural selection. Love your neighbour? You are kidding, right? There is not a lot of that in the animal kingdom. Why condemn racism, genocide, inequality, or any other struggle for domination? That’s how evolution works, surely? Surely genocidal regimes are doing the world a favour? There are way too many people anyway.

You do realize our species took over this planet by cooperating with each other and working in groups, right? (Yes some groups do conflict with other groups, but the basic state is not one-on-one.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution to me is like giving a blind and deaf man a pile of sand, some water and stone, copper and iron ores. Then you tell him to construct a building. He has no way of knowing even that he is supposed to be building, let alone turning such base materials into usable products.

Why do you think blind and deaf people don't know what a building is?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The moment you've all been waiting for.............

Not really.

The pro-evolutionist community bears the hallmarks of a dictatorship. This is because the purse strings are controlled by pro-evolutionists. Researchers often dare not contradict the evolutionary bully boys because they won’t get tenure or grants. Professor James Tour advises his students to keep their anti-evolution beliefs to themselves.

As you noted later in your posting, you are not involved in the scientific enterprise, so you really don't have any experience with what ever "evolutionary bully boys" claims some unknown professor is banging on about.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was raised as a Christian in America (and I still go to the same church I was baptized in as a child) but I didn't know that that type of creationism was a real thing until my teenage years. Growing up, I thought that everyone realized that most of the events of Genesis were metaphorical.

Me too. I guess there are some advantages to being inducted into the RCC once you could hold up your own head, but before discovering object permanence. I didn't leave the church until after grad school.

 

[NxNW]

That's an unnecessary jab, and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. That's a theological issue--and even then, it's not a sound accusation.

But it follows logically from what was posted. And also from biblical passages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it follows logically from what was posted. And also from biblical passages.

Yes, but it does not help in the general conversation. Perhaps better suited to the apologetics part of the forum. Science deniers are having a hard enough time as it is. There is no point in alienating them even further.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

To make the jump from say a reptile to a mammal is complexity upon complexity. I liken it to taking an encyclopaedia, encrypting it and expecting the complete works of Shakespeare to be the result. I know about encryption from my Navy career. I don’t care how many times you run the routine, garbage results. That’s the idea, of course.

Poor analogy which tends to indicate that you really don't understand either evolution or encryption. I obviously have no idea what they taught you in the navy, but if that's what you learnt I wouldn't want you working for me (encryption is a large part of what I do).

 

[Aussie Pete]

Poor analogy which tends to indicate that you really don't understand either evolution or encryption. I obviously have no idea what they taught you in the navy, but if that's what you learnt I wouldn't want you working for me (encryption is a large part of what I do).

I can't tell you any more because I'd have to kill you.

 

[solid_core]

And therefore he plans every murder, every rape, every robbery and every abortion.

Because all our substance, concept and existence is based in God, then it surely follows that evils are also possible only because He holds all creation in existence.

But God, as a perfect being with perfect love and perfect reason, do not want any evil per se, but only allows it as a necessary part of the best possible universe. I.e. because its needed for the best possible outcome.