Darwin's Evolution?

[Morat]

Morat: You are sweet. But I am growing tired of the debate element of this thread. Maybe I will try again later. But at first you were right. I was only looking for the proof that evolution ran smooth without the boost that I seem to KNOW had happened. But right away someone told me that at the beginning of evolution there was radiation of changes. They went on to tell me it did not mean radiation as I was thinking but instead a boost in the evolution.

  No one said that, either. No one said anything about evolution running faster. The history of life is like a cone. At the tip, it's narrow. As you go down the cone, it gets wider. Because you have more variations to play with in each generation.

   Multicelluar life exploded across the planet. Why? Because it multicelled-creatures could do things single-celled could not, live places they could not, reproduce faster...

   So, unsuprisingly, you got an awful lot of them. And they evolved, only because they were multicelluar, there were a lot more things that could happen to them. (It's rather obvious, right? Single celled organisms do most of their evolution on the biochemical level. You can't develop specialized cells when you've only got one).

 

I was looking for a smooth transition of evolution supported by actual fossil and not merely the human thought. But I know that is impossible.

   They're all over the place. Someone posted a nice foram set. There's a great set of Hominid skulls. Horse evolution is nice and full (once you grasp the notion of evolution as a "bush" not a "ladder"). The whale sequence is great. Archy and the rest of the early birds are great as well.

   But here's a little secret: While compelling enough to convince Darwin and almost a 100 years of biologists on it's own, the fossil record is one of the weakest evidences.

   Not because there is anything wrong with it, but because the others are far stronger. Protein comparason, for instance. Pseudogenes. Viral insertions. The evidence for evolution is undeniably written in your very cells, Stormy.

 

 

[sampo]

[Edited to correct a misinterpretation]


I am not trying to make an enemy here, I am just trying to discern the logic of your being here and posting such questions. If you really want an answer, the answers are eassy enough to find. They have been handed to you in this very thread!

Intelligent design most certainly does imply a creator. If things emerged from nothing, then intelligent design becomes a moot point, unless you think that evolution and natural selection are examples of intelligent design as well. A watch is an example of intelligent design, a tree is not.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Stormy
I was looking for a smooth transition of evolution supported by actual fossil and not merely the human thought. But I know that is impossible.

Here is one:

There's also this series of Hominin skulls: http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/page20.html

 

[Stormy]

Again, solid suggestion is answered with laughter. I have stated from the outset that I don't know. I cannot say either way! You are the one who is rather smug in your assertions.

Sampo: Please understand that the comment that "you are all messed up" and the laughter had to do with the way that your post first appeared. Remember you had to fix it...it was all messed up.

I would never make such personal assumptions of people that I barely know. I am sorry you took it personally.

 

[Cantuar]

I hate to spoil such a heartfelt ambition, but no animal or bird (leaving out insects here) has four limbs and wings. Evolution works to change what's already available for it, and the body structure of reptiles, birds, and mammals is four limbs, two of which may or may not be wings. If you had wings, you wouldn't have arms. if you want to grow a pair of wings and keep your arms and legs, you'll need another idea.

 

[sampo]

My sincere apologies. I have edited my post to reflect my mistake.

Believe me when I say I am not trying to belittle you, but more to understand you. I promise.

 

[Stormy]

I hate to spoil such a heartfelt ambition, but no animal or bird (leaving out insects here) has four limbs and wings. Evolution works to change what's already available for it, and the body structure of reptiles, birds, and mammals is four limbs, two of which may or may not be wings. If you had wings, you wouldn't have arms. if you want to grow a pair of wings and keep your arms and legs, you'll need another idea.

Please explain why you say what I have placed in bold print...that evolution can only change by altering what is already there. This is what I have been saying and I am told that I am wrong. Evolution has been explained to me to be fully capable of adding to the creature.(without Divine intrevention) Otherwise goop could never have evolved into a human. Things had to be added. No?

But why should you leave out the insects. How are they able to add wings and all those legs too.

But you say that a human wanting wings to evolve is impossible?

 

[sampo]

Humans wanting wings is how angels came about!

One can't will evolution to happen. Evolution is force controlled only by instinct, adaptation and natural selection. It pays no mind to the intelligence of what it is affecting. Survival is the key to the changes when you get right down to it. Those that did not adapt, as we know, are no longer around. But even that took a long time. 

Evoluton is a gradual process. When I say gradual, I am talking millions and millions of years. There are some very good books on the subject. I could recommend a few if you like.

 

[Stormy]

I have been reading Talkorigins on the net.

Correct me if I am wrong but the only way to add genetic material that was not in existence is by mutations.

We are a bunch of mutants! LOL

I do not understand why anyone would worry that evolution could replace God. It seems to point out the need for someone to orchestrate all this genetic rambling. To believe that blind luck of evolution alone... brought us to where we are today takes more Faith than any religion known to man.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
No, it isn't a known fact. The only evidence that it occurred is highly circumstantial. The reason many scientists believe it occurred is that it would explain more economically than other natural hypotheses how the first primitive life came to be. That doesn't make it fact though. It is still somewhat in the realm of speculation.

But abiogenesis did happen regardless of how.

So we have two choices here:

God or chance.

God created life. God created intelligence. God created faith.

Chance created life. Chance created intelligence. Chance created faith.

The fact that God is sentient makes His existence an impossibility to some people.

 

[Cantuar]

Please explain why you say what I have placed in bold print...that evolution can only change by altering what is already there.

I mean that evolution comes about when certain individuals in a population reproduce and others don't as a result of their relative fitness with respect to the environment. Reproduction involves exchange (recombination) of genetic information between the genomes of the parents so that the offspring are each unique individuals, not clones of the parent; when those that are better adapted to the environment mate, their genes are the ones that engage in recombination during mating and so on down the generations. Evolution doesn't depend on totally brand new genetic information appearing from nowhere; it works with the genetic material at hand. Even if a new individual is added to the population (migrates there from somewhere else or something), it will only be able to mate with members of the population if they're already members of the same species and hence have compatible DNA. Sometimes you'll get duplication of genes or even chromosomes, which gives scope for addition of new genes as those genes mutate differently from the original ones, but that isn't a common event.

Mammals evolved from fish which had a body pattern of four fins and a tail which were used for motion; that basic body pattern is repeated throughout the mammals and reptiles and birds. In some of those cases, the front legs have been adapted mroe or less strongly for flight rather than for walking ans swimming. Insects apparently evolved from crustaceans, which tended to have more legs. I've read that insect wings evolved from crustacean gills. In all these cases, evolution occurs by a series of small changes to existing body patterns. Mammalian body pattern all involve four limbs, as do the reptiles and birds.

This is what I have been saying and I am told that I am wrong. Evolution has been explained to me to be fully capable of adding to the creature.(without Divine intrevention) Otherwise goop could never have evolved into a human. Things had to be added. No?

Yes, evolution can add; it can add wings instead of limbs or it can add a large brain or colour vision. However, it's a process that goes on at the molecular level as well as at the population level - variation occurs at the molecular level, natural selection occurs at the population level - and there has to be a genetic mechanism for adding limbs if that's going to be an option, and apparently there isn't one. I have a feeling that a detailed study of the mechanism of action of Hox genes might explain this at least to a degree, but I'm not sure I'm equal to the challenge.

But why should you leave out the insects. How are they able to add wings and all those legs too.

See above. They're just flying lobsters!

But you say that a human wanting wings to evolve is impossible?

Pretty sure. The thing about humans is that with the human brain, we've mananged to bypass millennia of evolutionary processes and invent aeroplanes. Instant gratification.

 

[sampo]

I have not heard anyone trying to supplant spirituality with evolution. Creation cannot be taught in schools because there is no way to present anything resembling fact, in the scientific sense. It seems to me that the big fight between creationists and those who are wrongly called evolutionists (because evolution does not include the emergence of life as I have explained before) is generated from the creationist side and not the scientific side.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by sampo
I have not heard anyone trying to supplant spirituality with evolution. Creation cannot be taught in schools because there is no way to present anything resembling fact, in the scientific sense. It seems to me that the big fight between creationists and those who are wrongly called evolutionists (because evolution does not include the emergence of life as I have explained before) is generated from the creationist side and not the scientific side.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't abiogenesis required to occur to go from the big-bang to the evolutionary cycle?

They are both taught (big-bang+evolution). But not one conclusive strand of evidence has been shown that the two theories have ever been tied to together.

In fact, abiogenesis is taught in schools as theory without any empirical evidence whatsoever.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Stormy
I do not understand why anyone would worry that evolution could replace God.

I don't see why anyone would worry about anyone or anything replacing G~d.

Originally posted by Stormy
To believe that blind luck of evolution alone... brought us to where we are today takes more Faith than any religion known to man.

It takes a blind watchmaker, not blind luck.

But the fact that it takes such great faith is why it DOES become a god in the minds of many.

 

[DeXioLaBoS]

"Creation cannot be taught in schools because there is no way to present anything resembling fact, in the scientific sense. "

That is a blatant aberration.

There is a way to present Creationism as 'resembling fact', whether or not one would willingly except it.

One of the most widely known and respected arguments is that of Aquinas', the "Cosmological Argument." By many it is considered substantial proof for the creation as well as the existence of God.

Infact, I could go as far as to say that his five-pointed arguments resembles fact far more than the Darwinian Evolution Theory, as well as the Cosmic Outburst Theory, also known as the "Big Bang."
Seeing that both the Darwinian Theory and the Creationist Theory are both terminated hypothetical presuppositions, some might say that their resemblence to fact is that of an equal.

View an article on the Argument from Motion.

 

[Morat]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't abiogenesis required to occur to go from the big-bang to the evolutionary cycle?

   You're wrong. Abiogenesis is the process of chemical reactions->self replicators->RNA world->DNA->protocells.

   The Big Bang is cosmology, and it only really covers the initial moment through the first several minutes. Once inflation is over, so is the Big Bang. After that, it's the simple processes we're used to.

They are both taught (big-bang+evolution). But not one conclusive strand of evidence has been shown that the two theories have ever been tied to together.

  That's because most people don't try to tie physics to biology.

  They're completely seperate concepts, in completely seperate fields, unconnected in anyway (other than the fact that they're the study of past events. By that logic, however, forensic science and history are part of the "Big Bang").

In fact, abiogenesis is taught in schools as theory without any empirical evidence whatsoever.

   Really? You mean, besides the Miller-Urey experiment that shows amino acids form rather easily? I'd love to see that textbook. A nice quote and reference would be nice.

 

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Morat
    You're wrong. Abiogenesis is the process of chemical reactions->self replicators->RNA world->DNA->protocells.

   The Big Bang is cosmology, and it only really covers the initial moment through the first several minutes. Once inflation is over, so is the Big Bang. After that, it's the simple processes we're used to.

uh huh.

That's because most people don't try to tie physics to biology.

They're completely seperate concepts, in completely seperate fields, unconnected in anyway (other than the fact that they're the study of past events. By that logic, however, forensic science and history are part of the "Big Bang").

Yes and there is something called empirical evidence with forensic science. You walk over to the body and look at it. On the case of abiogenesis, on the other hand, assumption completely takes over.

   Really? You mean, besides the Miller-Urey experiment that shows amino acids form rather easily? I'd love to see that textbook. A nice quote and reference would be nice. 

Well I certainly didn't learn about abiogenesis in a chat room.

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm#mue

 

[Stormy]

ANOTHER QUESTION

I am not at all satisfied with the therory of evolution. Maybe I will make my own.

Can you tell me what stopped evolution?

 

[Jerry Smith]

unworthyone:

I have one of the textbooks that ARN graded "F" on the Miller-Urey experiment. It is Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (only I have the seventh instead of the eighth edition.) I will quote from the chapter that deals with abiogenesis and the Miller/Urey experiment.

Mars, meteorites, the earth's moon, and the earth formed at the same time, from the same cosmic cloud. Rocks collected from Mars, meteorites, and the moon contain precursors of biological molecules-so the same precursors must have been present on the early earth. Sunlight, lightning, or heat escaping from the earth's crust could have supplied the energy to drive their condensation into complex organic molecules.
In the first of many tests of that hypothesis, Stanley Miller mixed hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water in a reaction chamber. He recirculated the mixture and bombarded it with a spark discharge to simulate lightning. Within a week, amino acids and other small organic compounds had formed. In other experiments that simulated conditions on the early earth, glucose, ribose, deoxyribose, and other sugars were produced from formaldehyde. Adenine was produced from hydrogen cyanide. Adenine plus ribose are present in ATP, NAD, and other nucleotides.
Even if amino acids did form in the early seas, they wouldn't have lasted long. In water, the favored direction of most spontaneous reactions is toward hydrolysis, not condensation.
Maybe more lasting bonds formed at the margins of seas. By one scenario, clay in the rhytmically drained muck of tidal flats and estuaries served as templates (structural patterns) for the spontaneous assembly of proteins and other organic compounds.

(emphasis mine, page 325)

From the caption of the illustration of the Miller apparatus:

Stanley Miller's apparatus, used to study the synthesis of organic compunds under conditions that presumably existed on the early earth...

(emphasis mine, page 325)

Raven and Johnson's was my textbook in an advanced placement biology class I took in high school (for which I earned college credit). It was also given an "F". I do not have that textbook any more, but from my class, I remember that it was stressed to me that while evolution was a well understood and well supported theory, abiogenesis was a fairly speculative and unsupported hypothesis. This was 13 years ago now, and I still remember that the "problems" with Miller's experiment were pointed out, and that abiogenesis was presented only as an hypothesis. More credit to my instructor, and more credit to Raven & Johnson for their excellent textbook.

P.S. here is a review of the book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

 

[Jerry Smith]

Stormy:

If someone told you that it stopped, I would suggest you ask them how they know. There are no indications in the natural world that evolution has stopped.