Doctrines of Evolution

[SteveB28]

I am not, nor have been, an evolutionary biologist, but I understand that the discoveries made possible through genetic research in recent decades have dramatically increased our understanding of evolutionary processes many fold. Add these to the preceding 150 years of research and evidence and the current theory is rightly regarded as the closest one to a "proven" understanding in all scientific endeavour.

 

[SteveB28]

Could you give some examples of some of this evidence?

It never ceases to impress me, sir, the wealth of information that lies literally at our fingertips. I used my search engine and typed the words "evidence for common ancestry" and received a virtual avalanche of source material. Might I suggest that you employ the same method?

 

[SteveB28]

This one seems to pop up most frequently:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Tree of Life]

It never ceases to impress me, sir, the wealth of information that lies literally at our fingertips. I used my search engine and typed the words "evidence for common ancestry" and received a virtual avalanche of source material. Might I suggest that you employ the same method?

Yeah that's fine. I've read the wiki articles and such. They're fine. Just not super persuasive.

Are you even familiar with the evidence that you're so confident is out there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nested hierarchy (e.g. chimps are our closest cousin, which is why we share approx. 98% DNA).

QV please: 1

 

[juvenissun]

The definition offered was: "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

There's nothing within this definition that contradicts Scripture. And it's easy to observe from looking at creation that little changes are introduced in each new generation that continue to get passed on.

This, of course, does not amount to what people normally mean when they talk about evolution - all of its doctrines including common ancestry. His definition needn't include common ancestry.

This is a typical strategy of devil. It gives you something seemingly to be right. But once accepted, then that is not the end of it. The "logic" extension of this harmless definition will bring the idea of the common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just wondering if there's a good reason to believe in common ancestry.

No.

What evolutionists like to do is use microevolution to get a person to believe this "descent with modification" stuff.

Then, after that, comes the macroevolution, whereby mankind came from apes.

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, and only works on paper.

 

[juvenissun]

Nested hierarchy (e.g. chimps are our closest cousin, which is why we share approx. 98% DNA).

If you don't accept common ancestry within nested hierarchies, then no skin off my schnozz. Believe what you need to. The work of evolutionary biologists all over the globe will continue, blithely unaware of your religious dogma.

You can have your fantasy of evolution in all your life. It is a useless idea anyway.

 

[SteveB28]

Yeah that's fine. I've read the wiki articles and such. They're fine. Just not super persuasive.

Are you even familiar with the evidence that you're so confident is out there?

As stated earlier, I have never been a qualified biologist and much of the stronger data supporting common ancestry has been collected since my time as a student. But as an interested layman, yes, I am reasonably familiar with the evidence. What would you like to know?

 

[SteveB28]

No.

What evolutionists like to do is use microevolution to get a person to believe this "descent with modification" stuff.

Then, after that, comes the macroevolution, whereby mankind came from apes.

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, and only works on paper.

Please point out the evolutionary biologist that makes the claim that "mankind came from apes." As far as I can see, it is only the scurrilously anti-scientific who regularly hoist that particular canard.

 

[Tree of Life]

As stated earlier, I have never been a qualified biologist and much of the stronger data supporting common ancestry has been collected since my time as a student. But as an interested layman, yes, I am reasonably familiar with the evidence. What would you like to know?

I'd like to know, in summary form, what reasons there are to believe in common ancestry.

 

[SteveB28]

I'd like to know, in summary form, what reasons there are to believe in common ancestry.

"Believe" is not the word I would use. The evidence that exists to support the theory of common ancestry is based in genetics, molecular biology, morphology, geographical distribution of species. Allied to these is the immensely powerful predictive qualities possessed by evolutionary theory. More latterly, many medical breakthroughs that we now enjoy have been directly as a result of the application of evolutionary theory, particularly with regard to infectious diseases and genetic illnesses.

 

[Tree of Life]

"Believe" is not the word I would use.

You do not believe in common ancestry?

The evidence that exists to support the theory of common ancestry is based in genetics, molecular biology, morphology, geographical distribution of species.

Thank you for showing me what the evidence is based in. The evidence itself is still eluding me, though. Could you point me a step further?

Allied to these is the immensely powerful predictive qualities possessed by evolutionary theory.

What sorts of things has evolutionary theory been able to predict? Do these predictions depend upon common ancestry?

More latterly, many medical breakthroughs that we now enjoy have been directly as a result of the application of evolutionary theory, particularly with regard to infectious diseases and genetic illnesses.

What aspects of evolutionary theory have been applicable to medicine? Do these applications depend upon common ancestry?

 

[SteveB28]

You do not believe in common ancestry?

I said "believe" is not the word I would use. I "accept" the conclusions, based upon the evidence presented.

Thank you for showing me what the evidence is based in. The evidence itself is still eluding me, though. Could you point me a step further?
What sorts of things has evolutionary theory been able to predict? Do these predictions depend upon common ancestry?

An area that is quite new to me is that of functional redundancy in genes. If I understand correctly, the theory would predict that there should be no particular pattern of relationship present in the makeup of ubiquitous proteins from species to species, if there were no genealogical relationship between those species. There are many, many gene sequences which can form those proteins which all species contain, yet we find that there is indeed a pattern. Those species which are more closely related, as postulated by other lines of evidence, have more similar gene sequences. Those that are more distantly related have wider variations.

In fact, when a "tree of life" is constructed for these relationships, it matches exactly a tree that can be constructed using the other evidence lines.

What aspects of evolutionary theory have been applicable to medicine? Do these applications depend upon common ancestry?

Sorry, nearly missed this one. I understand that there is a branch of cancer research which is is using the theory in understanding that vertebrates and yeast share a common group of genes. The difference is that in vertebrates, those genes have evolved to build blood vessels, whereas in yeast they have the role of fixing cell walls. Because they are the same gene group and assuming that common ancestry is accurate, medical researchers are, I understand, working to employ the 'repair' quality of those genes in combatting cancer.

 

[sfs]

You can have your fantasy of evolution in all your life. It is a useless idea anyway.

Juvenissun, don't tell falsehoods about things you don't understand. I use the concept of common descent all the time.

 

[SteveB28]

Juvenissun, don't tell falsehoods about things you don't understand. I use the concept of common descent all the time.

Ah, a timely appearance. Perhaps you would be good enough to provide TreeofLife with a better example of common ancestry being employed in medical research? I'm afraid I am little more than a very interested bystander. Thanks.

 

[sfs]

The definition offered was: "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

There's nothing within this definition that contradicts Scripture. And it's easy to observe from looking at creation that little changes are introduced in each new generation that continue to get passed on.

This, of course, does not amount to what people normally mean when they talk about evolution - all of its doctrines including common ancestry. His definition needn't include common ancestry.

Right. The purpose of the definition is not to describe everything that involves evolution; its purpose is to delimit what kinds of processes count as evolution. People getting taller during the 20th century because their nutrition improved is not an example of evolution, because the change isn't in the heritable trait. Common descent (or common ancestry) is a fact about the world that has resulted from accumulated evolution over time.

 

[Strathos]

Please don't. It is a trap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

 

[Tree of Life]

Common descent (or common ancestry) is a fact about the world that has resulted from accumulated evolution over time.

But it is, of course, possible that it's not a fact at all. Right?

 

[Split Rock]

I'd like to know, in summary form, what reasons there are to believe in common ancestry.

Hi Tree of Life

The strongest evidence for common ancestry is the twin nested hierarchy of life on Earth. First of all, only genetic descent produces nested hierarchies... human pedigrees are an example of this. Secondly, using traditonal morphology, scientists have over time come up with a nested hiearchy that fits all life on earth. Finally, in prediction of the theory of evolution, that nested hiearchy based on morphology matches the nested hiearchy based on genetic sequences (with some minor exceptions). It is hard to see how anything but common descent can be responsible for this.