Evidences for evolution

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


Rationalization you mean.

I missed, was it on this thread or another, whether you ever told me that you believe the common ancestor of all life was one living thing, or a group of spontaneously generated living thigns that were all identical?

Evidence would indicate that the common ancestor of modern life on earth originated from a population of a single organism. The formation of that organism, however, remains the contentious issue, and is where abiogenesis and evolutionary biology merge.

It is understood that the first 'life-like' entities on earth were simple precursors to our modern DNA & RNA. The DNA and RNA that make up the genetic characteristics of modern life are not the same as the first replicator to appear on earth, but rather the result of the evolutionary process/natural selection acting on these primitive replicating molecules.

It is not yet known whether the population of single celled organisms that appear to be the precursor to modern life on earth was simply one of many species that simply overtook and forced to extinction other single celled organism species, or whether the population arose as a result of mixing of genetic material from other single celled organisms, or whether the population of single celled organisms that lead to modern life were the only population to actually form, and simply snowball from there.

 

[Shane Roach]

Now, if I recall, what brought this on in the first place was you telling me that I was setting up a straw man by insisting that it was not exactly awe inspiringly obvious to people that all life came from one single celled organism. That was the point. This is based largely on the fact that 4 hudrocarbons are common to all life on earth.

So, I am to believe, that either many many life forms formed, but one ate them all and then started evolving, OR I can believe all the single celled organisms somehow melded into one (which would insinuate that they all used the same 4 hydrocarbons), OR I can believe one or many of the exact same organism, was the only life formed.

Based on 4 hydrocarbons, and the fact that theoretically there is no reason why they should be so unique, but based on 4 common hydrocarbons I can believe any one of those 3 fantastic things, but I cannot believe that many life forms originally occured and that is the main source of diversity. Is that it? Am I following now?

Because that doesn't really change my point much, and I would have appreciated not having to chase this down for days on end to address that point.

It's also slighly odd to me that scientists argue that these 4 hydrocarbons supposedly have no reason to be the only 4 in life, but yet they are, and we don't really know how life began anyhow. It sounds suspcisiously like an argument from ignorance. We don't know why there's only 4 of the possible hydrocarbons used in life, but we assume the reason is because of common ancestry.

See this is a question I've dealt with before and even my microbiologist pal didn't really help me much with it. millions of years ago, life was formed, we don't know how, that uses 4 hydrocarbons, and we are just flat sure that it was this one form of life that bred every single species on the face of the planet, and are flat sure that there weren't more than one species using the hydrocarbons because that's just what was available at the time life formed and in the process of forming it.

 

[Shane Roach]

I can imagine now a situation where scientists will study abiogenesis, and since one of their theories is that all life came from one creature, based on these 4 hydrocarbons, they will try to form a life using different hydrocarbons. If they succede, this will be touted as more proof. Nevermind that it is entirely possible to make many different creatures using the same 4 hydrocarbons. We are to ignore this as we are to ignore the fact that there is every bit as much pressure, if not more, for animals to degenerate in complexity and to lose diversity to extincgion, and that there is not now nor will there ever be any way to go back and see whether life on earth was conducive to creating many creatures using the same 4 hydrocarbons, nor will we ever know if it was a planet that creates diversity or eats it.

We will never know, but we will most certainly be told.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

We will never know, but we will most certainly be told.

We will never know for sure, but we may have evidence pointing to one hypothesis rather than the others... that's all science is about.

[edit]: and what we will be told is "here is what we think happened, based on such and such evidence", and not "this is how it all happened and we know this is the one and unchanging truth".
I know, when a scientist tells about a theory in a popular magazine or on TV, he doesn't always hold a big warning sign summarizing the basic assumptions of Science, nor can he possibly list each and every hypothesis behind the details of the theory. But these are available to anyone interested.

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by Sinai
If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record.

And if more than about half of a half of a half of a percent of all the animals that ever lived became fossilized, gradual evolution would be much more evident.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Now, if I recall, what brought this on in the first place was you telling me that I was setting up a straw man by insisting that it was not exactly awe inspiringly obvious to people that all life came from one single celled organism. That was the point. This is based largely on the fact that 4 hudrocarbons are common to all life on earth.

Here's the thing: "winning" or "losing" that point has no effect on the bulk of evelutionary theory. We have very good evidence that every life form we've identified so far has common ancestry, but that doesn't mean we can't find a new one tomorrow that doesn't.

However, nothing else depends much on this; it's just one of the many results we get *from* the core theory, and the available data.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by brt28006



And if more than about half of a half of a half of a percent of all the animals that ever lived became fossilized, gradual evolution would be much more evident.

I would say that less than one in a trillion prehistoric animals were ever fossilized.

 

[TScott]

In my opinion Pope John Paul showed a great deal of wisdom a few years ago when confronted with questions of the growing evidence for evolution. He shrugged at the questioner and said that he really didn't care what theory you believe as long as you give God credit in the end.

 

[OntheRock]

quote
"[edit]: and what we will be told is "here is what we think happened, based on such and such evidence", and not "this is how it all happened and we know this is the one and unchanging truth".
I know, when a scientist tells about a theory in a popular magazine or on TV, he doesn't always hold a big warning sign summarizing the basic assumptions of Science, nor can he possibly list each and every hypothesis behind the details of the theory. But these are available to anyone interested."

This is a major reason why many people think evolution is truth. Because it is portrayed as fact and not as speculation.

If evolution was taken to court then the jury would find reasonable doubt.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by OntheRock
If evolution was taken to court then the jury would find reasonable doubt.

Whereas creationism would be dismissed before the trial started.

I think if you took a jury that was not previously biased by religious beliefs and spent the 6+ months necessary to present all of the evidence and arguments that support evolution, the result would be in favor of evolutoin.

"Origin of Species" makes very powerful arguments in favor of common descent.

 

[LouisBooth]

RAy, the site you listed is refering to fundimentalists I think you need to read the biblography. I would say a very very small percentage of christians are fundimentalists (means something other then believing in the fundimentals of christianity..confusing huh?). So Its like pointing at a small group of atheists that burn books and saying all atheists burn books. Pretty bad scholastic work if you ask me.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
RAy, the site you listed is refering to fundimentalists I think you need to read the biblography. I would say a very very small percentage of christians are fundimentalists (means something other then believing in the fundimentals of christianity..confusing huh?). So Its like pointing at a small group of atheists that burn books and saying all atheists burn books. Pretty bad scholastic work if you ask me.

So exactly why were the majority of non-fundamentalist Christians not trying to stop this?

You can make the "very, very small percentage" argument about any group, but there is still guilt in complacence.

 

[LouisBooth]

"So exactly why were the majority of non-fundamentalist Christians not trying to stop this? "

So why aren't you trying to stop world hunger, or global warming, etc..or what a masked murder does in omaha? Point being I do, by telling people like you the real story and saying buring books isn't right, but its covered just as was burning the flag. By educating you and showing you its the very small minority that does this you can spread the word about it and we can set the record straight. So, I am acutally trying to stop it

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So exactly why were the majority of non-fundamentalist Christians not trying to stop this? "

So why aren't you trying to stop world hunger, or global warming, etc..or what a masked murder does in omaha?

hmmm. Good point.

let's see... I recycle. I drive a Toyota Prius (45 mpg, Ultra-low emissions). I donate blood every two months. I paid a $500 premium for a front-loading washing machine that uses 50% less water.

Point being I do, by telling people like you the real story and saying buring books isn't right, but its covered just as was burning the flag. By educating you and showing you its the very small minority that does this you can spread the word about it and we can set the record straight. So, I am acutally trying to stop it

Me too. Nice to know we're on the same side.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I recycle. I drive a Toyota Prius (45 mpg, Ultra-low emissions). I donate blood every two months. I paid a $500 premium for a front-loading washing machine that uses 50% less water. "

1. willing to bet you don't recycle everything that can be 2. it still has emssions, why not an electric car, 3. good job! but what about marrow? 4. it still uses water and deminishes the supply there of. See, any way ya go, its still "guilt in complacence." See my point yet?

"Me too. Nice to know we're on the same side."

Glad to have ya, now will you realize people saying, "I'm a christian" don't always do christian things..like buring books or mass murder (the usual hitler rants)?

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
1. willing to bet you don't recycle everything that can be 2. it still has emssions, why not an electric car, 3. good job! but what about marrow? 4. it still uses water and deminishes the supply there of. See, any way ya go, its still "guilt in complacence." See my point yet?


My point is that I put my money where my mouth is. My Toyota Prius may pollute less than an electric car that has to be recharged (via the utility company).

There is no complacence. I actively pursued options that would be better for the environment even though it costs me more. I paid for extra insulation in my house and spent over a thousand dollars upgrading to a more efficient air conditioner. I forgot about those earlier.


Glad to have ya, now will you realize people saying, "I'm a christian" don't always do christian things..like buring books or mass murder (the usual hitler rants)?

I know many fine upstanding Christians and I wouldn't smear them all with the same dirty paintbrush. But you have to admit that a lot of Christians look the other way when the fundamentalists go on the warpath, and then grouse when the non-religious get vocal. I've heard that grousing loud and clear in several informal meetings with other school parents where it is not commonly known that I am an atheist.

 

[LouisBooth]

"My point is that I put my money where my mouth is. "

You don't see me burning books either. I encourage people not to. So what's your point?

"I paid for extra insulation in my house and spent over a thousand dollars upgrading to a more efficient air conditioner. I forgot about those earlier. "


hehehe..nooo..those are money savers, not better for the environment. You just had a air conditioner added to the landfull along with adding more things to the environment that will get trashed later (new insulation).

"to admit that a lot of Christians look the other way when the fundamentalists go on the warpath"

Nope, I won't admit it, because I don't think it happens. I think the majority might be unaware of it, and thats the problem.

"I've heard that grousing loud and clear in several informal meetings with other school parents where it is not commonly known that I am an atheist."

Yup, becuase they usually point fingers without looking inward first (using your logic and drawing on personal experience and making it true for the whole).

 

[bogomip]

Wacky! Thats what evolutionists are!
I know because I have seen electric switches in geodes over 500,000 years old.
I have seen quality artifacts that were pulled from coal mines; by quality i mean they could have been made today. I have seen paintings that rival our best classical artists that were unearthed in Greece dated much older than should be.
These Facts point to a very simple answer.
The Evolution theory is BUNK! These discoveries are real and they blow the evolution theory out of the water.
There were previous civilisations, the theory of evolution is merely the spouting of theorists who desperately want to control and explain their lives.
Testament literally means covenant. Our Bible is our agreement or covenant with God. It is not a calendar nor a complete history of the world; it is what God wants us to use as our guide while here.
Sorry to burst your evolution bubble but even scientists know that less than one year ago a human skeleton was found next to our supposed "ancestors skeletons".
I believe in adaptive change due to environment, but the evolution theory is broken and cannot be fixed if one uses all the evidence.


God Bless and Take Care.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by bogomip
Wacky! Thats what evolutionists are!
I know because I have seen electric switches in geodes over 500,000 years old.
I have seen quality artifacts that were pulled from coal mines; by quality i mean they could have been made today. I have seen paintings that rival our best classical artists that were unearthed in Greece dated much older than should be.
These Facts point to a very simple answer.
The Evolution theory is BUNK! These discoveries are real and they blow the evolution theory out of the water.
There were previous civilisations, the theory of evolution is merely the spouting of theorists who desperately want to control and explain their lives.
Testament literally means covenant. Our Bible is our agreement or covenant with God. It is not a calendar nor a complete history of the world; it is what God wants us to use as our guide while here.
Sorry to burst your evolution bubble but even scientists know that less than one year ago a human skeleton was found next to our supposed "ancestors skeletons".
I believe in adaptive change due to environment, but the evolution theory is broken and cannot be fixed if one uses all the evidence.


God Bless and Take Care.

bogomip, why do you continue to post this at every opportunity? Repeating a lie does not make it more true.

 

[mac_philo]

No, but it makes it easier to swallow. If I remember my childhood correctly, church was pretty much exactly the same, week in, week out, year in, year out.

The instructions for brainwashing are the same as hairwashing: rinse, lather, and repeat.