How can you prove evolution?

[Nathan Poe]

Anyways, not to get into abiogenesis too much but how many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man?

All atoms are non-living.

And how do you intend to discuss this without "getting into abiogenesis too much," seeing as how what you're discussing is the definition of abiogenesis (or at least a poor strawman of it)?

Anyways, without getting into numbers much, what can you tell me about mathematics?

 

[Jet Black]

Anyways, not to get into abiogenesis too much but how many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man?

aah there we go, the abiogenesis equivocation. you do know that evolution and abiogenesis are separate topics right?

 

[Sopharos]

Anyways, not to get into abiogenesis too much but how many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man?

*gasp*

First off, atoms don't evolve. Atoms are non-living. Evolution operates on the assumption of life being already there. So what you got to first ask is how did life start in the first place. That, very likely, came from abiogenesis. See lucaspa's thread here on the subject:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621&

And links from the thread:

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

And TalkOrigins page on Probility of Abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

However, do realise that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Secondly, it took as many as it took for the first cells to become the first man. But I still see no relevance in this to the topic at hand.

 

[Jet Black]

Evidence relating to biochemical genetics consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.

oh now we have an expert of such standing that he can dismiss the whole of biochemistry as "of litle relevance to the real world" can you back that up?

 

[awstar]

First off, atoms don't evolve. Atoms are non-living. Evolution operates on the assumption of life being already there. So what you got to first ask is how did life start in the first place. That, very likely, came from abiogenesis.

However, do realise that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Secondly, it took as many as it took for the first cells to become the first man. But I still see no relevance in this to the topic at hand.

You say that "very likely" life came from abiogenesis. And your link leads one to where Lucaspa said: "For the Christians here, God did not create life by zapping it into existence by some miracle. Instead, God created life by chemistry."

That all sounds pretty dogmatic. Did God tell you that face to face, like He talked to the author of Genesis? Or, do you know that to be truth because of a special DNA mutation that none of the rest of us have been changed by?

 

[Jet Black]

That all sounds pretty dogmatic. Did God tell you that face to face, like He talked to the author of Genesis?

care to back that up? did God tell you face to face, or do you have a bit of extrabiblical evidence hidden in your safe?

 

[awstar]

care to back that up? did God tell you face to face, or do you have a bit of extrabiblical evidence hidden in your safe?

It's not extrabiblical -- it's in the book.

7 Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the "tent of meeting." Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. 8 And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. 9 As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. 10 Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to his tent. 11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. -- Exodus 33:7-11
​

 

[Crispie]

Evolution, nothing more than an assumption made by people because they hate to think of an alternative answer, the true answer. . Its gotten to the point where peole have even used the appendix, whale pelvis "vestige", and embryo development as a poor way to try to somehow prove evolution lol.

 

[Ondoher]

Evolution, nothing more than an assumption made by people because they hate to think of an alternative answer, the true answer. . Its gotten to the point where peole have even used the appendix, whale pelvis "vestige", and embryo development as a poor way to try to somehow prove evolution lol.

Yeah, that's it. Your strawmen are the sum total of all evidence for evolution. Those silly scientists.

Try this for the real arguments in support of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Crispie]

Hahha oh man, I love it how evolutions love to try to prove there Evolution by giving as many explanations as possible. Just because it has more evidence doesnt make it 1 bit more proven, its either proven or not. Gz poeple these days.

 

[Ondoher]

Hahha oh man, I love it how evolutions love to try to prove there Evolution by giving as many explanations as possible. Just because it has more evidence doesnt make it 1 bit more proven, its either proven or not. Gz poeple these days.

It does, however, make it the more likely explanation. And thanks for admitting evolution has more support than the alternatives.

 

[llDayo]

Hahha oh man, I love it how evolutions love to try to prove there Evolution by giving as many explanations as possible. Just because it has more evidence doesnt make it 1 bit more proven, its either proven or not. Gz poeple these days.

Evolution = The strongest Theory in science today. It's supported by an enormous amount of evidence as well as able to predict where fossils may be found. Modern medicine uses it to develop vaccines (meaning if you've had a shot at some point in your life, then you allowed Evolution to help you) and develop better foods. Scientists never look to "prove" anything, they only look to explain and understand the world around us. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

Hypothetical situation: Two people run up to you asking for your help but you can only help out one. Both say they've just witnessed a mugging. The first one says he read about it in a book but has no idea if it really happened. The second one says he didn't see it but found the mugger's weapon, has a description of the mugger from the person that was mugged, and a videotape of it happening. Which person do you help?

 

[gluadys]

Hahha oh man, I love it how evolutions love to try to prove there Evolution by giving as many explanations as possible. Just because it has more evidence doesnt make it 1 bit more proven, its either proven or not. Gz poeple these days.

Makes it more probable than explanations with less evidence though.

And much more probable than explanation with no supporting evidence atall----like YECism.

 

[Sparkie]

NatJo, I suggest you read any of Richard Dawkins books, 'The Blind Watch maker', 'Out of Eden', 'The Selfish Gene' or 'Climing Mount Improbible'. His books explain how evolution works to the lay-man without a need for any specific scientific/biological understanding. I would however point out that Dawkins is an athiest, but I agree with most of his reasoning. I believe in evolution and in God.

Once you have read and understood evoloution, then read 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J. Behe which will in my opinion permit you to believe in God AND evolution! I won't explain here why, but this book enabled me to unite creationism and evolution.

Kev.

 

[Sparkie]

I would just like to say that I do not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, but that God did create heaven and the earth etc, etc, but not in six (solar) days. This is just an over simplification to help us understand His message.



I believe that that God created life on our planet and that He created all the creatures (and man). God's method of creating all life was to divinely create the simplest of life and then though the process of evolution he permitted the creation of all living things over millions of years.

 

[NatJo]

Ok, macroevolution, such as a belief that frogs eventually became dogs, is impossible because the genetic information in each species' gene pool is fixed, or limited, and never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss or copy of information, not an addition or any new information

 

[Vance]

Ok, macroevolution, such as a belief that frogs eventually became dogs, is impossible because the genetic information in each species' gene pool is fixed, or limited, and never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss or copy of information, not an addition or any new information

Who told you those lies?

It wouldn't be a Creationist source, would it?

You really, really need to follow the advice in my signature line.

 

[NatJo]

Disprove it then.

 

[Ondoher]

Ok, macroevolution, such as a belief that frogs eventually became dogs, is impossible because the genetic information in each species' gene pool is fixed, or limited, and never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss or copy of information, not an addition or any new information

Except, of course, when information is added, for instance through the process of duplication and divergence. Here is some peer reviewed literature to support this, I copy/pasted this from a previous post of mine:

• O'Sullivan CM, Tang L, Xu H, Liu S, Rancourt DE. "Origin of the murine implantation serine proteinase subfamily." Mol Reprod Dev. 2004 Oct;69(2):126-36. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15293213
• Fortna A, Kim Y, MacLaren E, Marshall K, Hahn G, Meltesen L, Brenton M, Hink R, Burgers S, Hernandez-Boussard T, Karimpour-Fard A, Glueck D, McGavran L, Berry R, Pollack J, Sikela JM. "Lineage-specific gene duplication and loss in human and great ape evolution." PLoS Biol. 2004 Jul;2(7):E207. Epub 2004 Jul 13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15252450
• Dujon B, Sherman D, Fischer G, Durrens P, Casaregola S, Lafontaine I, De Montigny J, Marck C, Neuveglise C, Talla E, Goffard N, Frangeul L, Aigle M, Anthouard V, Babour A, Barbe V, Barnay S, Blanchin S, Beckerich JM, Beyne E, Bleykasten C, Boisrame A, Boyer J, Cattolico L, Confanioleri F, De Daruvar A, Despons L, Fabre E, Fairhead C, Ferry-Dumazet H, Groppi A, Hantraye F, Hennequin C, Jauniaux N, Joyet P, Kachouri R, Kerrest A, Koszul R, Lemaire M, Lesur I, Ma L, Muller H, Nicaud JM, Nikolski M, Oztas S, Ozier-Kalogeropoulos O, Pellenz S, Potier S, Richard GF, Straub ML, Suleau A, Swennen D, Tekaia F, Wesolowski-Louvel M, Westhof E, Wirth B, Zeniou-Meyer M, Zivanovic I, Bolotin-Fukuhara M, Thierry A, Bouchier C, Caudron B, Scarpelli C, Gaillardin C, Weissenbach J, Wincker P, Souciet JL. "Genome evolution in yeasts." Nature. 2004 Jul 1;430(6995):35-44. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15229592
• Spaethe J, Briscoe AD. "Early duplication and functional diversification of the opsin gene family in insects." Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Aug;21(8):1583-94. Epub 2004 May 21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15155799
• Raes J, Van de Peer Y. "Gene duplication, the evolution of novel gene functions, and detecting functional divergence of duplicates in silico." Appl Bioinformatics. 2003;2(2):91-101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15130825

 

[NatJo]

It's never adding information, it's copying it. There is no new information.