Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

No, the problem is that you don't understand how to evaluate the evidence. You are relying on anti-evolution websites and blogs to evaluate it for you, and then you are parroting their talking points here, all while pretending that there is some huge controversy in the scientific community. If you really want to understand evolutionary biology to be able to evaluate the evidence, then you should start by studying it. There are plenty of free online resources that allow you to do this. Ditch the anti-evolution blogs and find a good reputable online course.

That is what I am doing now. I spend at least 20 hours a week studying and researching. Perhaps anti evolution sites is a bit strong a word. The sites I use for reference range from sites that are what you may call anti evolution but still use scientific research to pro evolution sites for cross referencing. I tend to stay away from those who offer a lot of personal opinion without the support. But the fact is any support that will contradict Darwinian evolution is not going to come from sites that are entrenched in the belief that evolution is already true.

But as I said before even sites that support evolution often have things in them that can be used to show that evolution is doubtful or even contradicted. As I and others have said the evidence can be used for both sides of the debate and it comes down to how one sees it. The thing is pro evolution sites have a bias towards only publishing pro evolution articles and evidence as well. In fact anyone on those sites who tries to promote anything against the consensus if frowned upon. What I am noticing though is that at first you question me and my ability to decern things. When I state that it is not so much me but that I am referencing expert opinion to back me you begin to question the sites as well.

Yet at the same time you dont offer any support yourself or reference any sites as support for what you say. I am not sure what your qualifications are but from what I gather you are not a biologists or geneticist. Yet I am suppose to believe and accept that your word is correct or that if you are using a reference that the reference is right without qualifying it. Its like if I or the links I use question what you say it is a crazy religious thing that is totally wrong and biased. It seems you are targeting the person or site and not looking at the content or detailing a rebuttal against the evidence. Playing the man and not the ball. It seems a bit unfair and hypocritical.

Interesting questions. I've offered you some answers to this in the past, and I've even linked to resources that explain it in more detail. Have a look. Inquire. Don't let anti-evolution blogs tell you what it means. Search for yourself.

Fair enough and I dont. Those sites give a good alternative explanation that often makes sense. But it seems your now focused on my acknowledgement of using anti evolutionists sites for reference like that is all I use in which I dont. But to be honest if you want to find out anything controversial about evolution or find anything that will challenge evolution you wont get it from evolution sites. I have read the explanations that evolution states for this. But thats all they are some attempt to address a difficult question that would normally be a contradiction to evolution. I have read there can be some similarities due to hot spot mutations which may favor certain sites in the genome. But that would still not address the vast similarities and inconsistencies.

Even when you think of the eye. It has evolved in many different unrelated species. There is probably about a dozen unrelated creatures who have fairly similar eyes. They all have two eyes in about the same position and many other similar functions and even genes for those eyes. The same can be said about the many creatures that have 5 digits. Why not evolve 3 or 7 or 11 digits. Why this consistent end result of 5 from unrelated creatures and in many cases with totally different limbs. Yet we are suppose to believe that a random process has found the same path over many times and ended up producing almost identical end results. If it was random then we should have many different end results.

But because they are so similar it speaks more about design that is spread throughout the different species. Yet because the eye for example has a complex level of design the blue prints for them must have been there very early and spread across many different species. This then speaks of the genetic info being there from the beginning and being available for all animals. Otherwise we have to believe that each unrelated individual creature found the same path of complexity on their own through a random process.

When you couple this evidence with the incongruence they are finding in evolutionary tree it makes more sense to say that there is something else going on besides a straight forward common decent. Either all creatures share a c0ommon design which has some similarities according to the need of the individual animals and micro organisms or they are getting their genetic info from some other way as well such as HGT. But mutations and natural selection seems to take a minor role in the scheme of things. This is what the evidence is showing form what I have been reading.

But it's not an anomaly. Convergent evolution is part of evolution. It's not something anomalous. There are multiple examples of it, as shown in the papers you cited.

Yes but is there to much convergent evolution to just be a random coincident. I can understand it happening here and there and that would fit in more with random events which shouldn't show a lot of similarity and patterns. But sometimes more often than not the similar level of detail and complexity is beyond belief and even some evolutionists are saying this. This is the question some are asking and in which some of the papers I have posted. Even though some are saying it is part of evolution they still dont have any proof so its more of an opinion than anything else. It can come down to how you see the evidence and what you believe happened.

I think one of the papers I linked was to do with echolocation. But here once again like eyes this ability to evolve very similar and complex abilities seems to good to be a coincident. Even down to a molecular level of having the same genes which would seems impossible if it has nothing to do with design and all to do with being random and chance. We are to believe that all the complex mechanisms for hearing and echo location was stumbled upon many times by unrelated animals down separate evolutionary paths. Its hard enough to believe that a random and chance process can create this one let alone many times.

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html
So though the paper supports evolution it is the evidence for showing widespread similarities in unrelated animal evolution that was more the point. Even though the author tries to explain this away as part of evolution scientists are saying it may be more wide spread than they thought and may not be the case. They state they are "surprised" and "astonished" at the results. Evolutionists will make some reason why it happens as a part of evolution even if its surprising and contradictory because they are coming from the position of already assuming evolution happened.
“These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized”.
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
This suggest that either many unrelated animals found the same evolutionary paths even down to the molecular level. Or it is showing design of common patterns and structures in many creatures.
Thus, phylogenetic and embryological considerations strongly suggest that the two eyes must have evolved independently. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that the structural similarities in the adult are due to a conserved developmental program. However, the expression of Pax-6 in the development of the squid eye challenges this conclusion,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33656/
Though these papers support evolution they themselves question how such similarities can happen and even suggest evidence for the opposite of convergence.

What is a "Christian biologist"? Are there "Islamic biologists," "Hindu biologists," "Mormon biologists"? No, there are just biologists.

Yes there would be biologists, geneticists and other scientists who are Christians, Muslim and Hindus ect. I am meaning that they have a believe in God as well as be a scientists. You may say that they are all the same. But as soon as you say that a scientist is a Christian they are labelled. They are either questioned about their motivation or their credentials. When you look at ID it is done under the banner of scientific research. But they are focusing on non evolutionary processes as well.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[paulm50]

That is what I am doing now. I spend at least 20 hours a week studying and researching. Perhaps anti evolution sites is a bit strong a word. The sites I use for reference range from sites that are what you may call anti evolution but still use scientific research to pro evolution sites for cross referencing. I tend to stay away from those who offer a lot of personal opinion without the support. But the fact is any support that will contradict Darwinian evolution is not going to come from sites that are entrenched in the belief that evolution is already true.

But as I said before even sites that support evolution often have things in them that can be used to show that evolution is doubtful or even contradicted. As I and others have said the evidence can be used for both sides of the debate and it comes down to how one sees it. The thing is pro evolution sites have a bias towards only publishing pro evolution articles and evidence as well. In fact anyone on those sites who tries to promote anything against the consensus if frowned upon. What I am noticing though is that at first you question me and my ability to decern things. When I state that it is not so much me but that I am referencing expert opinion to back me you begin to question the sites as well.

Yet at the same time you dont offer any support yourself or reference any sites as support for what you say. I am not sure what your qualifications are but from what I gather you are not a biologists or geneticist. Yet I am suppose to believe and accept that your word is correct or that if you are using a reference that the reference is right without qualifying it. Its like if I or the links I use question what you say it is a crazy religious thing that is totally wrong and biased. It seems you are targeting the person or site and not looking at the content or detailing a rebuttal against the evidence. Playing the man and not the ball. It seems a bit unfair and hypocritical.

Fair enough and I dont. Those sites give a good alternative explanation that often makes sense. But it seems your now focused on my acknowledgement of using anti evolutionists sites for reference like that is all I use in which I dont. But to be honest if you want to find out anything controversial about evolution or find anything that will challenge evolution you wont get it from evolution sites. I have read the explanations that evolution states for this. But thats all they are some attempt to address a difficult question that would normally be a contradiction to evolution. I have read there can be some similarities due to hot spot mutations which may favor certain sites in the genome. But that would still not address the vast similarities and inconsistencies.

Even when you think of the eye. It has evolved in many different unrelated species. There is probably about a dozen unrelated creatures who have fairly similar eyes. They all have two eyes in about the same position and many other similar functions and even genes for those eyes. The same can be said about the many creatures that have 5 digits. Why not evolve 3 or 7 or 11 digits. Why this consistent end result of 5 from unrelated creatures and in many cases with totally different limbs. Yet we are suppose to believe that a random process has found the same path over many times and ended up producing almost identical end results. If it was random then we should have many different end results.

But because they are so similar it speaks more about design that is spread throughout the different species. Yet because the eye for example has a complex level of design the blue prints for them must have been there very early and spread across many different species. This then speaks of the genetic info being there from the beginning and being available for all animals. Otherwise we have to believe that each unrelated individual creature found the same path of complexity on their own through a random process.

When you couple this evidence with the incongruence they are finding in evolutionary tree it makes more sense to say that there is something else going on besides a straight forward common decent. Either all creatures share a c0ommon design which has some similarities according to the need of the individual animals and micro organisms or they are getting their genetic info from some other way as well such as HGT. But mutations and natural selection seems to take a minor role in the scheme of things. This is what the evidence is showing form what I have been reading.

Yes but is there to much convergent evolution to just be a random coincident. I can understand it happening here and there and that would fit in more with random events which shouldn't show a lot of similarity and patterns. But sometimes more often than not the similar level of detail and complexity is beyond belief and even some evolutionists are saying this. This is the question some are asking and in which some of the papers I have posted. Even though some are saying it is part of evolution they still dont have any proof so its more of an opinion than anything else. It can come down to how you see the evidence and what you believe happened.

I think one of the papers I linked was to do with echolocation. But here once again like eyes this ability to evolve very similar and complex abilities seems to good to be a coincident. Even down to a molecular level of having the same genes which would seems impossible if it has nothing to do with design and all to do with being random and chance. We are to believe that all the complex mechanisms for hearing and echo location was stumbled upon many times by unrelated animals down separate evolutionary paths. Its hard enough to believe that a random and chance process can create this one let alone many times.

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html
So though the paper supports evolution it is the evidence for showing widespread similarities in unrelated animal evolution that was more the point. Even though the author tries to explain this away as part of evolution scientists are saying it may be more wide spread than they thought and may not be the case. They state they are "surprised" and "astonished" at the results. Evolutionists will make some reason why it happens as a part of evolution even if its surprising and contradictory because they are coming from the position of already assuming evolution happened.
“These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized”.
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
This suggest that either many unrelated animals found the same evolutionary paths even down to the molecular level. Or it is showing design of common patterns and structures in many creatures.
Thus, phylogenetic and embryological considerations strongly suggest that the two eyes must have evolved independently. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that the structural similarities in the adult are due to a conserved developmental program. However, the expression of Pax-6 in the development of the squid eye challenges this conclusion,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33656/
Though these papers support evolution they themselves question how such similarities can happen and even suggest evidence for the opposite of convergence.

Yes there would be biologists, geneticists and other scientists who are Christians, Muslim and Hindus ect. I am meaning that they have a believe in God as well as be a scientists. You may say that they are all the same. But as soon as you say that a scientist is a Christian they are labelled. They are either questioned about their motivation or their credentials. When you look at ID it is done under the banner of scientific research. But they are focusing on non evolutionary processes as well.

Can you prove to the same level your theory on how we all arrived here?

Rather than trying to chip away at what is proven and people are spending countless hours checking and rechecking, as you point out.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then how come they do not keep re-appearing and sometimes taking over as the 2nd law of genetics dictates and Mendel (and many others since him) has proved?

Taking over? What are you talking about? They are already expressed as the many characteristics shared by all of the great apes.

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/intelligent_design/

https://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/probonofiles/kitzmiller.pdf

Notice how none of the people claiming that ID is science on the site you linked were willing to say so when there were actual legal penalties for lying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is what I am doing now. I spend at least 20 hours a week studying and researching. Perhaps anti evolution sites is a bit strong a word. The sites I use for reference range from sites that are what you may call anti evolution but still use scientific research to pro evolution sites for cross referencing. I tend to stay away from those who offer a lot of personal opinion without the support. But the fact is any support that will contradict Darwinian evolution is not going to come from sites that are entrenched in the belief that evolution is already true.

Then you are doing yourself a disservice by relying on overtly anti-scientific websites and blogs instead of reputable online course, of which there are many. It's not too strong to call these websites "anti-evolution," because that is what they are. It's not too strong to call them anti-scientific either since they obviously cherrypick from the literature to make claims that are not actually supported by the literature. So long as your study is limited to these websites you will be missing out on a proper understanding of evolutionary biology, which is exactly what you need if you are going to evaluate the evidence from the literature. At the moment, you are relying on people who don't understand evolution to interpret the evidence for evolution for you so that you can then repeat their claims.

But as I said before even sites that support evolution often have things in them that can be used to show that evolution is doubtful or even contradicted. As I and others have said the evidence can be used for both sides of the debate and it comes down to how one sees it. The thing is pro evolution sites have a bias towards only publishing pro evolution articles and evidence as well. In fact anyone on those sites who tries to promote anything against the consensus if frowned upon. What I am noticing though is that at first you question me and my ability to decern things. When I state that it is not so much me but that I am referencing expert opinion to back me you begin to question the sites as well.

Those sites don't count as "expert" opinion. If you want expert opinion, begin a course on evolutionary biology. That's where you'll find the experts.

Yet at the same time you dont offer any support yourself or reference any sites as support for what you say.

If you recall our previous conversation, I did offer support for my claims. First, I quoted from the papers you were citing to clarify what the authors' meant. Second, I provided links to sites that elucidating the concepts under discussion, such as convergent evolution. Those sites were educational in nature.

I am not sure what your qualifications are but from what I gather you are not a biologists or geneticist.

No, but I have background in biology. My principal area is neuropsychology.

Yet I am suppose to believe and accept that your word is correct or that if you are using a reference that the reference is right without qualifying it.

You don't have to take my word for it. I showed you what the authors were saying and I supplied you with links that clarify the relevant concepts. Moreover, I suggested that you pursue a course in the subject. Don't take my word for it. Ask a professor of evolutionary biology.

Its like if I or the links I use question what you say it is a crazy religious thing that is totally wrong and biased. It seems you are targeting the person or site and not looking at the content or detailing a rebuttal against the evidence. Playing the man and not the ball. It seems a bit unfair and hypocritical.

That's not at all the case. I already examined the papers you presented as evidence for your position, remember? From that sample, we found that the papers didn't actually support your claims. Now you are upset that I don't go through and read every single thing you link to. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to do that. Moreover, I doubt that you read all the material you link to anyway. It seems that you read what the anti-evolution websites say and then just copy-and-paste the material here, without actually reading the papers. It's unfair to demand that I go through each paper, one by one, as you keep piling more and more on top. It's doubly unfair if you haven't actually read the papers yourself, but have just copied the link from an anti-evolution website.

Even when you think of the eye. It has evolved in many different unrelated species. There is probably about a dozen unrelated creatures who have fairly similar eyes. They all have two eyes in about the same position and many other similar functions and even genes for those eyes. The same can be said about the many creatures that have 5 digits. Why not evolve 3 or 7 or 11 digits. Why this consistent end result of 5 from unrelated creatures and in many cases with totally different limbs. Yet we are suppose to believe that a random process has found the same path over many times and ended up producing almost identical end results. If it was random then we should have many different end results.

But selection isn't random. That's a key point in understanding convergent evolution. You are confusing random mutation with natural selection. In any case, the end results aren't phenotypically exact anyway. Bats wings are different to birds wings and insect wings, for example. Yet all three groups benefit from flight.

But because they are so similar it speaks more about design that is spread throughout the different species.

Quite the contrary. Why would a designer independently develop multiple distinct flight mechanisms? Why wouldn't he simply use the same design for each species?

Yet because the eye for example has a complex level of design the blue prints for them must have been there very early and spread across many different species. This then speaks of the genetic info being there from the beginning and being available for all animals. Otherwise we have to believe that each unrelated individual creature found the same path of complexity on their own through a random process.

It's not random, steve.

Yes but is there to much convergent evolution to just be a random coincident.

But it's not random! Two separate lineages independently evolve similar traits because those traits are beneficial to both lineages.

I think one of the papers I linked was to do with echolocation. But here once again like eyes this ability to evolve very similar and complex abilities seems to good to be a coincident. Even down to a molecular level of having the same genes which would seems impossible if it has nothing to do with design and all to do with being random and chance.

But it's not random, steve! You keep missing that point. Of course we would expect there to be some genotypic similarities. The only remarkable thing was the extent of those similarities in one particular case. This doesn't place evolution in doubt. It is a finding that warrants further investigation.

We are to believe that all the complex mechanisms for hearing and echo location was stumbled upon many times by unrelated animals down separate evolutionary paths. Its hard enough to believe that a random and chance process can create this one let alone many times.

But it's not random and chance!!!! It's not hard to believe once you recognise that crucial point.

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html
So though the paper supports evolution it is the evidence for showing widespread similarities in unrelated animal evolution that was more the point. Even though the author tries to explain this away as part of evolution scientists are saying it may be more wide spread than they thought and may not be the case. They state they are "surprised" and "astonished" at the results.

Yes, they are surprised at the extent of it; they are not surprised that it happens. As they noted, it is to be expected.

Evolutionists will make some reason why it happens as a part of evolution even if its surprising and contradictory because they are coming from the position of already assuming evolution happened.

It's not contradictory. As the authors' noted, it was expected. The aspect that was surprising was the extent of it; it's much more widespread than they had suspected - a point that they emphasised: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized”. (http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679). This is not a contradiction, steve.

Though these papers support evolution they themselves question how such similarities can happen and even suggest evidence for the opposite of convergence.

Wrong. Their results are consistent with what we would expect from convergence.

 

[stevevw]

Can you prove to the same level your theory on how we all arrived here?

Rather than trying to chip away at what is proven and people are spending countless hours checking and rechecking, as you point out.

I dont think there is enough solid proof for any theory at the moment. It could be some sort of design and creation. It could be design and evolution. But I dont believe the evidence is strong for Darwinian evolution through mutations and natural selection alone. I guess the jury is out on this at the moment and we will have to see if more evidence comes in. I dont think there will ever be enough evidence to completely support any theory with full proof support.

But I do believe as we continue to sequence the genome we will discover more about how living creatures are programmed. I believe we will see that there is even more complexity than we thought. This will make it even harder for finding proof that living things somehow created themselves from nothing, to simple and then to more and more complex and better equipped creatures. I think some of the links I have posted show that evolution is not as straight forward as some say. I think some of those links also show how complex life is and that it would need to have had some access to existing info to be able to produce such complex variety.

 

[pshun2404]

Taking over? What are you talking about? They are already expressed as the many characteristics shared by all of the great apes.

Mendel showed that recessive traits re-appear and on occasion the recessives take over and act as the dominant trait fully expressing themselves. This means that Ape characteristics (like very long arms, the hand bones of a knuckle walker, separated big toe or rear thumb on feet, unique pelvic position, pronounced simian shelfing, etc.) would continue to re-appear and every once in a while a human would have an fully ape baby. None of these things are witnessed even in the fossil record, nor have been demonstrated to occur, nor have any tests ever shown this to be the case (in all of alleged human evolution). So this is not the case (we also share 50% genetic commonalities with bananas yet who considers them recessive traits).

the many characteristics shared by all of the great apes

Homological similarities do not demonstrate man is an ape any more than Koala bears are Possums just because both are Marsupials. Yes these similar genes express in the formation of particular body characteristics (like a dog and a bear) but there are sufficient differences to show bears are not dogs and dogs are not bears (even if man makes up a classification system that lumps them together in his imagination). In the case of man, apes, and chimps, the design implemented by each creatures gene expression is erect primate mammal, both have four limbs, faces with eyes nose and mouth, ears, and so on, but that does not mean one came from the other or that apes are people or that man is an ape.

 

[pshun2404]

https://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/probonofiles/kitzmiller.pdf

Notice how none of the people claiming that ID is science on the site you linked were willing to say so when there were actual legal penalties for lying.

ID is not a science, it is a way that some scientists interpret the same data. Like the Leakys at the Olduvai gorge interpreting the ape remains almost a football field away as indicative of being the creatures that made and used the stone tools and left the non-ape-like footprints is merely one way of seeing this (but not factual just possible).

They reach this conclusion because thus far we have not found human remains going back that far (but as you guys so adamantly always point out "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). This case is like saying that if 100,000 or a 1,000,000 years after human civilization, some being finds chimp remains a football field away from the remains of my toilet, that this must mean the chimps made and used toilets!!!! Theory based interpretations do not make the conclusions factual they should have just let the data speak and included the possibility this may have been indicative of early humans.

So once again, ID is simply a method of explaining the evidence, not a separate "science"...the same Olduvai gorge evidence could be interpreted (with equal possibility) as demonstrating early humans that may have killed or even eaten the ape and then moved on (as has been demonstrated regarding later hunter gatherers)...

Dubois "Java Man" is another such example....(estimated dating ranges from 700,000 to 1,000,000 years)...an ape skull cap and a human Femur (and two concealed human skulls) were found and he associates the the skull cap and human femur calling it an ape-man...what he had really found was definite evidence of early man far pre-dating the accepted 195,000 years for man THEORY-based interpretation (at his time it was about 120,000)....but I am sure you will argue against the obvious!

 

[paulm50]

I dont think there is enough solid proof for any theory at the moment. It could be some sort of design and creation. It could be design and evolution. But I dont believe the evidence is strong for Darwinian evolution through mutations and natural selection alone. I guess the jury is out on this at the moment and we will have to see if more evidence comes in. I dont think there will ever be enough evidence to completely support any theory with full proof support.

But I do believe as we continue to sequence the genome we will discover more about how living creatures are programmed. I believe we will see that there is even more complexity than we thought. This will make it even harder for finding proof that living things somehow created themselves from nothing, to simple and then to more and more complex and better equipped creatures. I think some of the links I have posted show that evolution is not as straight forward as some say. I think some of those links also show how complex life is and that it would need to have had some access to existing info to be able to produce such complex variety.

There's always enough evidence for a theory.

As for Darwin, you may think the evidence isn't strong enough. The rest of the world is convinced by it. With evidence to support it. Including DNA evidence. Which is growing all the time.

No science isn't straightforward, which is why it takes years of study to be a scientist and the rest of a person's life to keep learning more, without ever claiming to know everything and after a decade. People have leap frogged your work and taken it further, or discredited it.

 

[Larniavc]

Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gaverise to mammals! (again never actually observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to actually be the case and as scientifically indicated in my references given to birds and reptiles)

Birds did not give rise to birds. Mammals appeared in the late Triassic period (about 225 million years ago). Birds appeared in the Jurassic period (about 160 million years ago). Mammals existed long before birds diverged from therapods.

The source you used for your post is incorrect.

All the best.

Edit: Birds did not give rise to mammals.

 

[stevevw]

Then you are doing yourself a disservice by relying on overtly anti-scientific websites and blogs instead of reputable online course, of which there are many. It's not too strong to call these websites "anti-evolution," because that is what they are. It's not too strong to call them anti-scientific either since they obviously cherrypick from the literature to make claims that are not actually supported by the literature. So long as your study is limited to these websites you will be missing out on a proper understanding of evolutionary biology, which is exactly what you need if you are going to evaluate the evidence from the literature. At the moment, you are relying on people who don't understand evolution to interpret the evidence for evolution for you so that you can then repeat their claims.

As you may well notice many of my supports are from mainstream links such as Nature.com, PubMed.gov, plos.org ect. Sometimes the articles in some of the sites that challenge evolution use these very sites as their evidence. As I said I do use a cross section of links.

Those sites don't count as "expert" opinion. If you want expert opinion, begin a course on evolutionary biology. That's where you'll find the experts.

Why isn't it expert opinion. They are biologists and geneticists. They know their stuff. They just happen to disagree with what some evolutionists say. Some even agree on some aspects of evolution but disagree on others. Look at scientists like Francis Collins who is a Christian and was head of the ENCODE project is he not an expert. But the point is there are also non religious experts who have challenged what evolution has said. They are just seeking the truth and telling it how it is. New discoveries are challenging the traditional theory of evolution all the time. Here are a few non religious experts challenging some of the tenets of evolution.
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris
http://www.examiner.com/article/cha...ientists-debunk-darwin-s-tree-of-life-diagram
genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full
So evidence against what evolution says also is coming from evolutionists themselves who dare to challenge the consensus. I should say who just seek the truth.

If you recall our previous conversation, I did offer support for my claims. First, I quoted from the papers you were citing to clarify what the authors' meant.

Which was?

Second, I provided links to sites that elucidating the concepts under discussion, such as convergent evolution. Those sites were educational in nature.

So the papers I have linked which are from Nature.com aren't educational in nature. In case you are not realizing most of the stuff I am linking is not religious.

No, but I have background in biology. My principal area is neuropsychology.

Well I am not getting any feed back as to how what I have posted was wrong in its assertions. They came from non religious sites and non religious scientists.

You don't have to take my word for it. I showed you what the authors were saying and I supplied you with links that clarify the relevant concepts. Moreover, I suggested that you pursue a course in the subject. Don't take my word for it. Ask a professor of evolutionary biology.

To be honest you keep saying this but I cant remember. I cant remember if we were talking about the same things or you understood my point or you were focusing on something else. You stated that my paper was supporting evolution. As I said some of the stuff that is linked will support evolution. But the point isn't being made about that. It may have been an aspect of the paper that was more or less supporting a particular aspect of evolution that the author was admitting was difficult to explain or showed a contradiction with evolution and they were trying to explain it without any luck.

I also may have posted several articles and that was only one of them of which the others made a case for what I was saying. I normally post more than one article for evidence. Then you may have focused on a particular aspect and not considered all that was linked. But without being refreshed as to what you are talking about I cant clarify my position on this or know what you are meaning. You have mentioned this 3 or 4 times now and I would have thought you would have been more specific and not have this guessing game.

That's not at all the case. I already examined the papers you presented as evidence for your position, remember?

Well no to be honest. I remember having a disagreement but I cant remember you proving anything.

From that sample, we found that the papers didn't actually support your claims.

Which were ?.

Now you are upset that I don't go through and read every single thing you link to.

No you dont even read one of them which makes me sus. Not even any of the ones I have singled out. It makes me wonder if you are avoiding something. As I said you keep asking for evidence and I keep giving it and you keep not referring to it.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to do that.

Then why ask for evidence in the first place.

Moreover, I doubt that you read all the material you link to anyway. It seems that you read what the anti-evolution websites say and then just copy-and-paste the material here, without actually reading the papers. It's unfair to demand that I go through each paper, one by one, as you keep piling more and more on top. It's doubly unfair if you haven't actually read the papers yourself, but have just copied the link from an anti-evolution website.

I have read them. They are ones I have used before and have on file.I know them as I have used them time and time again. I have 100s of links. The links come from various sites and if you havnt noticed most are not from anti evolution sites but ones like Nature.com. I have learned in the time I have been on this cite especially in the beginning that linking religious sites doesn't work. People reject them immediately and they dont even get a chance to be read even if they are correct. So I try to find non religious ones and that is why some of them will even support evolution but also support particular aspects of why evolution is questionable.

The evidence is what it is and for example it shows that there is a contradiction with evolution then you will have two sides trying to explain why that is so. Its just a case of which explanation fits best with everything. Like I said a person who already believes in evolution will find ways of explaining this as a part of evolution. But a case can be made for it being another piece of evidence that is showing that evolution cannot do what some say. This is what is happening more and more. The more that all these smaller pieces of evidence build up and come together the more the case will get stronger.

The evolutionists use to try and make out that evolution was easy to explain. That creatures were fairly simple to evolve. The DNA had a lot of junk and we were full of vestigial organs that were remnants of evolution. They use to make these stories showing all the trees linking all the creatures together with pictures and descriptions of transitional features making their theory based on observational evidence.

Now we are discovering the vast complexity of life through DNA and it isn't matching that story. As time goes by it will continue to show that what was said is not what has happened and was based on assumption. They have taken something that did happen and built upon that with unobserved and unsubstantiated stories..

But selection isn't random. That's a key point in understanding convergent evolution. You are confusing random mutation with natural selection. In any case, the end results aren't phenotypically exact anyway. Bats wings are different to birds wings and insect wings, for example. Yet all three groups benefit from flight.

You make out like there is this dominate trait for selection in each group that stands out and happens to be selected time and time again in a very similar way. Evolution hasn't been proven to be like that. This is what evolution wants us to think. But there are many options that can happen. Mutations are basically a copying mistake and are not the best thing for creatures. So this will be very restrained and selected against or neutral and doing nothing.

The chances would be mostly harmful let alone it finding these complex beneficial end results that build better equipped creatures from one to another always improving. For what we see with the ever increasing complexity and variety of life evolution would have to have mostly beneficial mutations one after the other to account for this. It would take more time than there has been in the history of this earth to happen.
Time and Information in Evolution
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

Like I said a wing or eye is unbelievable to have evolved in the first place let alone many times in different creatures. Natural selection is suppose to select out what is beneficial according to the environment a creature lives in. A mutation can present many many different features to choose in the end. But each situation is individual and each environmental circumstance is also different. So this would indicate many different end results. This would also indicate a miss match or traits good, bad and ugly. Of different stages good and bad. But what we see is well defined and complex creatures showing similar patterns and codes even down to the molecular level. It just seems overall like design and not some naturalistic process.

That is the way I and others see and you and others will see it another way. But the pint is the evidence to an extent can be argued for both sides. The tricky thing is that what evolution does is take something that actually happens micro evolution which is limited and expands that into something that has not been proven. So it can sound good but when you look close there is actually no support for it. It breaks down and has its limits. It actually makes creature less stronger and able in the end and there is some evidence that is showing this as well.

Quite the contrary. Why would a designer independently develop multiple distinct flight mechanisms? Why wouldn't he simply use the same design for each species?

He did. The info for these things basically comes from the same blue prints. But each creature needs to draw the info form that basic plan for what they need to equip them for the environment they live in. The point is the info and ability is very complex and cannot evolve on its own or by a process that is basically a mistake of what is already there. The info had to be around to begin with to enable that amount of complexity and variety.

We are still mapping the genomes of creatures and finding links and pathways as to how this is all happening. We are discovering that the junk DNA has some function. So maybe there are other connections to be made yet. Maybe there are more links between creatures. maybe there was all this info there in the beginning that was tapped into by different creatures for what they needed. But it was from the same master plan.

It's not random, steve.

It is in the sense that natural selection can only work with what it is given which is random. So if there are many mutations needed to build a complex system then those mutations are not going to know what to dish up. So natural selection may not even get what it needs in the end. It may get part of whats needed. The mutations may not even be selected because they are not prominent enough or may come at a cost individually.

But if there is a limited amount of info that can be selected that is already there then the system will have pathways to use this and there will be distinct processes and systems in place that show the design of things. Life allows a certain amount of ability to vary so that creatures can adapt.

But it's not random! Two separate lineages independently evolve similar traits because those traits are beneficial to both lineages.

But what the evidence is showing is that those two separate lines had vast similarities even down to the molecular level. In other words they seemed to follow this predictable and pre programmed path. If they were two different creatures in two different environments with their own individual circumstances there would have been a lot of difference seen and not so much similarity.

Similarity can happen here and there but the level of similarity that is being found is very high. And its happening more and more as we map the genetics. When you get it happening across many unrelated creatures you then have to ask questions. As the scientist said they are astonished and surprised this has happened. It may well be a big coincident but only time will tell.

But it's not random, steve! You keep missing that point. Of course we would expect there to be some genotypic similarities. The only remarkable thing was the extent of those similarities in one particular case. This doesn't place evolution in doubt. It is a finding that warrants further investigation.

Its not just one particular place. It is happening a lot. The other thing to consider is at the same time they are finding large chunks or the same genes in unrelated creatures that dont have convergent features. So something is causing many creatures to have shared genes as well. The tree of life is more like a hedge then a tree. There is a vast amount of side ways sharing of genetics.

It's not contradictory. As the authors' noted, it was expected. The aspect that was surprising was the extent of it; it's much more widespread than they had suspected - a point that they emphasised: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized”. (http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679). This is not a contradiction, steve.

But wheres the evidence that it is just coincident. Have they traced the pathways to find if it is from individual evolution or are they just assuming this because that is how they think evolution should work.

Wrong. Their results are consistent with what we would expect from convergence.

Yes what they would expect. But is what they expect been proven with tests or is it assumed. If they assume that this is how evolution would work the of course they will come to a conclusion that its a part of evolution and is just a coincident. But its a bit like when there is a coincident. You at first put it down to chance encounters. But when it starts to happen over and over again you start to wonder whats going on. The odds begin to sway in favor of something else at work.

I mean even if you say its just evolution and it just happens to stumble on similar pathways due to how the process of evolution works its almost reflecting design anyway. Its like the design you have when your not having design. It looks like a repeated process where creatures follow systems and mechanisms that are predictable and seem to be setup that way but its not. I guess thats why Dawkins said that evolution has the appearance of design. But when do you draw the line and begin to say that maybe it is design.

Anyway I better wind it down now as I said to much. I will let others have a say on this as I am no expert as you say.

 

[stevevw]

There's always enough evidence for a theory.

As for Darwin, you may think the evidence isn't strong enough. The rest of the world is convinced by it. With evidence to support it. Including DNA evidence. Which is growing all the time

When someone says there is good evidence for evolution I always wonder what they mean by evolution. I think many people including myself agree that there is a limited amount of evolution happening. Like with Darwin's finches and the beaks changing in size so that they could break the shells of seeds to continue to eat. Those with bigger stronger beaks went on to survive and the trait became dominate. But as observed later when things changed the finches reverted back to their natural state. The finches were never going to evolve into anything else and the evolution was limited to changing existing features so they could adapt. That seems to be what the tests have shown and that seems to be what is observed. The rest I think is speculation.

So if you ask people to clarify what they actually believe about evolution I think you will find that there will be different understandings. Its harder to provide the evidence for what Darwinian evolution states with common decent and mutations creating the vast complexity we see. I think that is something beyond what evolution can do. The thing is its taking something that does work and making more out of it than what is really there. So its a bit tricky as it sort of has half truths.

No science isn't straightforward, which is why it takes years of study to be a scientist and the rest of a person's life to keep learning more, without ever claiming to know everything and after a decade. People have leap frogged your work and taken it further, or discredited it.

Yes thats the beauty of it.

 

[pshun2404]

Birds did not give rise to birds. Mammals appeared in the late Triassic period (about 225 million years ago). Birds appeared in the Jurassic period (about 160 million years ago). Mammals existed long before birds diverged from therapods.

The source you used for your post is incorrect.

All the best.

No one said birds gave rise to birds (where did you get that?) they said there is no evidence to demonstrate reptiles gave rise to birds (go back into the thread there is ample evidence this is not so) and you are correct on the second point in fact that was THE point (though many at that time implied such a notion)

 

[pshun2404]

Evolution as the term is used can mean at least….

a) Any change over time

b) The explanation for a universe and earth developing over billions of years old.

c) An explanation used to support the hypothesis of a common ancestry for all life.

d) A way of explaining the chemical origin of life (not part of Darwin’s theory)

e) A way of explaining the hypothesis of common descent

f) an idea of, plus a mechanism for changes.

g) In the case Darwin, natural selection by sifting the random variations in reproducing populations (Darwin called this chance variations).

h) In modern Neo-Darwinism a way if interpreting new variations allegedly identified with mutations in DNA.

And more….so when someone says “It is NOT random” they are saying Darwin was not correct because his idea was that they are.

Either these processes and changes are guided (even if only by reliable laws) or they are unguided (just happen and some succeed)….these changes and subsequent developments (says specific organelles) either have definite predetermined purpose (which DNA and the inter-dependent Translation/Transcription process surely indicate) or they are/ were (at least at first) stumbled upon by chance and then remained because they work.

I do not exclude the possibility that both cases exist (some having purpose and possibly intent and some, based on variance or mutation/disturbance cause difference albeit usually detrimental).

In Mayr’s, Towards a new Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 98 he notes that "When it is said that mutation or variation is random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new genotypes and the adaptational need of an organism in a given environment." He notices this is the case in many instances (not all). The change in genotype does NOT occur because of an adaptational need (this actually brings many alleged conclusions by todays Neo-Darwinians into question). This means that they did not develop certain abilities or characteristics BECAUSE their environment or circumstance demanded it (the case some make for longer shorter beaked finches). I think Darwin would say the initial variations are random, and then selection/success are determined by adaptational need, but is it not equally plausible variances simultaneously existed and creatures died off or else moved to more equitable environments . I think the only real difference between many neo-Darwinians and the Id scientist is that the ID scientist would merely say that in the beginning all this was put into motion with a definite intent (therefore giving all developments purpose) which that it is or is not is a matter that science cannot prove or disprove which ever camp one is in.

I suggest all parties look up the word “random” and think…if this iS, or IS NOT, what you see in creation/nature as it pertains to the development or becoming of life. Pick your side and do not play the fence. And if ID and non-ID scientists agree these changes and developments were/are not RANDOM, then at least let that be noted.

 

[Larniavc]

That is what I am doing now. I spend at least 20 hours a week studying and researching. Perhaps anti evolution sites is a bit strong a word. The sites I use for reference range from sites that are what you may call anti evolution but still use scientific research to pro evolution sites for cross referencing.

Hi Steve. This is going to sound harsher than I want it to but here goes:

What you are doing is not research. You are reading websites. To do research you need to use the primary research that you have access to. This normally means journal articles in the field that you are working in.

Often this mean that the lay individual does not have access to this body of research and has to rely on websites. Going to web sites is a very poor way to do research.

If one is doing (for example) an MSc or PhD one high tails it to the databases with search terms and pulls up journal articles to do a literature review. This takes months and is a full time job.

If you rely on internet sites (on what ever topic) you will get (at best) somebody else's opinion on the data and (at worst) somebody else's conclusion.

I really hope this does not come across as preachy but good research is a pet peeve of mine.
All the best.

 

[paulm50]

When someone says there is good evidence for evolution I always wonder what they mean by evolution. I think many people including myself agree that there is a limited amount of evolution happening. Like with Darwin's finches and the beaks changing in size so that they could break the shells of seeds to continue to eat. Those with bigger stronger beaks went on to survive and the trait became dominate. But as observed later when things changed the finches reverted back to their natural state. The finches were never going to evolve into anything else and the evolution was limited to changing existing features so they could adapt. That seems to be what the tests have shown and that seems to be what is observed. The rest I think is speculation.

So if you ask people to clarify what they actually believe about evolution I think you will find that there will be different understandings. Its harder to provide the evidence for what Darwinian evolution states with common decent and mutations creating the vast complexity we see. I think that is something beyond what evolution can do. The thing is its taking something that does work and making more out of it than what is really there. So its a bit tricky as it sort of has half truths.

Yes thats the beauty of it.

Over what time frame? Because this is the key that destroys your theory.

Start by telling us what you believe in, in What Did Happen.

And if it is about god, relate that to any Christian Teachings please. Because all you continue to do is take your conclusion, and find evidence you can twist to support it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As you may well notice many of my supports are from mainstream links such as Nature.com, PubMed.gov, plos.org ect. Sometimes the articles in some of the sites that challenge evolution use these very sites as their evidence. As I said I do use a cross section of links.

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that anti-evolution websites link to mainstream sources. They then misinterpret what those sources say, and you repeat their misinterpretation here.

Why isn't it expert opinion. They are biologists and geneticists. They know their stuff.

I'm talking about the anti-evolution websites, not biologists, the vast majority of whom accept evolution.

They just happen to disagree with what some evolutionists say.

Again, there are no "evolutionists." Just like there are no "germ theorists."

So the papers I have linked which are from Nature.com aren't educational in nature. In case you are not realizing most of the stuff I am linking is not religious.

No, they are educational. The problem seems to be that you don't understand what they are saying, which is why I recommended an online course to equip you with the resources necessary to understand those papers.

To be honest you keep saying this but I cant remember. I cant remember if we were talking about the same things or you understood my point or you were focusing on something else. You stated that my paper was supporting evolution. As I said some of the stuff that is linked will support evolution. But the point isn't being made about that. It may have been an aspect of the paper that was more or less supporting a particular aspect of evolution that the author was admitting was difficult to explain or showed a contradiction with evolution and they were trying to explain it without any luck.

None of the papers you cited had any "contradictions to evolution" in them. You interpreted those "contradictions" by reading an anti-evolution blog's view of the paper.

I also may have posted several articles and that was only one of them of which the others made a case for what I was saying. I normally post more than one article for evidence. Then you may have focused on a particular aspect and not considered all that was linked. But without being refreshed as to what you are talking about I cant clarify my position on this or know what you are meaning. You have mentioned this 3 or 4 times now and I would have thought you would have been more specific and not have this guessing game.

If I can find the thread, I'll post a link to it.

Then why ask for evidence in the first place.

Because you are making outlandish claims.

I have read them. They are ones I have used before and have on file.I know them as I have used them time and time again. I have 100s of links. The links come from various sites and if you havnt noticed most are not from anti evolution sites but ones like Nature.com. I have learned in the time I have been on this cite especially in the beginning that linking religious sites doesn't work. People reject them immediately and they dont even get a chance to be read even if they are correct. So I try to find non religious ones and that is why some of them will even support evolution but also support particular aspects of why evolution is questionable.

Except none of the papers from the scientific sources you linked to suggest that evolution is in question. So there's a mismatch between your claim and the evidence that is supposed to support it.

The evidence is what it is and for example it shows that there is a contradiction with evolution then you will have two sides trying to explain why that is so. Its just a case of which explanation fits best with everything. Like I said a person who already believes in evolution will find ways of explaining this as a part of evolution. But a case can be made for it being another piece of evidence that is showing that evolution cannot do what some say. This is what is happening more and more.

It's not happening "more and more." If it were, the scientific literature would reflect that. Contrary to what you claim, it doesn't.

Like I said a wing or eye is unbelievable to have evolved in the first place let alone many times in different creatures.

Fallacy of incredulity?

The tricky thing is that what evolution does is take something that actually happens micro evolution which is limited and expands that into something that has not been proven. So it can sound good but when you look close there is actually no support for it. It breaks down and has its limits. It actually makes creature less stronger and able in the end and there is some evidence that is showing this as well.

What on earth are you talking about?

He did. The info for these things basically comes from the same blue prints.

But it doesn't, steve. They're not the same. The blueprints are different: they are different mechanisms for flight.

It is in the sense that natural selection can only work with what it is given which is random. So if there are many mutations needed to build a complex system then those mutations are not going to know what to dish up. So natural selection may not even get what it needs in the end. It may get part of whats needed. The mutations may not even be selected because they are not prominent enough or may come at a cost individually

steve, this conversation is pointless if you don't know what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and take an online course on evolutionary biology.

But what the evidence is showing is that those two separate lines had vast similarities even down to the molecular level.

Yes, which is what would be expected given convergent evolution.

If they were two different creatures in two different environments with their own individual circumstances there would have been a lot of difference seen and not so much similarity.

What? Why?

Similarity can happen here and there but the level of similarity that is being found is very high. And its happening more and more as we map the genetics. When you get it happening across many unrelated creatures you then have to ask questions. As the scientist said they are astonished and surprised this has happened. It may well be a big coincident but only time will tell.

No, steve, they were surprised by the extent of it. They were NOT surprised that it happened at all. As they noted, they EXPECTED it.

But wheres the evidence that it is just coincident. Have they traced the pathways to find if it is from individual evolution or are they just assuming this because that is how they think evolution should work.

What on earth is "individual evolution"? They know how distinct lineages are from one another based on multiple lines of evidence pointing to the last common ancestor shared by both lineages.

Yes what they would expect. But is what they expect been proven with tests or is it assumed.

steve, you cited the very papers in which this was demonstrated, not assumed.

If they assume that this is how evolution would work the of course they will come to a conclusion that its a part of evolution and is just a coincident. But its a bit like when there is a coincident. You at first put it down to chance encounters. But when it starts to happen over and over again you start to wonder whats going on. The odds begin to sway in favor of something else at work.

It's not "coincidence." Species evolve similar traits because their respective environments favour those traits.

I mean even if you say its just evolution and it just happens to stumble on similar pathways due to how the process of evolution works its almost reflecting design anyway.

In what way is it reflecting design?

Its like the design you have when your not having design. It looks like a repeated process where creatures follow systems and mechanisms that are predictable and seem to be setup that way but its not. I guess thats why Dawkins said that evolution has the appearance of design. But when do you draw the line and begin to say that maybe it is design.

When there is evidence of design?

 

[Larniavc]

No one said birds gave rise to birds (where did you get that?) they said there is no evidence to demonstrate reptiles gave rise to birds (go back into the thread there is ample evidence this is not so) and you are correct on the second point in fact that was THE point (though many at that time implied such a notion)

You are correct, 'birds giving rise to birds' was a typo. I meant to say 'birds did not give rise to mammals'. My mistake, entirely and apologies for the confusion.

You do however seem to be implying that the Gerald quotes are assumptions that contemporary biologist have. They don't.

If I've miss read your implication here, I do apologise.

All the best.

 

[KCfromNC]

Mendel showed that recessive traits re-appear and on occasion the recessives take over and act as the dominant trait fully expressing themselves. This means that Ape characteristics (like very long arms, the hand bones of a knuckle walker, separated big toe or rear thumb on feet, unique pelvic position, pronounced simian shelfing, etc.) would continue to re-appear and every once in a while a human would have an fully ape baby.

Considering humans are part of the ape family, this happens any time a human baby is born. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?

Homological similarities do not demonstrate man is an ape

It is one of the many reasons that humans are classified as great apes. Add in the genetic and fossil evidence and the relationship clear.

In the case of man, apes, and chimps, the design implemented by each creatures gene expression is erect primate mammal, both have four limbs, faces with eyes nose and mouth, ears, and so on, but that does not mean one came from the other

Calm down. No one is claiming that man came from chimps.

 

[KCfromNC]

ID is not a science, it is a way that some scientists interpret the same data.

Just not in any way that leads to useful scientific models about the world.

Snipped all sorts of creationist propaganda. Scientific progress would make a lot more interesting case for creationism being true if it wasn't for the fact that scientists, and not creationists, were driving the field forward by improving on old results.

So once again, ID is simply a method of explaining the evidence

An omnipotent supernatural designer isn't an explanation. Since an omnipotent magic being could do anything it leads to exactly zero predictions, which means that it is useless in explaining why we might see on thing but not another.