Proof of Evolution?

[Gracchus]

Posted in wrong thread.

 

[MoonLancer]

so, only fully formed structures evolve into other fully formed structures?

again with your language it shows your are totally in the wrong mindset and arguing a straw man.

with every step the structure changes slightly. You keep thinking with big steps when you should be thinking with tiny ones

 

[MoonLancer]

A simple change in DNA cannot lead to an extra chamber in a heart, I'm sorry but that statement does not hold water when the genetic complexity of the heart is considered.....Unless, of course, you have some actual scientific data to support your statement....

interesting that you are now using the phrase "partial structures" to describe vestigial organs/structures....I thought the use of that phrase indicated a lack of understanding of evolution?
I also find it interesting that your source of choice is Wikipedia, and the writing style of the article speaks in much less certain terms than you do....Please provide me with some more valid scientific data...
All of the "vestigial" structures and behaviors in humans--while not relevant for our survival anymore-- are still fully formed structures and behaviors....The appendix is still a whole organ even though its function is reduced, there are no half-muscles in the human body where we don't need them anymore....just whole muscles that have a decreased function.....
Since the use of the phrase "partial structures" is no longer taboo, please provide me with the scientific articles that show partial (read: incomplete) structures in the transitional stages between the fully functioning organisms that populate the phylogenetic tree.

i quickly edited my post because i thought you might get confused with the word partial structure to mean partially formed. you did indeed get confused which is my fault.

Your arguing a straw man and there is no way to get around this. thus your asking for evidence that would never confirm evolution because your understanding of evolution is flawed.

Asking for evidence of partially formed structures with regard to evolution is basically trolling

 

[MoonLancer]

Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design

Bombardier beetle is old news and has already been refuted. But it shows that you are someone who believes in intelligent design and probably also think that the crockaduck proves evolution.

If you want evidence against intelligent design you can read up on dover as all of behes arguments have been dismantled in court

 

[Gracchus]

How then does one explain how something inherently complex can simply arise? Are you saying that the natural world has no process of trial and error? If genetic mutations are so random, would there not be some errors included in the process of adaptation? where are the organisms that show such mutations--ones that were sort of advantageous but not really? With your heart example, where are the organisms that have partial chambers? Or partial heart valves? If the various chambered hearts all evolved from each other, where are the transitional hearts that have partial chambers? Where are the intermediates?

Plenty of them out there, all you have to do is look. From here:
Evolution of three to four-chambered heart | Machines Like Us

"Turtles are a curious transition--they still have three chambers, but a wall, or septum is beginning to form in the single ventricle. This change affords the turtle's body blood that is slightly richer in oxygen than the frog's."

Turtles have transitional hearts, just like you asked for.

Moreover, human foetuses normally have what is effectively a three-chambered heart.

"Atrial septal defect

ASD
Last reviewed: May 4, 2010.

Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a congenital heart defect in which the wall that separates the upper heart chambers (atria) does not close completely. Congenital means the defect is present at birth.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors


In fetal circulation, there is normally an opening between the two atria (the upper chambers of the heart) to allow blood to bypass the lungs. This opening usually closes around the time the baby is born."

Atrial septal defect - PubMed Health

Of course we aren't frogs. We're bigger and we breath differently. What works fine for a frog doesn't work so well for us.

That is news to me, where has macroevolution made organisms more simple?

A biologist named, let's see.. Charles Darwin (!) made an extensive study of barnacles. One of the barnacles he reprted on does not look like a barnacle. It starts off free swimming like a normal barnacle, but attaches itself to a crab, and burrowing into the crabs body, it becomes a parasite on the crab instead of a filter feeder. All that is left is an amorphous cellular body that absorbs nutrients from the crab and the gonads that give rise to the next generation.

Consider this: A one celled organism can't get much simpler. It can evolve into a multicellular organism and get very complex indeed, but that multicellular organism can evolve to become simpler. This seems to be the rule in parasitic organisms, like tapeworms and capitalists. (I mean a capitalist doesn't have to be complex at all, because he hires others to do the hard stuff.) Complexity isn't favored, it is merely one path that can be taken.

 

[wensdee]

I too love biology and science, after all, I have a bachelor's degree in biology. I do understand what the ToE is and isn't. But I also have my religious beliefs which I hold in very high esteem.

Which tells us you were made a Christian [creationist] before you were educated, your degree in biology should have opened your eyes but your religion is forcing you to stay in the dark, what a waste, your implanted fantasies are smothering your reality.

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

A simple change in DNA cannot lead to an extra chamber in a heart, I'm sorry but that statement does not hold water when the genetic complexity of the heart is considered.....Unless, of course, you have some actual scientific data to support your statement....

Hearts Or Tails? Genetics Of Multi-chambered Heart Evolution

All of the cells that form the Ciona heart are originally derived from two early embryonic cells (called bastomeres). These cells divide into separate lineages: the smaller rostral cells become heart muscle, while the larger caudal cells become tail muscle. Davidson and colleagues found that Ets1/2 underlies the cells' decision to become either heart or tail. When activated, Ets1/2 instructs cells to form heart muscle.
When the scientists blocked Ets1/2 activity (either by inhibiting the Ets1/2 gene, itself, or its upstream modulators), Ciona heart specification was likewise blocked. Alternatively, the over-expression of Ets1/2 in caudal cells caused the cells to switch their fate from tail to heart.
The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper."

Here we see a documented experiment where a simple change in the DNA of Ciona leads to an extra chamber in the heart.

 

[MoonLancer]

the "fully formed" argument is philosophical. Anything that is beneficial in some way works as intended. Its a loaded word used by Id'ers and Creationists that totally side tracks the debate. Formed implies purpose (like flying or swimming) but the reality is the only purpose is to give advantage to the organism.

So to think of it as fully formed and not fully formed is redundant as every generation populations accumulate positive and negative mutations.

sometimes parts of the body become redundant and other times parts gain slightly altered body parts to allow the organism to survive. through millions of generations.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Which tells us you were made a Christian [creationist] before you were educated, your degree in biology should have opened your eyes but your religion is forcing you to stay in the dark, what a waste, your implanted fantasies are smothering your reality.

A creationist claims evolutionists consider themselves above reproach. You respond by saying creationists are stupid and delusional. Clever.

Fencerguy: Sorry if I sounded patronizing, but creationist's understanding of evolution varies. Some have a fairly good understanding of how it works, some obviously don't have a clue.

You're getting a bit of criticism for using the term 'partially formed' because in evolutionary terms these creatures don't exist. Animals only seem partially formed compared to other animals which evolved later. To use the well-worn example of the whale -

Rhodocetus had four limbs and it's believed that it spent most of it's time at sea, occasionally climbing onto land. At the time it was one of the animals best adapted to life in the water. It was what you might call a 'fully formed organism'. Eventually newer versions of the whale evolved, such as Dorudon. It was adapted to life in the water even more than rhodocetus was.

Evolutionists use the term transitional because 'partially formed' suggests that earlier animals were not was well adapted to their evironment as later animals. They were, but their environments and lifestyles were different. Today whales and dolphins are so well-adapted to life in the sea they can barely walk on land.

 

[Hespera]

again with your language it shows your are totally in the wrong mindset and arguing a straw man.

with ever step the structure changes slightly. You keep thinking with big steps when you should be thinking with tiny ones

its an example of why I gave up on him its a project too vast in scope to attempt when its uphill against total resistance.

it would be hard enough if he wanted to learn.

 

[Hespera]

Which tells us you were made a Christian [creationist] before you were educated, your degree in biology should have opened your eyes but your religion is forcing you to stay in the dark, what a waste, your implanted fantasies are smothering your reality.

His statement that he understands the ToE rings hollow.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

its an example of why I gave up on him its a project too vast in scope to attempt when its uphill against total resistance.

it would be hard enough if he wanted to learn.

What? You mean he hasn't immediately learned about and accepted evolution after a few posts on an internet thread? The fool! I automatically became an expert on string theory after watching a 5-minute video on YouTube.

 

[Fencerguy]

its an example of why I gave up on him its a project too vast in scope to attempt when its uphill against total resistance.

it would be hard enough if he wanted to learn.

As opposed to how easy it is to get well educated, scientifically grounded individuals to actually consider alternate explanations to the data from which they have gathered their sacred dogmas.....Again the problem that so many of you view yourselves and your theories as above reproach....You are all just as dogmatic as you proclaim me to be...

 

[Jro]

As opposed to how easy it is to get well educated, scientifically grounded individuals to actually consider alternate explanations to the data from which they have gathered their sacred dogmas.....Again the problem that so many of you view yourselves and your theories as above reproach....You are all just as dogmatic as you proclaim me to be...

I don't think you realize the full weight of the data you're arguing against. Evolution makes specific predictions that do not have other explanations besides 'Magic!' or 'God did it, because he felt like it, that's all.' Most of us spend at least 6 years going to school (probably more like 8-10 if you want to do your own research) studying our area of expertise. If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, learning about what's out there is important.

 

[Fencerguy]

Fencerguy: Sorry if I sounded patronizing, but creationist's understanding of evolution varies. Some have a fairly good understanding of how it works, some obviously don't have a clue.

Very true, unfortunately

You're getting a bit of criticism for using the term 'partially formed' because in evolutionary terms these creatures don't exist. Animals only seem partially formed compared to other animals which evolved later.

Since these creatures don't exist, how does the ToE explain the addition of new DNA that the earliest life forms did not have? Where did they acquire the new genetic material? The problem that I have is that as organisms evolve and become more complex--each subsequent species contains a vast amount of genetic information that the previous species did not possess. Where are the organisms that have only a little more genetic information and did not successfully adapt to the changing environment? These are surely the organisms that did not successfully make the requisite changes from water to air breathing, from aquatic to terrestrial living, or from one cell to many cells.....To make a beneficial change-even the smallest-requires a lot of alteration of the organisms genetic information.

To use the well-worn example of the whale -

Rhodocetus had four limbs and it's believed that it spent most of it's time at sea, occasionally climbing onto land. At the time it was one of the animals best adapted to life in the water. It was what you might call a 'fully formed organism'. Eventually newer versions of the whale evolved, such as Dorudon. It was adapted to life in the water even more than rhodocetus was.

Does the fact than another organism shows up in the fossil record that is better fit for an aquatic environment automatically indicate that it is a direct descendent of the organisms that were only partially fit for an aquatic environment? Fossils Don't Lie: Why Darwinism Is False - Evolution News & Views

Evolutionists use the term transitional because 'partially formed' suggests that earlier animals were not was well adapted to their evironment as later animals. They were, but their environments and lifestyles were different. Today whales and dolphins are so well-adapted to life in the sea they can barely walk on land.

Thought question then: if we began a study on whales and/or dophins, and were able to continue this study for many generations (we of course would need many generations of scientists lol) subjecting the whales and dolphins to shallower water and more areas of dry land in a controlled alterable environment....Could we eventually wind up with an animal that looked like Rhodocetus? Do the whales and dolphins still have the genetic information necessary to make the changes that would be required? If not, how would the acquire the necessary genetic information?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, learning about what's out there is important.

And if we want him to learn perhaps it's better not to belittle him and thinking he is stupid for asking questions about evolution. Perhaps if we laugh at him long enough he'll stop being a creationist out of shame amirite?

Here are a few links which might help:

Theistic Evolution - Perspectives
Welcome to Evolution 101!
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

 

[Fencerguy]

I don't think you realize the full weight of the data you're arguing against. Evolution makes specific predictions that do not have other explanations besides 'Magic!' or 'God did it, because he felt like it, that's all.' Most of us spend at least 6 years going to school (probably more like 8-10 if you want to do your own research) studying our area of expertise. If you want your critiques to be taken seriously, learning about what's out there is important.

Creation scientists can make specific predictions as well, it seems that many evolutionists think that anyone who believes in creationism only thinks that it is "because God did it, that is all," and that is a straw man... but those in the evolution camp seem to never take them seriously regardless of how well educated they are....I assume then that you are among those who have a significant amount of education?

 

[Fencerguy]

And if we want him to learn perhaps it's better not to belittle him and thinking he is stupid for asking questions about evolution. Perhaps if we laugh at him long enough he'll stop being a creationist out of shame amirite?

Here are a few links which might help:

Theistic Evolution - Perspectives
Welcome to Evolution 101!
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Thank you for the links.....although on Welcome to Evolution 101 I have already encountered something that makes me quite amused:
"It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms. "
Where then, does the certainty of macroevolution come from?

 

[Fencerguy]

Here is another quote from Welcome to Evolution 101:
"Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?"

Considering Qeustion 3 primarily; Why is it alright for a website espousing evolution to ask this question, but not me?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Since these creatures don't exist, how does the ToE explain the addition of new DNA that the earliest life forms did not have?

I think you misunderstood me here. The organisms existed, the term 'partially formed' does not.

The problem that I have is that as organisms evolve and become more complex--each subsequent species contains a vast amount of genetic information that the previous species did not possess. Where are the organisms that have only a little more genetic information and did not successfully adapt to the changing environment?

They're still here. They live in us, in our DNA. Yes I'm being serious.
A lot of our genome (and the genome of other animals) contain the genes of past ancestors, which is how we can tell the closest living relatives of homo sapiens are chimpanzees. It is entirely possible for a biologist to manipulate the genes of a chicken embryo to give them features their dinosaurs ancestors have - tweak their DNA a little and you can create a chicken with claws and teeth because their dinosaur genes are still there.

Sometimes genetics is like a giant history book. Certain human disorders are 'throwbacks' to an earlier age, such as restigial tails. All humans have the genes which give them tails, they're just switched off. Indeed that's how many disorders work. People born without arms don't have an 'armless' gene, they have mutations which tell the genes which create arms to switch off.

Does the fact than another organism shows up in the fossil record that is better fit for an aquatic environment automatically indicate that it is a direct descendent of the organisms that were only partially fit for an aquatic environment?

Good question. After all fish have been living in the water much longer than whales have, and they are not directly related. Again it all goes back to anatomy, which is a good indicator of whether two different organisms are related.

Thought question then: if we began a study on whales and/or dophins, and were able to continue this study for many generations (we of course would need many generations of scientists lol) subjecting the whales and dolphins to shallower water and more areas of dry land in a controlled alterable environment....Could we eventually wind up with an animal that looked like Rhodocetus?

Another good question. Hmm, it' hard to say. Evolution is so wildly unpredictable that we may end up with a creature which looks nothing like either Rhodocetus or a dolphin. However as I said earlier it's possible (more in theory than in practice) to bring up the genes of an extinct animal in a mordern one.