Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[gluadys]

ok, I'm seeing a common misconception on both sides here. Evolution does not say that organisms evolve into more complex organisms, it says that they evolve into different organisms. There is no directionality and organisms are as likely to become simpler as more complex. The vast magority of life on the earth is still unicellular.

Yes, this is a matter again of confusing the theory of evolution with the history of evolution on our planet. By the theory of evolution, there is no directionality and evolution in the direction of simplicity is just as likely as evolution in the direction of complexity. Nothing compels organisms in the direction of complexity----unless a more complex variation is also a selective advantage.

Historically, evolution on earth has generated more complex beings. Eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes. Multi-cellular forms are more complex than unicellular forms.

So it is legitimate to ask how this happened. What is not legitimate is presuming that because it happened it was destined to happen.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Yes, this is a matter again of confusing the theory of evolution with the history of evolution on our planet. By the theory of evolution, there is no directionality and evolution in the direction of simplicity is just as likely as evolution in the direction of complexity. Nothing compels organisms in the direction of complexity----unless a more complex variation is also a selective advantage.

Historically, evolution on earth has generated more complex beings. Eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes. Multi-cellular forms are more complex than unicellular forms.

So it is legitimate to ask how this happened. What is not legitimate is presuming that because it happened it was destined to happen.

I understand how TofE supports simple variation.

Here's my current understanding of TofE (and please correct me where I'm wrong):

Variations in DNA structure are what account for variations in the traits of animals. In other words, if a species of small black birds somehow becomes trapped in a very hot desert region, it may be likely that the species will adapt and change color over time in order to better survive the heat. I can understand how this could happen if there were variations in DNA structure from generation to generation causing changes in feather color.

In this scenario one cannot say that 2Lot should cause the species to die out because it is this very law that would be causing the variations to occur in the DNA. It's the thermodynamic entropy which is causing random changes through copy error in the variation of DNA information thus enabling selection of the fittest to occur.

What I do not understand is how this process can account for an increase in the complexity of DNA structure, if it does at all. Logically, the complexity of DNA structure unaided by some other process should break down over time. So, this leads me to the following questions:

By what mechanism does DNA become more complex? Is there some law of nature causing this to happen like 2Lot? Is it a biological function within the cell? If so, is that function encoded within the DNA itself?

Personally, I am inclined to think that if it were a cellular function like DNA replication, we would end up with wild mutations everywhere. So if TofE is true there must be some regulated process through which this happens.

 

[pgp_protector]

The DNA does not need to become "more complex*".

The Random mutation create both "simpler*" and "more complex*" DNA Mutations.

The reason you see "more complex*" DNA surviving and not the "simpler*" DNA, is that some of the newer creations may have a higher chance of surviving in there enviroment. If they do survive, then they thrive, and you see more of them. The ones that do not survive do not thrive, and die off.



*more complex & Simpler are using Sojourner apparent defeniton

 

[shernren]

ok, I'm seeing a common misconception on both sides here. Evolution does not say that organisms evolve into more complex organisms, it says that they evolve into different organisms. There is no directionality and organisms are as likely to become simpler as more complex. The vast magority of life on the earth is still unicellular.

The historical trend is that organisms have tended to evolve in the direction of "complexity", as defined anthropocentrically. I am talking about this specific observed history, not evolution in general and all its theoretical possibilities.

What I do not understand is how this process can account for an increase in the complexity of DNA structure, if it does at all. Logically, the complexity of DNA structure unaided by some other process should break down over time. So, this leads me to the following questions:

By what mechanism does DNA become more complex? Is there some law of nature causing this to happen like 2Lot? Is it a biological function within the cell? If so, is that function encoded within the DNA itself?

The structure of DNA does not have to become more complex in order for its information content to become more complex.

Take for example a DVD-RW. Every time I burn-over a disc, I have changed its information content. Have I also changed its physical make-up? Yes, but in a way which is completely consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The act of my burning a DVD-RW does not violate the 2LoT (or it would be physically impossible), even though the DVD-RW is suddenly being filled with information from nowhere.

In the same way, DNA as it is replicated with mistakes and handed down from generation to generation, undergoes these processes which as physical processes are completely consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much information is coded by a DNA segment or what sort of biological thing it codes for, it is still made out of the same chemical constituents. DNA's accumulating new information is not like having a tornado pass through a junkyard and recreate a Boeing 747. It's like having a computer virus invade a Boeing 747's hard drive and suddenly make it able to fly on its own. The main issue in this scenario is whether or not a computer virus can create AI code; it's not whether or not it is physically possible for a computer virus to change an airplane's hard drive. Most creationist concerns are with how the information content changes (governed by evolution and information theoretics); not with how the information container changes as governed by 2LoT and other physical laws.

 

[notto]

So if TofE is true there must be some regulated process through which this happens.

There is. There are both repair mechansims that 'fix' the DNA during the creation of egg and sperm as well as natural selection that makes sure that not all mutations are passed into the population.

Another important part of evolution to remember is that populations evolve, not individuals. Organisms die with the genetics they are born with. Right now you have combinations and mutations that neither of your parents did.

Over time, the same mechansisms for variation that you accept can change (create new) colors for birds can do other things as well like remodel body plans and parts, change body chemistry, and even remodel organs into new organs. None of this happens to any particular indivual all at once but the entire population evolves little by little based on the accumulated traits (variations) that give its member advantage.

 

[gluadys]

I understand how TofE supports simple variation.

Here's my current understanding of TofE (and please correct me where I'm wrong):

Variations in DNA structure are what account for variations in the traits of animals. In other words, if a species of small black birds somehow becomes trapped in a very hot desert region, it may be likely that the species will adapt and change color over time in order to better survive the heat. I can understand how this could happen if there were variations in DNA structure from generation to generation causing changes in feather color.

Perhaps your problem in visualizing this is that you are unsure about the relationship of DNA to protein structure.

Do you understand how the DNA template (gene) is converted by RNA into a protein? Do you understand the role of amino acids in the formation of a protein?

When we speak of variations, we are speaking in essence of changing the function of a protein e.g. so that it no longer produces black pigment.


Now what structural change is required in the DNA to make the protein different, and why does this pose a problem as you see it?

In this scenario one cannot say that 2Lot should cause the species to die out because it is this very law that would be causing the variations to occur in the DNA. It's the thermodynamic entropy which is causing random changes through copy error in the variation of DNA information thus enabling selection of the fittest to occur.

No, the thermodynamic entropy is not causing random changes. Mutations are causing the changes.

What I do not understand is how this process can account for an increase in the complexity of DNA structure, if it does at all.

What do you mean by "more complex" DNA structure? As far as I know the only difference between one strand of DNA and another is that one may have more base nucleotides than another. But the overall structure of the molecule doesn't change.

Logically, the complexity of DNA structure unaided by some other process should break down over time.

I don't follow that line of logic. Can you spell it out for me? Why would a longer string of DNA necessarily have to become shorter over time?

So, this leads me to the following questions:

By what mechanism does DNA become more complex?

Well, this gets back to defining "more complex". If we know what you mean by "more complex" we might have some idea of why you see a problem here.

As far as I know DNA becomes more complex through mutations, in particular duplications and insertions. Both of these lengthen the strand of DNA and sometimes incorporate additional instructions into the coding or regulatory portion of DNA.

Is there some law of nature causing this to happen like 2Lot?

As far as I know it is whatever the causes of mutation are: sometimes via external agents such as radiation, sometimes simply through imperfect copying during reproduction. Nothing hugely mysterious or antagonistic to the 2LoT.

Is it a biological function within the cell? If so, is that function encoded within the DNA itself?

I think we have to get straight that mutations, other than those caused by external agents, are actually a breakdown in the copying mechanism. It is not a biological function to create errors in a copy of a DNA strand. So no encoding for mutations is required.

In fact, what is encoded in DNA and RNA is just the opposite: correcting mechanisms which check the accuracy of replication and keep mutations to a minimum.

Personally, I am inclined to think that if it were a cellular function like DNA replication, we would end up with wild mutations everywhere. So if TofE is true there must be some regulated process through which this happens.

We do get wild mutations, but most of them never see the light of day or have much effect on a species. There are two reasons for this. One are the self-correcting mechanisms mentioned above which prevent many errors in replication. The other is natural selection which limits the reproductive capacity of such wild variants that do occur.

Only variants which offer an adaptive advantage will be preserved by natural selection and bequeathed to the species as a whole.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's my current understanding of TofE (and please correct me where I'm wrong):

Variations in DNA structure are what account for variations in the traits of animals. In other words, if a species of small black birds somehow becomes trapped in a very hot desert region, it may be likely that the species will adapt and change color over time in order to better survive the heat. I can understand how this could happen if there were variations in DNA structure from generation to generation causing changes in feather color.

DNA changes can change the color of the feather but does the DNA itself contain the blueprint of the feather is a totally different question. So far the answer is no. DNA seems to contain the blueprint of genes but not the organism itself. Thus (Neo- Darwinism ) Central Dogma has lately been shown to be false. (just like you may have 10 DVDs with ten different movies on them yet none of them contains a blueprint of your DVD player)

In this scenario one cannot say that 2Lot should cause the species to die out because it is this very law that would be causing the variations to occur in the DNA. It's the thermodynamic entropy which is causing random changes through copy error in the variation of DNA information thus enabling selection of the fittest to occur.

What I do not understand is how this process can account for an increase in the complexity of DNA structure, if it does at all. Logically, the complexity of DNA structure unaided by some other process should break down over time. So, this leads me to the following questions:

All living cells are complex. There will be papers in the near future which deals with how to measure complexes in DNA. Since DNA acts a lot like computer software it just a matter of time until the princples of measuring software can be applies to DNA.

By what mechanism does DNA become more complex? Is there some law of nature causing this to happen like 2Lot? Is it a biological function within the cell? If so, is that function encoded within the DNA itself?

The problem is evolution doesn't have a real testable mechanism which account for their huge claims as from reptiles to mammals, ape to man, etc. So it hard to prove they violate the 2nd LoT. It's the same as trying to prove Stargate ( a device which creats wormholes) is not possible because it violates the 2nd LoT. So evolutionist slaps a butch of bone together and come up with stories which can't be tested and then call it science. They requir unbeliever to come up with the evidense to show their imagination is impossible. This started with Darwin himself as he made up the "the little eyeball that could" story then claimed " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." Notice how Darwinist are not requir to demonstrated how their make-believe stories are true but requir their oppostion to prove it could not happen as they have imagine.

So you are trying to use the 2nd LoT to prove a negative is which near (if not totally) impossible to do since evolutionist can always hide in some kind of unknown law or mechanism.

 

[Mallon]

DNA changes can change the color of the feather but does the DNA itself contain the blueprint of the feather is a totally different question. So far the answer is no. DNA seems to contain the blueprint of genes but not the organism itself.

WHAT??? Reference, please.

The problem is evolution doesn't have a real testable mechanism which [sic] account for their huge claims as from reptiles to mammals, ape to man, etc.

Here's the "testable mechanism" you're looking for: mutation + selection. It's been promoted since Darwin, so I fail to see how you missed it.
Enter: the microevolution/macroevolution dichotemy that creationists like to tout. You claim that there are invisible barriers to selection that prevent one species from changing into another (macroevolution). I claim that there are not, pointing to the transitional fossil record and to modern speciation processes like ring species. I have evidence on my side; you do not. That's why the onus is on you to refute the science.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your post with a response since it is just plain baloney. Despite your assertions, the evolutionary theory is based on evidence rather than the human imagination, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of papers written on the subject outling this supporting evidence in great detail. To deny it with a wave of the hand is not only ignorant, but it is insulting to the thousands of scientists (myself included) who have dedicated so much of their time to the subject.

Evolutionary theory is being taught and practiced in schools and labs around the world because it is a well-supported science and it works, not because it sounds nice. This is why creation "science" will NEVER gain a foothold in the science classroom. Mark my words.

 

[notto]

DNA changes can change the color of the feather but does the DNA itself contain the blueprint of the feather is a totally different question. So far the answer is no. DNA seems to contain the blueprint of genes but not the organism itself.
...
The problem is evolution doesn't have a real testable mechanism which account for their huge claims as from reptiles to mammals, ape to man, etc.

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

We can manipulate proteins to produce scales and features. This shows that
1) The DNA certainly does contain the blueprint of feathers.
2) There is positive evidence that supports birds evolving from reptiles.

As a note for this thread, this is why creationists sources should not be trusted - they are not current, they distort what we actually know (and don't include it if it is detrimental to their case) and they will never change, even in light of current evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

We can manipulate proteins to produce scales and features. This shows that
1) The DNA certainly does contain the blueprint of feathers.
2) There is positive evidence that supports birds evolving from reptiles.

As a note for this thread, this is why creationists sources should not be trusted - they are not current, they distort what we actually know (and don't include it if it is detrimental to their case) and they will never change, even in light of current evidence.

Oh please, most of these are deformed. I know they can put legs on fruitfly head as DNA does effect the blueprint isn't the same as contain the blueprint itself. common design would also produce similiarites among creatures. Just because a platypus has a duck's bill doesn't mean they have a common ancestor. There is evidence that birds and reptiles have a lot in common , thus evolution believers this proves their theory over common design. But it's how to reach these differences are what needs to be explain.

There's a fish which one change in a gene produces armor scales but this is a far cry of proving the actually blue print of forms are in DNA alone.

 

[Smidlee]

WHAT??? Reference, please.

Here's the "testable mechanism" you're looking for: mutation + selection. It's been promoted since Darwin, so I fail to see how you missed it.

Which has been noted even by evolutionist that It's far way short to explain the different body plans of living creatures. If this is all the you got evolution (Darwinism) has already been proven false.

 

[notto]

There a fish which one change in a gene produces armor scales but this is a far cry of proving the actually blue print of forms are in DNA alone.

No, it is actually definitive proof that DNA forms the blueprint for body plans. Changed to the DNA directly change body plans. What more evidence do we need?

If you think you can offer some evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so. All you have done so far is make bald assertions without a single reference. What research have you actualy read to lead you to your conclusions?

Don't just make things up Smidlee. The people here are too well informed to let it pass and it certainly doesn't help the topic starter learn anything objective about evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

No, it is actually definitive proof that DNA forms the blueprint for body plans. Changed to the DNA directly change body plans. What more evidence do we need?

No, it only shows the DNA can effect the body plan... actually screw up the body plan. There are many ways of screwing up any blue print.

This is the same as the human tail (fairytale) nonsense. If you screw up the DNA you can have the human spine to grow longer than it should but it is far from producing a useful tail.

 

[IntheFaith]

Just think of the development of the DNA as the body from dust-evolution-then God breathed the breate of life, which directly became the spirit of man, into that body about 6000 years ago and when it made contact with the body the soul life was created. You see all men have two lives: the soul life and the spirit life.

 

[Deamiter]

As a guy with a degree in physics maybe I can try to clear up something about the second law of thermodynamics.

It states that total entropy on a closed system will increase over time.

That is ALL it states.

Why does this not prevent mutations?

Because your cells (and their genes) are not closed systems. Your body is constantly gaining energy, and the vast majority of it is from the sun. Plants get energy directly from the sun, animals get energy from plants and we get energy from both.

This energy is "stored" in chemicals that our bodies can break down. This energy is used to reproduce cells -- and in the copying of DNA, there are often small uncorrected errors. Note that when I say "error" it doesn't mean "less information." The new DNA strand still codes for SOMETHING -- just something DIFFERENT. Often it's damaging or helpful to the organism, but even more often it's initially neutral.

Alternately, radiation or some chemicals can cause mutations by applying energy directly to the DNA. This is where many point mutations come from.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track -- these are important points, but we're talking about thermodynamics here. Remember that the second law only states that entropy increases in a CLOSED system. That means a system in which no energy can enter or leave. Since we get most of our energy directly or indirectly from the sun, the Earth is NOT a closed system.

If you look at the total entropy of the solar system, it's increasing at a MUCH higher rate than any entropy on Earth is decreasing. Quite simply, 99.999+% of the energy emitted by the sun is spread out into space while only a tiny fraction is used by Earth to reproduce organisms.

There is no violation of the second law if entropy decreases in one place as long as it increases as much or more in another place.

The rest of your discussion about mutations is very valid, but just try to understand that the second law of thermodynamics is NEVER violated on Earth -- not because entropy always increases on Earth (it doesn't) but because it always increases in the solar system.

About Smidlee -- he's throwing red herrings all over the place. You're welcome to debate with him too, but just be aware that he's not representing mainstream creationist OR evolutionist ideas. He keeps claiming that DNA has very little to do with an organism's form and that an organism's consciousness can change it's genes whenever it likes. Note that this doesn't just apply to humans -- he's talking about some undefined and unobserved consiousness held by all plants and animals... Needless to say, it's not mainstream ANYTHING -- more of a conspiracy theory since it's claiming that absence of evidence of this conscioiusness is evidence FOR the crazy idea.

 

[Dannager]

No, it only shows the DNA can effect the body plan... actually screw up the body plan. There are many ways of screwing up any blue print.

This is the same as the human tail (fairytale) nonsense. If you screw up the DNA you can have the human spine to grow longer than it should but it is far from producing a useful tail.

Wow, Smidlee. You're in some serious denial about some of this stuff. DNA is the effective "blueprint" for a living organism, period. If it weren't, none of our current understanding of genetics or cloning would even be remotely possible.

 

[gluadys]

common design would also produce similiarites among creatures.

Please explain the logic that leads to this conclusion. Why must a common designer produce similarities in his/her/its creations?

 

[Mallon]

Which has been noted even by evolutionist that It's far way short to explain the different body plans of living creatures. If this is all the you got evolution (Darwinism) has already been proven false.

And as I go on to say in the rest of my previous post, it hasn't been proven false because you haven't been able to qualify the invisible barrier to evolution you so like to tout.
Why else do you think evolution is still being studied around the world? Ah yes. Conspiracy.

About Smidlee -- he's throwing red herrings all over the place. You're welcome to debate with him too, but just be aware that he's not representing mainstream creationist OR evolutionist ideas. He keeps claiming that DNA has very little to do with an organism's form and that an organism's consciousness can change it's genes whenever it likes. Note that this doesn't just apply to humans -- he's talking about some undefined and unobserved consiousness held by all plants and animals... Needless to say, it's not mainstream ANYTHING -- more of a conspiracy theory since it's claiming that absence of evidence of this conscioiusness is evidence FOR the crazy idea.

Indeed. I can't believe we're defending the genetic basis of phenotypes. In fact, I'm not going to defend it because I think the evidence speaks for itself. It's no wonder so many professors of evolution refuse to debate creationists, given the amount of baseless garbage they spew. And Hovind thinks it's because we're scared. Gimme a break!

 

[notto]

No, it only shows the DNA can effect the body plan... actually screw up the body plan. There are many ways of screwing up any blue print.

This is the same as the human tail (fairytale) nonsense. If you screw up the DNA you can have the human spine to grow longer than it should but it is far from producing a useful tail.

So DNA affects the body plan and all evidene points to DNA containing genes that affect the development of all parts of the body plan but it isn't the body plan.

Denial of what we know won't teach the person who started this thread about evolution. Displaying ignornance only perpetuates ignorance.

 

[Smidlee]

So DNA affects the body plan and all evidene points to DNA containing genes that affect the development of all parts of the body plan but it isn't the body plan.

Yet big differences in forms are not due to genes.