The evidence for Evolution.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You don't have to accept it, but you should at least know what it says. If nothing else it would make your arguments against it more interesting.

^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H coherent.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Why thank you, my pleasure.

But this is the second time that you merely "thank" me for a "post well done". I'ld rather discuss the actual points raised instead of if I was clear or polite.

So, could you perhaps acknowledge the actual points raised?
Is there anything you disagree with? If so, what exactly and why?

Yes I disagree with micro and macro evolution as the process by which we have a variety of lifeforms, now that you have explained what you mean by it. I can see the role of natural selection and a certain amount of variation possible within a species or family (kind) but nothing very convincing that anything is evolving to a new type of creature. I am not really interested in convincing others who are already closed in their own loop of knowledge (whether they are a creationist or evolutionist). I am especially not interested in such discussions with those whose worldview doesn't include metaphysics and is limited to the physical sciences and /or mathematics. Where you see evolution I see common design. Where you see blind chance I see the hidden will of God (which can't be observed or evaluated by the physical sciences) but are philosophical or theological perceptions.

 

[Aronbengilad]

What "fantasies" and "stories"?

You thanked me twice for "posts well done". This above statement leads me to believe that for some reason you don't agree with the contents of those posts.

Take the one concerning "macro evolution" for example... what is your problem with that point?




All of science takes that stance - and that includes evolutionary biology.




Well, at least you admit that you might be wrong about creationism. I guess that is something.

But you need to understand how the field of evolutionary biology was settled some 2 centuries ago. To still argue against it, as a westerner with easy access to education and the internet, in the 21st century is pretty much on par with arguing in favor of a flat earth or geocentrism.

I mean, the science has been done. The jury is not "out" on the issue. The issue is settled (or at least, as close to settled as it gets in science).

It is not surprising at all to see that every argument against evolutionary biology has one or more of the following ingredients:
- a lack of understanding of what it really says
- a fundamentalist religious bias
- plain old dishonesty

I have yet to encounter an argument against evolutionary biology, that is not based on one or more of those three things.

That post wasn't addressed to you but to the others here, sorry if you thought it was. I can see you are very passionate about evolutionary biology and what you think is settled. It is not settled for me and many others and I don't necessarily accept the conclusions of those of two hundred years ago so I certainly will not blindly follow a path set by such ideas. And I am sure the creationist could say the same three points about evolutionists- in fact some of them do with a slight variation. I would rather think that most people on both sides are sincere seekers of truth though often locked within their own world view that makes them unable or unwilling to see things from the other's perspective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That post wasn't addressed to you but to the others here, sorry if you thought it was.

Well... when you speak of "atheists" and their "fantasy" of evolution, I can't help but to feel addressed....

After all... I am an atheist who accepts the reality of evolutionary biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I disagree with micro and macro evolution as the process by which we have a variety of lifeforms, now that you have explained what you mean by it.

Why, exactly? What part specifically is tripping you up?

I can see the role of natural selection and a certain amount of variation possible within a species or family (kind) but nothing very convincing that anything is evolving to a new type of creature.

I have just explained to you that no species ever evolves into a "new type" of creature.
On the contrary even... every individual that was ever born was of the same species as its direct parents.

Let's look at the development of the various languages as an analogy...

Let's look at Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian.
They are somewhat similar, as in that they all belong to an "order/family" of languages, known as Roman languages. While there is a sense of familiarity within all 4, typically native speakers of these will not understand native speakers of the others. As in, exclusive french speakers do not understand italian well enough to have a conversation in that language and vice versa.

Yet, all these languages are descendends from the same language: Latin.
2000 years ago, none of these 4 languages existed. All the ancestors of native french, italian, etc speakers, all spoke Latin instead.

Today, Latin is an extinct language (not counting the scholarly effort of artificially keeping it alive... there are no native Latin speakers anymore is what I mean). In different parts of Europe, Latin evolved into Spanish, French, etc.

But at no point in time did a Latin speaking parent raise a French speaking child. Instead, ALL individuals spoke the same language as the people that raised them.

Yet, Latin got extinct and French, Spanish and Italian was born.

How do you explain this, if not through the gradual change of language over generations?

More importantly on this point: French, Spanish, etc are not new types of languages. Nope. They are all Roman languages. It's not like another branch coming from Latin went on to become Swahili or something....

Evolution is the exact same. Speciation is a vertical process.
The descendents of the "first" mammal species are all mammals.
The descendents of the "first" primate species are all primates.
Mammals don't turn into amphibians. Primates don't turn into felines.

Instead, species turn into sub-species.

I am not really interested in convincing others who are already closed in their own loop of knowledge (whether they are a creationist or evolutionist).

Actually, it kind of sounds like you are the one who's closed up in such a loop...

I am especially not interested in such discussions with those whose worldview doesn't include metaphysics and is limited to the physical sciences and /or mathematics.

So... do you also take that stance when it comes to germ theory, atomic theory, theory of gravity, plate tectonic theory, theory of relativity,....?
When you encounter the famous equation E = mc² or the equations of gravity, laws of motion, etc, do you also complain about it not including any "variables" for supernatural shenannigans?

Or is evolution theory some kind of "special case" for you? If so, why?

Where you see evolution I see common design

This is the difference... we don't "see" evolution. We observe evolution.
It is a fact that organisms reproduce with variation.
It is a fact that this variation is inherited by offspring.
It is a fact that this inheritability of traits leads to an accumulation of changes.
It is a fact that individuals better equipped for survival, have more chance of actually surviving.

And it is a fact that phylogenies demonstrate the nested hierarchical pattern that such a process would inevitably produce. Life is a family tree.

We can round up everybody of your family, take DNA samples anonymously and draw your family tree ONLY using the anonymous DNA samples.

Ask yourself how it is possible that we are able to do that.
Then consider the idea that this can be done cross species as well.

Common design? Then this designer went out of his way to make it look as if he had nothing to do with it. And I do mean SERIOUSLY out of his way.

But off course... that is a ridiculous proposition.
I suspect that you would find it equally ridiculous if I were to tell you that your family tree is "but a fantasy" and that none of you were really born from your parents but that you were all "designed by the designer" and the family tree thingy is just a distraction and the result of "common design".

You would find that ridiculous, because you understand how the nested hierarchy of your family tree came about.

Now zoom out a bit and apply that same logic...

Where you see blind chance I see the hidden will of God (which can't be observed or evaluated by the physical sciences) but are philosophical or theological perceptions.

So.... your God takes credit for all genetic mutations that also results in incredible suffering, pain and death due to being harmfull?

See, that's the thing with "random variation". It can go every which way. Most mutations are neutral. Some are harmfull and some are beneficial.

This is the nature of random events. Outcomes thereof can go either way.
If a "god" was "in control" of these events (ie: they really aren't random), I wouldn't expect the effects of these events to be consistent with a random nature.

 

[Aronbengilad]

That post wasn't addressed to you but to the others here, sorry if you thought it was.

lol, wut???

Consider this binary string:
Ex1: 0000 1111 0101 1010

Let's duplicate the last byte and insert it in front of said string.
Ex2: 0101 1010 0000 1111 0101 1010

In what universe does Ex2 constitute a "loss" of information as opposed to in Ex1? How does Ex2 not contain more information then Ex1??

probably my last comment but juggling and copying and cutting and pasting may give a new arrangement but not any new information or material that wasn't already there- in fact every mutation is a loss of information and while it may allow the creature to survive better in its present environment it makes the creature less adaptable than before the loss of information if the environment changes. For example the mutation for white skin may have helped my ancestors live in colder more cloudy regions but now I live in Australia that mutation makes me less suited to the environment and suspect to skin cancers and other melanomas. Even though my family has been in Australia for five generations we haven't had a mutation to make us darker yet as far as I can see.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Why, exactly? What part specifically is tripping you up?



I have just explained to you that no species ever evolves into a "new type" of creature.
On the contrary even... every individual that was ever born was of the same species as its direct parents.

Let's look at the development of the various languages as an analogy...

Let's look at Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian.
They are somewhat similar, as in that they all belong to an "order/family" of languages, known as Roman languages. While there is a sense of familiarity within all 4, typically native speakers of these will not understand native speakers of the others. As in, exclusive french speakers do not understand italian well enough to have a conversation in that language and vice versa.

Yet, all these languages are descendends from the same language: Latin.
2000 years ago, none of these 4 languages existed. All the ancestors of native french, italian, etc speakers, all spoke Latin instead.

Today, Latin is an extinct language (not counting the scholarly effort of artificially keeping it alive... there are no native Latin speakers anymore is what I mean). In different parts of Europe, Latin evolved into Spanish, French, etc.

But at no point in time did a Latin speaking parent raise a French speaking child. Instead, ALL individuals spoke the same language as the people that raised them.

Yet, Latin got extinct and French, Spanish and Italian was born.

How do you explain this, if not through the gradual change of language over generations?

More importantly on this point: French, Spanish, etc are not new types of languages. Nope. They are all Roman languages. It's not like another branch coming from Latin went on to become Swahili or something....

Evolution is the exact same. Speciation is a vertical process.
The descendents of the "first" mammal species are all mammals.
The descendents of the "first" primate species are all primates.
Mammals don't turn into amphibians. Primates don't turn into felines.

Instead, species turn into sub-species.



Actually, it kind of sounds like you are the one who's closed up in such a loop...



So... do you also take that stance when it comes to germ theory, atomic theory, theory of gravity, plate tectonic theory, theory of relativity,....?
When you encounter the famous equation E = mc² or the equations of gravity, laws of motion, etc, do you also complain about it not including any "variables" for supernatural shenannigans?

Or is evolution theory some kind of "special case" for you? If so, why?


This is the difference... we don't "see" evolution. We observe evolution.
It is a fact that organisms reproduce with variation.
It is a fact that this variation is inherited by offspring.
It is a fact that this inheritability of traits leads to an accumulation of changes.
It is a fact that individuals better equipped for survival, have more chance of actually surviving.

And it is a fact that phylogenies demonstrate the nested hierarchical pattern that such a process would inevitably produce. Life is a family tree.

We can round up everybody of your family, take DNA samples anonymously and draw your family tree ONLY using the anonymous DNA samples.

Ask yourself how it is possible that we are able to do that.
Then consider the idea that this can be done cross species as well.

Common design? Then this designer went out of his way to make it look as if he had nothing to do with it. And I do mean SERIOUSLY out of his way.



So.... your God takes credit for all genetic mutations that also results in incredible suffering, pain and death due to being harmfull?

See, that's the thing with "random variation". It can go every which way. Most mutations are neutral. Some are harmfull and some are beneficial.

This is the nature of random events. Outcomes thereof can go either way.
If a "god" was "in control" of these events (ie: they really aren't random), I wouldn't expect the effects of these events to be consistent with a random nature.

Well then we get into a discussion of free will and the fall and the degeneration that has resulted causing mutations. Much too big a subject for this discussion. By the way while i didn't find your Latin example relevant as of course i believe in evolution or devolution of languages and ideas throughout history but that is totally different to biological evolution.

While I can agree with all your facts
"It is a fact that organisms reproduce with variation.
It is a fact that this variation is inherited by offspring.
It is a fact that this inheritability of traits leads to an accumulation of changes.
It is a fact that individuals better equipped for survival, have more chance of actually surviving." I don't agree with the next step in your logic nor that the accumulation of changes necessarily equips an organism for better survival.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

probably my last comment but juggling and copying and cutting and pasting may give a new arrangement but not any new information or material that wasn't already there-

Except that it does.

That byte, with information therein, wasn't present in the previous generation and it is in the next.

If that isn't "new" and "more" information - then one can wonder what would actually constitute "new" and "more" information in your head...

in fact every mutation is a loss of information

I have just shown you how that is not true.
Moreoever, every newborn human as an average of 50 mutations in his DNA.

By your logic, humans (and all other organisms) must have gone extinct eons ago.

and while it may allow the creature to survive better in its present environment it makes the creature less adaptable than before the loss of information if the environment changes.

How, exactly?

For example the mutation for white skin may have helped my ancestors live in colder more cloudy regions but now I live in Australia that mutation makes me less suited to the environment and suspect to skin cancers and other melanomas.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.
If you and your descendends stay in Australia, there is nothing stopping this process from evolving another form of protection, or of reactivating the one that might still be burried in your genes.

Although most likely, your off-spring will just "incorporate" the genes of the population that's been there much longer then any of you have.

And yes, no adapting and going extinct is also another very valid option. After all, 99.99% of all species that ever lived went that route........

Even though my family has been in Australia for five generations we haven't had a mutation to make us darker yet as far as I can see.

5 generations of a handfull of people among a population size of thousands, let alone millions, isn't nearly enough for any meaningfull change to achieve fixation in the collective genome.

Once again, we observe that the arguments given "against" evolution theory, are based in ignorance and a general misunderstanding of how this process actually works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well then we get into a discussion of free will and the fall and the degeneration that has resulted causing mutations.

No, actually... rather, you run and hide into such nonsense, in what-I-can-only-call an effort to save yourself from facing the facts of reality.

The nature of genetics is bio-chemistry and it has nothing to do with free will or whatever religious mythology you happen to adhere to by sheer geographic accident and/or upbringing.

By the way while i didn't find your Latin example relevant as of course i believe in evolution or devolution of languages

"devolution" of languages?? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

and ideas throughout history but that is totally different to biological evolution.

No, it is the exact same in principle.

It's small changes accumulating over generations.
In languages, it is how the various sounds that humans can produce are strung together to form words and sentences.
In biology, it is how the various molecules are strung together to form DNA strings.

The only difference between your DNA and the DNA of a banana, is essentially the order of these molecules.

Your DNA doesn't have any "special" molecules that are only found in human DNA.

While I can agree with all your facts
"It is a fact that organisms reproduce with variation.
It is a fact that this variation is inherited by offspring.
It is a fact that this inheritability of traits leads to an accumulation of changes.
It is a fact that individuals better equipped for survival, have more chance of actually surviving." I don't agree with the next step in your logic nor that the accumulation of changes necessarily equips an organism for better survival.

Then you should think things through a bit more.

When a cheetah's anatomy allows it to run slightly faster then his peers - that's genetics.
When a creatures skin color allows it to hide more efficiently in the jungle then his peers - that's genetics.
When a creature has a natural immunity to a desease while his peers don't - that's genetics.
When Tibetans have unique gene sequences that allow them to live at high altitudes without becoming sick - that's genetics.
When a mutations opens up new metabolism pathways in a species of E. Coli which then in turn allows them to "out-compete" their peers causing a population explosion of individuals with that mutation - that's genetics.


DNA changes slightly in every newborn.
DNA is what determines the workings of the "end product".
Phenotype is determined by genotype.

It's painfully obvious...

 

[sfs]

His area is population genetics so I think that is pretty relevant. If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

Population genetics is the mathematical study of evolution. It's also what I do for a living, by the way.

 

[sfs]

I think the Professors point "For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information" is the crux of the matter.

As others have pointed out, new genes occur all the time.

Aren't your rather vague multiple processes based on evolutionary philosophical ideas like evolutionary necessity rather than observable evidence.

No. In fact, I have no idea what philosophical ideas you're talking about.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yet I have seen creationist scientists claim that this discovery is a problem for evolution and affirms the creationist perspective

Creationists are not scientists. The sites they work for have a statement of faith saying if the evidence disagrees with them, then the evidence is wrong. They don't use the scientific method. They are professional liars and have been caught lying multiple times.

It seems to me the whole molecular clock dates are based on an arbitary assumption that humans and chimpanzees diverged 5 million years ago which has no evidence to support it except more evolutionary story telling by those already convinced in evolution.

Chimpanzees and humans having a common ancestor is not an assumption. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrates that it is a fact. 99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions insert in the exact same base pair in chimpanzees as they do humans. This is only possible if they share a common ancestor. That is irrefutable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His area is population genetics so I think that is pretty relevant. If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

No, your Polish professor that you referred to is a dendrologist. He is a tree doctor.

 

[Astrophile]

Nor is he very honest if he claims to be a geneticist. His area of expertise is dendrology. There is nothing in this article that indicates he has any appreciable knowledge of genetics at all:

Maciej Giertych - Wikipedia

You can find out more about Professor Giertych's opinions, and perhaps can judge his authority as a scientist, from reference 16 of the Wikipedia article, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444265d.html. For example, he says,

there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Such evidence .... includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can find out more about Professor Giertych's opinions, and perhaps can judge his authority as a scientist, from reference 16 of the Wikipedia article, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444265d.html. For example, he says,

Wow!. He is a loon it apears. It seems that he knows less biology than most biologists with just a BS degree, though he made the same false claims to being a geneticist in that letter. And he does not even seem to have a high school level of geology education.

Your link to the letter did not work for me. Perhaps this link will work:

Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved : Article : Nature

 

[Mobezom]

If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

They're all just paid shills!

 

[Astrophile]

Your link to the letter did not work for me.

Sorry about that; it didn't work for me, either. I have checked the address, but I can't see any mistake in it.

Perhaps this link will work:

Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved : Article : Nature

Thank-you. That link does work.

 

[Jimmy D]

Even though my family has been in Australia for five generations we haven't had a mutation to make us darker yet as far as I can see.

No, but you do have the mutation that made your skin lighter....

http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/20...-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared

SLC24A5 - Wikipedia

While the genetics of skin color is largely unclear, past research using zebrafish by the College of Medicine’s Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and differs from West Africans. In 2005, Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans.

“The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,” said Cheng, Distinguished Professor of Pathology. Lighter skin color may have provided an advantage due to for the better creation of vitamin D in the lesser sunlight characteristic of northern latitudes.

In this current part of the project, Victor Canfield, assistant professor of pharmacology, together with Cheng, studied DNA sequence differences across the globe. They studied segments ofgenetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

 

[Mobezom]

And it's not a loss of function!

 

[Kylie]

His area is population genetics so I think that is pretty relevant. If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

His PhD is in tree physiology.

And are you saying that anyone who is educated about evolution is nothing more than an evangelist for evolution, and so you wouldn't be interested? Because that sure sounds to me like you are uninterested in actually learning about evolution. And how can you dismiss something that you know nothing about?