What Evolution fails to mention.

[Gene2memE]

Hello. I do not wish to debate, but merely point out a fact that the two necessary components for evolution, life coming from non-life

This is both right, and wrong.

It's right, in that you need life to exist for evolution (as in change in allele frequency in a population through inheritance) to occur.

It's wrong, in that evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis (life from non-life) and the theory of evolution (ToE) only deals with life already existing.

It's immaterial to the ToE whether life formed via purely naturalistic means, was created by a deity or is the result of interference by a hyperintelligent shade of blue. All it does is explain what is observed in nature.

and a species becoming an entirely new species have never been observed.

That isn't correct. There are plenty of observed instances of speciation. Some of my favourites:

The evolution of a new British polyploid species of Mimulus
Cichilid fish speciation
The development of a new species of apple maggot, thanks to the introduction of new domesticated apple breeds

You can make the argument that we can't observe speciation because it takes millions of years for it to occur, but that does not make it science fact. Also Darwin's finches demonstrates genetic variability and is evidence towards adaptation not necessarily speciation. In conclusion speciation and abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) have not yet been or may never be observed and therefore should not be treated as science fact, but a belief.

Darwin's finches can - and have - been used as demonstration of speciation. Very recently in fact.

I agree that abiogensis has not been observed. But, it's unimportant entirely to the discussion. I disagree that speciation has not been observed - and I'll put forward the fact that biologists have observed dozens (at a minimum) of new speciation events occurring in the last ~100 years.

 

[DevinCamary]

Either way, it does not change my views on God, or Creator or seeder of life...

The universe did not come from nothing or no one, and life did not either... but it was planted, or seeded, or introduced, or set in motion, or began by, a intelligent creator or designer, or giver, or bringer about of, "life"...

And the process of evolution itself, was guided and directed by a intelligent code or plan, or design (sea life always comes before land life, ect) (as just one example of how the plan of life always happens, wherever or whenever, even elsewhere) and DNA carries that specific code or plan (for life)... Which led to us of course, as all a part of the plan or code, or design...

It's really pretty amazing, the intelligent design behind it all, and beauty of it all... that it is not just all "random", but it all proceeded and happened and does all happen, according to a plan or code or design, by a designer, that we can see in DNA...

There is an order to the process of life that not only was preparing (the way) for us (to come about), but also reeks of intelligent design, and order, and plan, (or program) in my opinion...

DNA, (or that which carries the primary code for directing the process and program of life), is a lot like a computer program is, just using biology instead of mechanism... And any computer program has a designer, or creator, or maker of it...

If we were to create AI, or multiple AI's, we would start with a primary program or code, that would give it life, and would then, grow, change, and evolve all on it's own and by itself, but would also be guided and directed by the primary program we made or put into it... and, it would be building on, and would be using the primary program, or primary code for it's life, becoming something much more complex as it went on...

In a way, biological life, is or are just "machines", or computer intelligence's in a way, just bio-electro-chemical ones instead of mechanical ones... Biological life, is just basically bio-electochemical machines, and DNA is it's primary program...

God Bless!

Yeah i agree with you on all of those aspects. I didn't post this to change anyone's mind but to kinda say what Evolution gotten wrong, and how only God could make life happen

 

[USincognito]

All eucaryotes are kin and that includes plants. I had a sister named Violet. Every time I see a violet it reminds me of her and I remember that we’re both kin. Gives treehugger a whole new meaning

Since animals and fungi are more closely related than animals and plants, I like to note that humans are more closely related to Athlete's Foot fungus than we are to roses.

 

[dad]

All eucaryotes are kin and that includes plants. I had a sister named Violet. Every time I see a violet it reminds me of her and I remember that we’re both kin. Gives treehugger a whole new meaning

How about cockroaches, feel a kinship there also?

 

[Ophiolite]

How about cockroaches, feel a kinship there also?

About the same level of kinship as I feel with some humans. Of course, that reflects badly and probably undeservedly on the cockroaches.

 

[Ohj1n37]

You really shouldn’t get your info from creationist sources . They have a well deserved reputation for lying.

I forgot to reply to this. What makes you think secular sources are not twisting facts to support an agenda? Just a thought.

Sure, but life exists. Therefore it's a bit of a moot point.

I will agree to disagree on this. I believe many people use evolution to explain the origin of all life.

I was hoping you could give me literally a hypothetical example of "species X evolves into "species Y (or Y and Z)" sort of thing.

I would not know as it has never been observed.

That isn't correct. There are plenty of observed instances of speciation.

I would guess that those are cases of adaptation and breeding which revolves around the premise of genetic variability.

Adaptation is an observed phenomenon; humans have been breeding things for a long time. Something to note breeding causes genetic variability to decrease and evolution requires an increase.

Since animals and fungi are more closely related than animals and plants, I like to note that humans are more closely related to Athlete's Foot fungus than we are to roses.

We human beings also share much of our genes with bananas. I believe that it makes more sense that the "sharing" of genes is evidence of intelligent design not common ancestry. Again I'll to disagree and conclude that it is at least somewhat subjective.

Finally I'll reiterate my original statement.

Also Darwin's finches demonstrates genetic variability and is evidence towards adaptation not necessarily speciation. In conclusion speciation and abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) have not yet been or may never be observed and therefore should not be treated as science fact, but a belief.

Evolution should not be used as science fact to describe the process in which modern life came to be. That was intent of my original post. If you wish to believe that evolution is the process in which modern life came to be then you can if you want to.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yeah i agree with you on all of those aspects. I didn't post this to change anyone's mind but to kinda say what Evolution gotten wrong, and how only God could make life happen

Naturally you are entitled to hold this opinion. However, it is important that you understand that, at present, the evidence says you are mistaken.

Be aware that the evidence comes from many fields: zoology, geology, genetics, microbiology, ethology, comparative anatomy, botany, biochemistry, palaeontology and a bunch more specialist "ologies". Workers in each of these fields has arrived at the conclusion that evolution provides the best explanation, based on the evidence, for how the diversity of life on Earth came about. And we are not talking about a couple of hundred researchers, we are talking about tens of thousands of dedicated professionals working on the issue for more than one and a half centuries.

If you think about it you would have to be pretty arrogant to continue to maintain these workers have overlooked some flaw that you, with no practical experience in any of these fields has stumbled upon. I doubt you are that arrogant.

Of course, you are free to continue to hold your world view by ignoring the evidence. We can them have an amicable relationship. All I ask is that you do not continue to claim evolution is scientifically faulty. You don't have the background to make that judgement. Stay with your faith and leave the facts to speak for themselves.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Be aware that the evidence comes from many fields: zoology, geology, genetics, microbiology, ethology, comparative anatomy, botany, biochemistry, palaeontology and a bunch more specialist "ologies". Workers in each of these fields has arrived at the conclusion that evolution provides the best explanation, based on the evidence, for how the diversity of life on Earth came about. And we are not talking about a couple of hundred researchers, we are talking about tens of thousands of dedicated professionals working on the issue for more than one and a half centuries.

That sounds like the bandwagon effect.

If you think about it you would have to be pretty arrogant to continue to maintain these workers have overlooked some flaw that you, with no practical experience in any of these fields has stumbled upon. I doubt you are that arrogant.

It appears to me that what you are saying is that if you don't believe what everyone else believes you are no good and if you have no training then you are not entitled to free thought.

 

[Go Braves]

Huh. In my science class we actually studied wolves in Yellowstone Park as part of learning how
ecological & evolutionary traits of an animal population change as the environment does.
Yellowstone Wolves Show How Animals Change With Nature

 

[Ohj1n37]

Huh. In my science class we actually studied wolves in Yellowstone Park as part of learning how
ecological & evolutionary traits of an animal population change as the environment does.

This is to my understanding known as adaptation and is possible because of genetic variability.

Adaptation is an observed phenomenon; humans have been breeding things for a long time. Something to note breeding causes genetic variability to decrease and evolution requires an increase.

I would encourage you to do more research on your own and see what you find. Get different viewpoints on what you are trying to learn and determine for yourself what you believe makes the most sense to you.

 

[dad]

About the same level of kinship as I feel with some humans. Of course, that reflects badly and probably undeservedly on the cockroaches.

So cockroaches are respected as kin by you in your religion. OK.

 

[Ophiolite]

That sounds like the bandwagon effect.

If you think that then you do not understand the mind set of the research scientist. One makes one reputation by challenging the status quo. That approach has enabled evolutionary theory to to grow in stature, address challenges and become increasingly nuanced and detailed.

To be honest it is rather ridiculous to suggest that tens of thousands of aggressive, skeptical thinkers have all behaved like a bunch of sheep. These aren't people who are just learning what has gone before, they are dissecting current theory, analysing it, challenging it, adapting it, taking it apart and reassembling it. Sometimes the changes are minor - reassigning a species to a different genus. Sometimes they are major, such as punctuated equilibrium.

It appears to me that you are saying is that if you don't believe what everyone else believes you are no good and if you have no training then you are not entitled to free thought.

No. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I have stated, I thought clearly, what I repeat now: you are fully entitled to disbelieve evolution. You are fully entitled to believe that evolution conflicts with your faith. You are fully entitled to base your beliefs on scripture, personal revelation and (if it appeals to you) the word of authoritative church leaders.

What you are not entitled to do is to make flawed observations about a subject which you evidently have very little education in. This is not a perjorative, or ad hominem remark. If you have a professional qualifaction in biology, or a related science subject, or have spent a few years studying the matter, then I apologise, but if that is the case it does not come across in the content of your posts.

I sense that I have a much better grounding in scripture than you have in evolutionary theory, but I would not presume to challenge the viewpoints of theologians without undertaking a major study. You seem comfortable pontificating on evolution from a very weak base. That is unnecessary. Go with your faith and ignore evolution. That's not a problem, but don't go challenging it purely because you don't believe it. You will just wind up looking foolish.

 

[Ohj1n37]

One makes one reputation by challenging the status quo.

What you are not entitled to do is to make flawed observations about a subject which you evidently have very little education in.

I have yet to see you address the difference between adaptation and speciation. I have not yet seen you give an example of speciation that could not be considered adaptation. Instead you have now decided to what I consider insult my intelligence because I do not believe what you consider everyone else must believe.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have yet to see you address the difference between adaptation and speciation. I have not yet seen you give an example of speciation that could not be considered adaptation. Instead you have now decided to what I consider insult my intelligence because I do not believe what you consider everyone else must believe.

I do not understand why you have taken a confrontational approach. I have not insulted your intelligence, I have done the following:

1. I have unreservedly supported your right to disbelieve evolution.
2. I have unreservedly acknowledged the choice that many millions of people make to follow their faith and their belief and confidence in scripture.
3. I have appealed to you to go with that faith, to express you confidence in it and simply ignore the claims made by evolutionists.
   
4. I have noted, as an objective assessment based upon your posts, that you appear to be ignorant of the scientific method, the character of scientists and details of evolutionary theory. That is not an insult to your intelligence. It is a rational questioning of your lack of knowledge concerning evolution.

I have not addressed adaptation and speciation since it was not mentioned in the post to which I responded and you have not asked me to address it. Are you here for a serious discussion, or do you simply wish to be disagreeable? If the former, please lose the attitude, if the latter. I'm out of here.

Finally, I do not believe in evolution. I am most certainly not asking you to believe in evolution. I accept evolution as the best explanation for life's biodiversity. It would be nice if you could make a similar acceptance, but I am not asking you to do so. All I am asking you to do is to stop critiquing evolutionary theory from a weak knowledge base simply because it conflicts with your faith. If that is not what you are doing, it sure looks like it.

Now can we proceed in an objective fashion please. And if you still want an answer on speciation and adaptation I'll take a shot at it. (Quick answer - since speciation arises through a process of adaptation I have no idea what your question means, though it seems to come out of the lexicon of the less reputable creationists. I hope you didn't pick it up there.)

 

[Ohj1n37]

I have noted, as an objective assessment based upon your posts, that you appear to be ignorant of the scientific method, the character of scientists and details of evolutionary theory. That is not an insult to your intelligence. It is a rational questioning of your lack of knowledge concerning evolution.

I have not addressed adaptation and speciation since it was not mentioned in the post to which I responded and you have not asked me to address it. Are you here for a serious discussion, or do you simply wish to be disagreeable? If the former, please lose the attitude, if the latter. I'm out of here.

You looked at my previous posts, didn't address adaptation and speciation, but felt the need to instead assess my lack of knowledge.

And if you still want an answer on speciation and adaptation I'll take a shot at it. (Quick answer - since speciation arises through a process of adaptation I have no idea what your question means, though it seems to come out of the lexicon of the less reputable creationists. I hope you didn't pick it up there.)

The question is this. We know adaptation is true it has been observed. We do not know if a species becoming a new species is true because it has not been observed. Could you give me an example of a species becoming a new species that would not just be considered adaptation? All supposed observed instances of a species becoming a new species are examples of adaptation which as previously stated are possible due to genetic variability.

All I am asking you to do is to stop critiquing evolutionary theory from a weak knowledge base simply because it conflicts with your faith.

It conflicts with observable science.

Are you here for a serious discussion, or do you simply wish to be disagreeable? If the former, please lose the attitude, if the latter. I'm out of here.

The ultimate intent of my original post was to point out that evolution is taught and is considered as science fact when key components have not even been observed. Just because a majority of people say it is true does not make it true. I do not wish to rude to anyone; I believe it was you, Ophiolite that was the one insulting my lack knowledge.

 

[Ophiolite]

You looked at my previous posts, didn't address adaptation and speciation, but felt the need to instead assess my lack of knowledge.

Incorrect. The only posts of yours I paid any attention to prior to this latest exchange were posts #48 and #53. The first did not mention adaptation and speciation. You raised this in post #53.

I have now reread the thread and cannot find where you explicitly ask anyone to address adaptation and speciation. You certainly didn't ask me. I had addressed a comment in a post by Devin Camary. You responded to those comments then, from my perspective, out of the blue seem to get hot under the collar that I still haven't addressed adaptation and speciation.

You go so far as to say "I have not yet seen you give an example of speciation that could not be considered adaptation." Since I haven't given any examples I don't see how non-existent examples could be considered to be anything adaptation, or non-adaptation. What's going on there? Are you confusing me with someone else?

We do not know if a species becoming a new species is true because it has not been observed. Could you give me an example of a species becoming a new species that would not just be considered adaptation? All supposed observed instances of a species becoming a new species are examples of adaptation which as previously stated are possible due to genetic variability.

All speciation events are adaptations (with the caveat that genetic drift might result in speciation - not my speciality). Why do you insist they are not?

It conflicts with observable science.

Specify what you consider to be the most significant conflict with appropriate citations to peer reviewed papers from reputable journals.

The ultimate intent of my original post was to point out that evolution is taught and is considered as science fact when key components have not even been observed. Just because a majority of people say it is true does not make it true. I do not wish to rude to anyone; I believe it was you, Ophiolite that was the one insulting my lack knowledge.

You have made an assertion and provided no evidence to support it. Asseertions made without evidence do not carry much weight.

A majority of people asserting something does not make it true.

A very large majority of scientists asserting something with a century and a half of supporting evidence and argument do not make it true, they make it the most likely explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

Since our discussion began I chanced on a comment of your on another thread; words to the effect of "I am not a trained scientist". I agree, the evidence, based on the content of your posts suggests that your grasp of scientific principles is not of a high quality.

If someone tells me I am an incompetent chef I do not consider it an insult.

If someone tells me my foreign language skills are poor I do not consider it an insult.

I'm sorry you fail to recognise your weaknesses in the matter of evolutionary theory. That's not an insult. Trust me, if I wished to insult me you, you would have no doubt it had occurred. I have no intention of doing so. I have no reason to do so.

 

[pitabread]

I will agree to disagree on this. I believe many people use evolution to explain the origin of all life.

But the theory of evolution *doesn't* explain the origin of life. Therefore nobody could possibly use the ToE as such an explanation.

Rather the ToE explains the diversity of species.

 

[Brightmoon]

["Ohj1n37, post: 72661111, member: 409629"]Has what you speak of been tested and repeated? Can it be explained by genetic variability? Adaptation is an observed phenomenon; humans have been breeding things for a long time. Something to note breeding causes genetic variability to decrease and evolution requires an increase.




Raphanobrassica . A cross between a radish and a cabbage and it is a new species. If you know anything about plants these parent plants are not closely related . Both parent plants have 18 chromosomes . Raphanobrassica has 36 chromosomes . There’s your “increase in genetic information” . Observed yes this apparently didn’t exist before the 1930s . Apparently because plants tend to do this naturally and raphanobrassica was generated in a agricultural lab.

[="dad, post: 72661740, member: 98011"]How about cockroaches, feel a kinship there also?

Actually yes chordates like humans are deuterostomes . Cockroaches are ecdysoans and they’re distant relatives

[Ohj1n37, post: 72662433, member: 409629"]I forgot to reply to this. What makes you think secular sources are not twisting facts to support an agenda? Just a thought.

Because creationists don’t bother to check that their fantasy versions of science agree with reality or with each other. Their geological explanations don’t jibe with their physics explanations nor with their biological explanations. Mainstream science doesn’t have that problem. A physics or geology based mainstream explanation won’t destroy all life on the planet the way creation “ science “ explanations do. And of course this is all hand-waved away.



We human beings also share much of our genes with bananas. I believe that it makes more sense that the "sharing" of genes is evidence of intelligent design not common ancestry. Again I'll to disagree and conclude that it is at least somewhat subjective.

What you believe is not relevant you’d still have to have evidence of this so called designer for this to be accepted in science. And by the way plants and animals are related

Finally I'll reiterate my original statement.



Evolution should not be used as science fact to describe the process in which modern life came to be. That was intent of my original post. If you wish to believe that evolution is the process in which modern life came to be then you can if you want to.

Since evolution has been easily observed both in the wild and in labs you do realize that this is 1 nonsense and 2 evidence that creation “scientists” lie

 

[Brightmoon]

Here’s raphanobrassica. The only thing artificial about the original plants was that it was done in a lab . However, plants species do this naturally in the wild

 

[Brightmoon]

Just like the mountains of evidence supporting global warming?

Nope actually because our understanding of evolution has been around for over a century there’s more evidence for evolution. Mountains worth of publications supporting evolution? Yeah there’s so much that a single person couldn’t read it all in a lifetime . Our understanding of global warming is relatively new only since about the 1950s . By the way Bush Sr started an international committee to address this because even he saw this as a potential problem even back in the 80s . It became well known because the general public was starting to see the changes in the weather during the late 90s . NYC hasn’t had a real winter in decades. it used to go below 0 F and stay there. Now it rarely gets below 32 F . The USDA maps show this on very seed packet . Long Island used to be zone 5 it’s now zone 7 . If you garden you can’t miss this if you’re over the age of 40