Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[ThinkForYourself]

misread post.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yes there are fossils. They belonged to animals and beings that once existed. That's all we know, no more, no less. ...

Well done exposing one science's dirty little secrets!!! To wit:

Getting a PhD in Paleontology takes about 15 seconds. That's mankind's accumulated knowledge regarding fossils: "They belonged to animals and beings that once existed". Memorize that simple sentence and poof! You have a PhD from Harvard. Crazy eh?

 

[whois]

You would be wrong (All you had to do was google "skulls human evolution". You should try it next time! )

not according to the respected source "nature".
we have less than 4% (3.4%) of the required fossils, and none of them are transitional.

jablonka, lamb, and noble all agree that gradual change is an assumption.
genetic correlations has not turned that assumption into fact.

 

[sfs]

i love it when people resort to this type of nonsense.
did the thought ever occur to you that darwin never had any "evolution" classes?

Yes, in fact it has occurred to me. Has it occurred to you that I might know more about the study of evolution than you do?

shall we also call darwin a "crackpot" for those reasons?

No. But since that wasn't why I called Noble a bit of a crackpot, I fail to see the point of your question. Darwin spent a lifetime of careful study to amass the facts needed to support his theory. Noble is a bit of a crackpot because he advances ideas that are contrary to known evidence.

can you pick out one of the above assumptions i posted and explain how it's slanted?

I already told you one of his claims that's wrong: that epigenetic inheritance has played any major role in evolution. Many adaptive traits have been identified, and every one of them has been the result of a DNA mutation (or RNA in the case of RNA viruses).

Another claim is that horizontal gene transfer plays an important role. It does for bacteria -- and modern evolutionary theory has taken that into account. For plants and animals, however, horizontal gene transfer is quite rare; it has very little effect on the overall phylogeny. Hybridization plays a larger role for plants in creating reticulation in phylogenies, but in animals it doesn't.

You didn't answer my question, though: so what? Even if any or all of Noble's claims were correct and evolutionary theory has to be modified, what difference does it make? And why have you decided to rely on Noble's opinion, anyway, rather than any of the many more qualified experts in evolution? Have you done a thorough survey of the literature on evolutionary biology?

if you can't do that, then i must assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

You can assume anything you like. Your under no requirement to base your assumptions on logic or evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

While I understand what you are saying here and even agree with you, do you not believe that if some good repeatable, verifiable evidence came along that modified or contradicted e=mc[sup]2[/sup] that science would not eventually change to accommodate the new evidence?

Sure, but that won't be happening.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes but a dog can change from a wolf to a coyote, to a boxer to a chihuahua or a great Dane. However it cannot change to a horse and then to a buffalo or whale. Dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, and cats stay cats.

I don't know how many times I have posted this . but here I go again:
And mammals give rise to only mammals, and primates give rise to only primates, and apes give rise to only apes, and hominds give rise to only hominids.. and humans give rise to only humans...just like our ancestors. You cannot escape your ancestry.

By the way, where did this DNA come from? Are you aware of the complexity and the amount of information it carries? Try 700 terabytes of genetic information.

Maybe your god created the first DNA. Are you OK with evolution, then?

Also, according to Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genome researcher, the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 1.6%. However, this gab of 1.6% converts to a gap of 48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. Change is not that easy, in fact it is impossible.

Excuse me???? Three nucleotide changes are fatal??? Are you aware that would mean most of us would be dead now??

In fact, we expect that across all humans, there are over 100 mutations at every single position in the human genome. And, here is the math to prove it:


The average mutation rate in the human genome is 1.2 x10^-8 mutations per site per generation. This is pretty small, so in each person, we only expect to observe a handful of new mutations relative to their parents. But, that handful of mutations adds up when you think of how many people are on the earth.

There are now 7.16 billion people on earth (at the time of this post the estimate was 7,165,212,612 ish).

If we let the birth of every person alive represent a single generation event, then we can estimate the average number of new mutations at each site across all 7.16 billion people by multiplying the mutation rate per generation, by the number of generations:

(1.2 x 10^-8) mutations/site/generation * 7,165,212,612 generations = 86 mutations/site

This says that if we could look at the genome of all 7 billion people, on average, we expect to observe 86 new mutations at each of the six billion individual positions across the genome. But we usually don’t talk about each copy of a chromosome individually (the one you got from your mother and the one you got from your father), we just talk about a single chromosome, like chromosome 1. That is, we think about the genome as folded in half (that three billion number I first mentioned).

So, the folded number (thinking about the number of differences across the three billion sites), suggests that there are about 172 mutations at each site of every chromosome across the whole human population..​

How many mutations? - The Panda's Thumb

 

[whois]

Has it occurred to you that I might know more about the study of evolution than you do?

yes, that is a possibility.
you however must admit crimes are solved without knowing anything of motives, methods, or means.
i believe a persons reasoning skills goes a long way in these types of endeavors.

Noble is a bit of a crackpot because he advances ideas that are contrary to known evidence.

he seemed to have backed up his paper quite well with references.

I already told you one of his claims that's wrong: that epigenetic inheritance has played any major role in evolution. Many adaptive traits have been identified, and every one of them has been the result of a DNA mutation (or RNA in the case of RNA viruses).

now see, this puts me in a dilemma.
who am i to believe, some nameless, faceless person from the web or 3 people that aren't afraid of associating their names with their work?
it isn't just noble, jablonka, and lamb.
noble gives quite a few references in regards to his work.

You didn't answer my question, though: so what?

don't you even suspect it might be a crime to posit we have all these transitional fossils when in fact we don't?

Even if any or all of Noble's claims were correct and evolutionary theory has to be modified, what difference does it make?

these aren't solely nobles claims, they are the claims of others.
jablonka and lamb are the only 2 i followed up on.

And why have you decided to rely on Noble's opinion, anyway, rather than any of the many more qualified experts in evolution?

nobles paper is well referenced by qualified people.
and it wasn't "just his opinion"

Have you done a thorough survey of the literature on evolutionary biology?

no.
but what i have studied leads me to believe i was lied to.
we don't have the transitional fossils we are led to believe.
that alone is enough to question the entire concept.

You can assume anything you like. Your under no requirement to base your assumptions on logic or evidence.

i think i have offered valid evidence and i have applied reasonably sound logic in its interpretation.

personally i'm not in a position to call noble, jablonka, and lamb liars.
all 3 says those are assumptions.
noble outright says they have been disproved.
jablonka and lamb doesn't go quite that far.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

not according to the respected source "nature".
we have less than 4% (3.4%) of the required fossils, and none of them are transitional.

jablonka, lamb, and noble all agree that gradual change is an assumption.
genetic correlations has not turned that assumption into fact.

You really need to find some other sources, or do a better job of reading articles, not sure which. My personal favourite are the intermediate fossils of a land mammal turning into a whale. Very cool.

Here is a link to a Scientific American article (You want Answer to Creationist Nonsense #13): 15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

 

[whois]

Here is a link to a Scientific American article (You want Answer to Creationist Nonsense #13): 15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

i don't remember establishing noble, jablonka, an lamb as creationists.
what makes you think they are?

 

[Ophiolite]

did you miss my post on the assumptions of the modern synthesis?
did you miss my post where denis noble says all of those assumptions have been disproved?

these are not creationist sources.

I did not miss either of these things. I may respond to them in future. However, my request for citations by palaeontologists, related to a specific statement about the fossil record made by JacksBrat, not a request to provide a citation by geneticists that fully supports evolution, but questions some of the details of the mechanism.

Now either you did not understand the paper written by Jablonka and Lamb, or you are trying deliberately to mislead people as to its significance. Either way it raises serious doubts about your competence to participate in this discussion.

 

[whois]

I did not miss either of these things. I may respond to them in future.

fair enough.

However, my request for citations by palaeontologists, related to a specific statement about the fossil record made by JacksBrat, not a request to provide a citation by geneticists that fully supports evolution, but questions some of the details of the mechanism.

i'm sorry i butted in.

Now either you did not understand the paper written by Jablonka and Lamb, or you are trying deliberately to mislead people as to its significance.

i'm not trying to deliberately mislead anyone here.
we can never ascertain the truth by pursuing such an avenue.

Either way it raises serious doubts about your competence to participate in this discussion.

i'm sorry you feel that way ophiolite.
it's a small world isn't it?

 

[Ophiolite]

i'm sorry i butted in.

I did not think you had butted in. I was simply pointing out that your post did not in any way answer the request I had made of JackBrats. This is a discussion forum. You are free - within the rules - to discuss what you wish. I welcome your input.

i'm not trying to deliberately mislead anyone here.

Then, do you understand that the authors of the paper you quoted from fully accept evolution, are not questioning Darwinism (sensuo stricto) and are simply addressing a proposed additional mechanism involved in the process?

If you do not understand that, I am happy to work through it with you. If you do understand that, do you recognise that the way in which you presented it suggested that a mainstream biologist rejected evolution?

i'm sorry you feel that way ophiolite.

You have it in your power to change how I feel. You have stated you were not intending to deceive. The only alternative I can see is that you did not understand what you had posted. There may be another alternative. If so, tell me what it is.

Since you posted the Jablonski/Lamb paper, apparently, to suggest that mainstream biologists questioned the very basis of evolution and that is a misinterpretation of their intent, should you not now acknowledge this?

it's a small world isn't it?

I have no idea what that means. I hope it doesn't mean you are running away from the discussion.

 

[Gracchus]

Yes but a dog can change from a wolf to a coyote, to a boxer to a chihuahua or a great Dane. However it cannot change to a horse and then to a buffalo or whale. Dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, and cats stay cats.

That is, in the main, true. If it were not, if dogs gave rise to horses or whales, it would be evidence against evolution. Anyone who's ignorance of biology was not both wide and deep, would know that. You tried to set up a straw man and set up a straw ant.

By the way, where did this DNA come from? Are you aware of the complexity and the amount of information it carries? Try 700 terabytes of genetic information.

The formation of DNA can be catalyzed by other DNA, or by RNA. RNA formation can be catalyzed by DNA, RNA or proteins.

Also, according to Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genome researcher, the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 1.6%. However, this gab of 1.6% converts to a gap of 48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Actually a change of only one might be fatal. But you yourself probably have hundreds of mutations that are not found in either of your parents.

Change is not that easy, in fact it is impossible.

That is not true. You have learned or imagined bad information.
You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger, you know almost nothing about biology and most of what you do know is just flat-out wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger, you know almost nothing about biology and most of what you do know is just flat-out wrong.

And these, sadly, may be his strong points.

 

[whois]

Then, do you understand that the authors of the paper you quoted from fully accept evolution, are not questioning Darwinism (sensuo stricto) and are simply addressing a proposed additional mechanism involved in the process?

that wasn't why i posted the quote from noble.
my reasoning for the quote:
i posted his quote because he said all of the assumptions of the modern synthesis has been disproven.
what are these assumptions?
in my opinion they can only be an "improvement" or reassessment of darwinism.
these assumption were made because darwinism wasn't quite working
this is my reasoning.

do you recognise that the way in which you presented it suggested that a mainstream biologist rejected evolution?

i posted the quote from noble verbatum and in context.
i posted the assumptions listed by jabloka and lamb because he listed those two as a reference
i don't know what else to tell you.
maybe you shouldn't ignore what your feelings are telling you.
also, in my opinion, it's irrelevant as to what jablonka and lamb believe.

You have stated you were not intending to deceive.

correct.

The only alternative I can see is that you did not understand what you had posted.

see above.
i posted what noble said and i presented the assumed assumptions.

There may be another alternative. If so, tell me what it is.

because i've always been a sceptic, then i ran into this nonsense with ayala.

Since you posted the Jablonski/Lamb paper, apparently, to suggest that mainstream biologists questioned the very basis of evolution and that is a misinterpretation of their intent, should you not now acknowledge this?

i explained why i posted the assumptions, because noble said they had been disproved, and he mentions them in references.
i can post the entire transcript if you wish.

I have no idea what that means. I hope it doesn't mean you are running away from the discussion.

are you kidding?
i wouldn't miss this for the world.

aside:
can i put XP on a computer that has win 8.1 on it?

 

[Star Adept]

in my opinion they can only be an "improvement" or reassessment of darwinism.
these assumption were made because darwinism wasn't quite working

I have a hard time with anybody using Darwin's name in evolution in reference to creation aside from a history lesson. He was a ground-breaker in the thought that lead to modern evolutionary synthesis. Much of his work is inference and anyone using any proven evolutionary model to explain creation is doing nothing but the same with statistically-probably processes that, combined, could result in life but does not prove the origin of life. As per evolution as a process, the man observed a lot of different organisms and made a brilliant deduction that catalyzed what we now know about evolution. Note that his book was named the Origin of Species not the Origin of Life. The difference is that his work only explains how species arise and differentiate. The concept of abiogenesis was well beyond his time so giving credit to the combined knowledge of evolution and abiogenesis in reference to creation theory to Darwin is a little silly, in my opinion.

are you kidding?
i wouldn't miss this for the world.

I envy your fortitude. This is like the 10th thread about this stuff since I've been a member here and nothing different ever gets said.

aside:
can i put XP on a computer that has win 8.1 on it?

If you're making a point, the short answer is yes. If you want a way to do it, look up info here Dual-Boot Info
To be fair, you have to uninstall your 8 and install XP first, for reasons explained in the link. There are also Virtual Partitions to consider but, those eat a lot more memory to run because you'd be running both in-tandem and it is not a built-in function of Windows, as far as I'm aware (I don't use 8 but I highly doubt they have added this function in)

 

[whois]

As per evolution as a process, the man observed a lot of different organisms and made a brilliant deduction that catalyzed what we now know about evolution.

tell me, what exactly do we know about evolution?
darwin proposes his theory and almost immediately it was jumped on.
darwin wasn't quit working and the modern synthesis was born, along with its attending assumptions.
now we find that these assumptions are wrong. (noble, lamb, and jablonski)
you might not know evolution as good as you think.

on the matter of origins:
i disagree.
evolution is all about a naturalistic explanation.
are you prepared to say there is a god?
i don't know about you, but i can't make such an assessment.
evolution is all about "molecules to man"

 

[Star Adept]

tell me, what exactly do we know about evolution?
darwin proposes his theory and almost immediately it was jumped on.
darwin wasn't quit working and the modern synthesis was born, along with its attending assumptions.
now we find that these assumptions are wrong. (noble, lamb, and jablonski)
you might not know evolution as good as you think.

Hm. I'll take the humble path and correct my words. The things I know about evolution:

A gene is expressed by a resultant gene product as protein or RNA.
A gene sequence does not have to be equivalent to produce an equivalent gene product.
The fact that heredity is the only known method of passing a specific gene sequence to an offspring.
The calculable probability of a genetic line using the above has been proven in micro-evolution tests in specific gene sequences. We can only extrapolate this to the entire genome right now but, as a proven process, we only need enough samples to form a statistical model.

on the matter of origins:
i disagree.
evolution is all about a naturalistic explanation.
are you prepared to say there is a god?
i don't know about you, but i can't make such an assessment.
evolution is all about "molecules to man"

Evolution merely proves that like-genes maintain through heredity but unlike genes can result in equivalent gene products and the statistical differences define a model which we can test heredity on a genetic level.

Abiogenesis in combination with evolution is what can explain molecules to man but, repeating a path cannot define it as the only path. We have created life using the base-blocks of DNA. We are so very close to forming all four neucleotides out of inorganic material (1/4 have been made) I would have to recheck but, as memory serves at the time of this post, I'm pretty sure they've been able to make all other parts of DNA out of inorganic material.

I adamantly deny that scientifically proving creation in a single model is possible and that it denies the existence of God in the process. If anything, only the bible is up for grabs.

 

[whois]

We have created life using the base-blocks of DNA.

we have?
where?

We are so very close to forming all four neucleotides out of inorganic material (1/4 have been made) I would have to recheck but, as memory serves at the time of this post, I'm pretty sure they've been able to make all other parts of DNA out of inorganic material.

i'm sure they have.
i'm also quite positive that they can synthesize an entire DNA strand.
first of all, that isn't "creating life".
second is, this must be done in one continuous process to be valid.
my guess is science deemed the process impossible.
anyway, hit me up with that link to the recreated life you were talking about.

I adamantly deny that scientifically proving creation in a single model is possible and that it denies the existence of God in the process. If anything, only the bible is up for grabs.

i've had a number of these discussions over the years, and they always wind up being evolution vs. creation.
my honest opinion is that they are both wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

can you post a source for this?
any source will do as long as it gives the math.

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech