Evolution answers

[Dissolution]

Guess what? Your friend is right about both evolution and "global warming(TM)". Not that the far right is correct about everything, but they are certainly right on those two topics.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...). That in fact is the reason for the failure of the fruit fly experiments. Our whole living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly.
• The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.
• The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.
• The question of computing elements at a cellular level ( http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video ).

Like I say, that's a minimal list.

You say that quite a lot: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9744986&postcount=59
It's a little odd, as the various errors that this repeated post contains have already been pointed out to you. Hmm...

 

[Brian-M]

Telegraphed surely?

No, they called us on the telephon.

(That's not a misspelling, it's the name that Johann Philipp Reis gave his invention in 1860, a precursor to the telephone.)

 

[Dinwar]

No real science theory would survive the history of disproofs involved with evolution.

Funny how no one who argues that has ever presented those disproofs. The ones you've presented have been thoroughly dealt with in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[John Jones]

I was expecting to hear the difference between a geneticist and a paleontologist is about $75,000. You may be right about staring into a microscope all day where as most paleontologist no longer look for fossil remains but are employed by coal and oil petroleum industries searching for recoverable fossils fuels. That is why you don't find any women in this field anymore.

According to Priscum, the Newsletter of the Paleontological Society, 23% of their membership are women, and 37% of lead authors in presentations are women.


http://www.paleosoc.org/Priscum_Winter2013.pdf

Dishonesty comes as natural as breathing to you, doesn't it?

 

[John Jones]

Guess what? Your friend is right about both evolution and "global warming(TM)". [...].

Ganymede!

 

[John Jones]

No real science theory would survive the history of disproofs involved with evolution.

Karl Popper established the criteria for what we call a pseudoscience: falsifiability or the lack of such. .

Karl Popper came to see evolution as scientific as he learned more about it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No real science theory would survive the history of disproofs involved with evolution.

Please, I'm trying to eat here.

 

[Wowbagger]

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

So, what can the alternative tell us about life?


With all of the huffing and puffing about 'disproving evolution', why does it continue to be productive in science?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/evolution/

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).

How does the evolution of the fruit fly disprove evolution?

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...). That in fact is the reason for the failure of the fruit fly experiments. Our whole living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly.

DNA/RNA is only a "code" by analogy. It is NOT literally a code. It does not act like a code, since the meaning of its 'letters' are NOT independently interpretable from the actual medium they are found in.

Those who are unraveling the origins of DNA and RNA are doing so by thinking of them in terms of replicating molecules, and NOT as codes. And, THEY are the ones finding answers about their origins. NOT Intelligent Design advocates.

The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

So?

The question of irreducible complexity.

This is merely an assertion. Declaring something "irreducibly complex" does NOT really tell us anything about its origins. Nothing specific, anyway.

The Haldane Dilemma.

...is very outdated. We since learned about the role of co-option, many decades ago. So, this "dilemma" doesn't apply, any more.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.

Perhaps a citation or two on this would be nice.

But, even if this were true (for the sake of argument), it is not really evidence against Evolution. Only a rewiring of when certain species existed.

If you REALLY want to debunk evolution, you have to prove:

1. Small changes can NEVER result in something that looks like a large change, over time.

2. That there is no source of variety in genetics that can result in small changes.

If you, additionally, want to posit a claim that an Intelligent Designer is required, you ALSO need to:

3. Describe the engineering challenges the Designer faced, and the trade-offs in made in its design to compensate for them... that could both explain the various quirks in life forms, AND become a source for predictive power.

4. If possible: Find empirical evidence for the designer: Who it was, when it existed, etc.

That's really what you have to address, if you want to fight this battle. All of your other things don't really count as "debunking". Not even if your dinosaur example was true. (Which I doubt it is.)

The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

So?

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.

We found LOTS of intermediate fossils!! Where have you been?!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The question of genetic entropy.

...is relevant... how, exactly?

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

I will grant you that Evolution is NOT obvious, and awfully non-intuitive at times, even for experts.

But, in science: "Obvious" does NOT always equal "Correct".

It is 'Obvious' that the sun seems to revolve around the Earth. But, is that really the best model?

The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.

Evolution does NOT depend on 'pure probability'. It is a natural algorithm, and a NON-Random one, at that!

The question of computing elements at a cellular level ( http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video ).

Cute. But, these guys are taking the "code" analogy waaaay too far! Way, way, waaaaaaaay too far!

Cells do NOT literally contain 'computing elements'. That's just us humans placing our own biases onto what we see in there.

Those unraveling the origins of life think of them differently. And, THEY are the ones making scientific progress. NOT the ID proponents!

 

[dlorde]

That's one creationist theory. Adam and Eve were perfect humans and we have degenerated since.

It's called genetic entropy.

Is man presently degenerating genetically? It would seem so, according the papers by Muller, Neal, Kondrashov, Nachman/Crowell, Walker/Keightley, Crow, Lynch et al., Howell, Loewe and also myself (in press). Scott suggests this is foolishness and dismisses the Crow paper (1–2% fitness decline per generation). But Kondrashov, an evolutionist who is an expert on this subject, has advised me that virtually all the human geneticists he knows agree that man is degenerating genetically. The most definitive findings were published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Lynch.4 That paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3–5% per generation. I personally feel the average mutational effect on fitness is much more subtle than Lynch does—so I think the rate of human degeneration is much slower than he suggests—but we at least agree that fitness is going down, not up. Can Scott find any qualified geneticist who asserts man is NOT now degenerating genetically? There is really no debate on current human genetic degeneration—Scott is 100% wrong here, and is simply not well informed.

Well I know that I'm not quite as fit as I used to be...

But the logic is impeccable - we're degenerating genetically because no qualified geneticist can be arsed to deny that it makes any kind of sense

But let's see, isn't genetic fitness something to do with numbers of reproductive offspring? maybe by that definition, the falling reproductive rates in post-industrial nations is a drop in fitness; OTOH maybe it's the proportion of viable reproductive offspring in relation to all offspring, instead of absolute numbers, so we're increasingly fit... oh, I don't know

 

[justintime]

No real science theory would survive the history of disproofs involved with evolution.

Karl Popper established the criteria for what we call a pseudoscience: falsifiability or the lack of such. There's a point beyond which if the adherents of a doctrine or belief simply go on with it despite overwhelming disproof, then Popper's criteria is met since clearly, no disproof would ever suffice. Evolution is beyond that point.

So is science.
""The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So is science.
""The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

A quote without context or attribution? Very compelling.

 

[bruto]

So is science.
""The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

And we can thus conclude that the success of arguments against Darwinism is accompanied by carelessness in attribution and an inability to learn anything new since 1959.

 

[Corsair 115]

Please, I'm trying to eat here.

I'm reminded of the old computer saying: garbage in, garbage out.

 

[justintime]

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
So is science.
""The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

And we can thus conclude that the success of arguments against Darwinism is accompanied by carelessness in attribution and an inability to learn anything new since 1959.

Darwinism is not a new theory. Darwin's theory was published in 1859. But you are right, everything discovered after 1959 did very little to resuscitate Darwin's theory or the lost integrity.

 

[Robrob]

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).

Given that evolution takes place over millennium, why would you expect it to occur in a century?

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.

Horse pucky. No dinosaur "soft tissue" has been discovered. Subjective claims to see "dinosaurs" in blotchy paintings? Cherry picking inaccurate radiocarbon dating?

The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

IIRC, the current theory is we are not direct descendents of Neanderthals but have common ancestors. Just like us and modern apes.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.

Such a creationist canard it's almost disingenuous you'd post it here.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

Claim of fact made without presenting any actual evidence.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Given that evolution takes place over millennium, why would you expect it to occur in a century?

Environmental Change Triggers Rapid Evolution
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Horse pucky. No dinosaur "soft tissue" has been discovered.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

IIRC, the current theory is we are not direct descendents of Neanderthals but have common ancestors. Just like us and modern apes.

Neanderthal Genome Shows Early Human Interbreeding, Inbreeding

ETA I am not a creationist, so I am not trying to convince you of any version of creationist doctrine, but your knowledge of at least these three things seems pretty limited. I suspect your limited knowledge makes you also a poor choice to debate with a creationist. Unless your purpose is simply to fight.

 

[Robrob]

Environmental Change Triggers Rapid Evolution
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

The OP was about fruit flies evolving into another species, not adaptation.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

Fully discussed here in an actual science article.

Neanderthal Genome Shows Early Human Interbreeding, Inbreeding

So are you arguing for or against the OP?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So are you arguing for or against the OP?

I am not arguing for either actually. I am certainly not a creationist. But your post shows your knowledge of the subject is pretty limited, and even in some cases completely factually wrong.

Evolution doesn't always take place over millennium, sometimes it can be very rapid. Dinosaur soft tissue has been found, many times in many places. Neanderthals are in most of our ancestry, not that we simply had a common ancestor like with modern apes.

Whether your conclusion is right or not is irrelevant, because your premises are wrong. So I would go back and bone up on your science a bit (pun intended) before you try debating with a creationist.

 

[Robrob]

I am not arguing for either actually. I am certainly not a creationist. But your post shows your knowledge of the subject is pretty limited, and even in some cases completely factually wrong.

Evolution doesn't always take place over millennium, sometimes it can be very rapid.

The OP was talking about speciation, not simple adaptation. Adaption can be rapid. Speciation is not and certainly not in just over a century.

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).

And my earlier statement (us and Neanderthal sharing a common ancestor) is supported by your own link so I'm not sure what you are questioning?

The comparison shows that Neanderthals and Denisovans are very closely related, and that their common ancestor split off from the ancestors of modern humans about 400,000 years ago. Neanderthals and Denisovans split about 300,000 years ago.

 

[Dinwar]

Darwinism is not a new theory.

True. However, Darwinism was abandoned for a more comprehensive theory of evolution. The current understanding of evolution IS NOT Darwinism.

Evolution doesn't always take place over millennium, sometimes it can be very rapid.

Evolution can be. Speciation generally takes 10,000 generations (plus or minus some; this IS biology, after all) in animals. People on both sides of the debate are confusing the two.

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).

I'm going to take a different tack than my cohorts here. You accept this as evidence against evolution--but you refuse to accept Nylonase as evidence for it. This is special pleading, and a fallacy.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes

Like all Creationists, you struggle with the concept of a metaphor. DNA and RNA are substrates and catalysts, not codes.

The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

Please list single-celled animals. More importantly, how does this disprove anything about evolution? EVERY CELL ALIVE TODAY has undergone billions of years of evolution.

The question of irreducible complexity.

There is no question here. Assuming IC exists (something no one has proven, or even satisfactorily demonstrated) there are multiple ways in which an irreducibly complex feature can arise.

The Haldane Dilemma.

From Wikipedia:

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs,

I recently worked with a dinosaur paleontologist. Spends most of his time digging up the things, and is paid to study them. He doesn't agree with you.

There are numerous explanations for the "soft tissue", the most well-supported being that it wasn't soft tissue. The petrogliphs are so inexact that they could be anything, or are pretty obviously not dinosaurs (they get the anatomy wrong, and interpreting them as dinosaurs requires ignoring the context and style of art). And radiocarbon dating is so egregiously wrong that to attempt it demonstrates the incompetence of the researcher who does it. It's very much akin to putting compost on a plate and calling it an apple pie.

The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

Non sequitur. Something that rules Neanderthals out as a human ancestor doesn't rule out all other hominids. If I prove your cousin isn't your father, that doesn't mean you don't have a father.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.

This is a flat-out lie. http://www.paleo.pan.pl/people/Dzik/Publications/Gondolella.pdf Here's a fun paper on intermediate forms in conodonts, for example.

The question of genetic entropy.

....has been answered. It's wrong.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

Argument from Incredulity.

The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.

As others have said, these calculations ignore the nature of evolution and are thus invalid. As I've said, these calculations ignore the nature of the early Earth, and are thus invalid.

The question of computing elements at a cellular level

Again, trouble with metaphor. This is chemistry, explicable via the rules of organic chemistry.