Evolution answers

[dlorde]

Has anyone mentioned gene duplication yet? Genes can be duplicated in a variety of ways, so that the original gene function is not damaged or lost. The result of a duplicated gene may be detrimental (too much), or beneficial (more is better), or neutral (e.g. a duplicate control protien), but if the organism is reproductively viable, it then has a 'spare' gene on which subsequent mutations can act with potential benefit, without losing the original function.

 

[justintime]

Evolution is true but not as it is taught or believed by evolutionists.

Here is a link to my Unified Theory of Evolution...work in progress. It is not your typical creationists arguments. I provided some new ideas by unifying new data and discoveries. And of course there are detractors who challenged my views.


Unified theory of evolution...work in progress
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html

 

[MikeG]

Evolution is true but not as it is taught or believed by evolutionists.

Here is a link to my Unified Theory of Evolution...work in progress. It is not your typical creationists arguments. I provided some new ideas by unifying new data and discoveries. And of course there are detractors who challenged my views.


Unified theory of evolution...work in progress
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html

Do you think you might choose a less arrogant title? Specifically, shouldn't your title reflect that you aren't actually discussing evolution itself, so much as the ancestry of humans (and chimps)?

Credible works cite credible research, not YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and internet blogs. Any reason why you don't reference any actual science?

 

[Loonatic93]

Do you think you might choose a less arrogant title? Specifically, shouldn't your title reflect that you aren't actually discussing evolution itself, so much as the ancestry of humans (and chimps)?

Credible works cite credible research, not YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and internet blogs. Any reason why you don't reference any actual science?

Because he doesn't trust actual science. It's all fraudulent and stuff.

 

[Brian-M]

"1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics.

So what? It's not like the basic principles of evolution require knowledge of genetics to be understood. An understanding that a (slightly fallible) mechanism exists where offspring inherit attributes from their parents is all that's required.

The discovery of DNA revealed the details of the mechanism that Darwin assumed must exist when he described evolution in Origin of Species, thereby proving Darwin right in this respect.

(Although he did come up with his own explanation of how hereditary traits might be passed down to subsequent generations in his later works, such as Descent of Man. The explanation he came up with was sheer speculation and utter nonsense. But then, these later works weren't based on years of observational evidence like Origin of Species was.)

His evolutionary tree was based merely upon appearance of the animal.

Just appearance? What about other things like bone structure?

Whatever something most appeared like, was (naturally to Darwin) what it "evolved" from.

You could ask him for some examples where Darwin was wrong about which creature evolved from what. I'd be interested in the answer. Searching for information about that now, all I can find is crackpot sites like http://www.darwinconspiracy.com

So the original theory was an invention or a logical fallacy...

The original theory has been proven correct, and was based on sound observational evidence that is still valid today.

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species.

Okay, this is just absurd. In order for there to be billions of missing links, then there must be billions of generations between them. Even if we make the preposterous assumption that every second generation represents a missing link, and that the average time between generations was 10 years (monkeys mature faster than humans), a billion missing links would put the earliest common ancestor between humans and monkeys at around 20 billion years ago. If we make the (slightly) more realistic assumption that a missing link occurs every hundred generations or so, this would mean that humans ancestors split from monkeys around a trillion years ago. Life has only existed on earth for around 3.5 billion years.

Clearly this claim is a great big steaming pile of bovine excrement.

IN FACT, what the "evolutionary tree" sows is the OPPOSITE of evolution. It shows that species are distinct, NOT that one species leads to another. Where are the billions of missing links between each and every species? And not just a billion years ago, but TODAY?

This bit seems to be meaningless gibberish. I'm wondering if he even knows what a missing link is.

3) Natural Selection. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution usually mistake natural selection as a process of evolution. This is patently FALSE as natural selection EXCLUDES genetic material,m it does NOT introduce unique genetic material. Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Natural selection CULLS genes, evolution would require NOVEL genes.

Nobody claims that natural selection introduces new genetic material. The role of selection is to filter the new genetic material introduced by variation. This statement indicates a profound ignorance of what evolution actually is.

An ultra-simplistic explanation of the evolutionary process would be...

Step 1: Reproduction with variation
Step 2: Filter with selection
Step 3: Go to step 1.​

4) So far the only way, other than in comic books, we know of mutations is through accidents resulting in inferior gens. (Which are then REMOVED by natural selection.) Exposure to harmful environmental events - radiation, poisons, toxins, create mutation. And these mutations are HARMFUL and often leave the recipient unable to survive or reproduce, or less able to do either. So mutation is, again, contrary to evolution, NOT a contributor to it.

Most mutations are either harmful or do nothing. A very small number of mutations are beneficial. Selective processes give the beneficial mutations an advantage over the harmful ones, so beneficial mutations tend to spread throughout a species (this is what we call evolution) while harmful mutations tend to die out.

5) Species. Another aspect of distinct species, which being distinct already tend to disprove evolution, is that species generally are incompatible with each other. You cannot mate distinct species with each other. In the very few cases you can, the offspring is usually STERILE. So you cannot get evolution by reproduction between species.

So what? Who's claiming that evolution works by reproduction between species? This bit is essentially agreeing with Darwin.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Unified theory of evolution...work in progress
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html

Here's a tip: If you're going to introduce a new, ground-breaking, paradigm-shattering idea to the world, do not begin with the sentence "Here are some food for though".

 

[nathan]

Sometimes you can mock creationists with facts

Isn't that the main thrust of Project Steve?

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

 

[justintime]

Do you think you might choose a less arrogant title? Specifically, shouldn't your title reflect that you aren't actually discussing evolution itself, so much as the ancestry of humans (and chimps)?

Credible works cite credible research, not YouTube videos, Wikipedia, and internet blogs. Any reason why you don't reference any actual science?

I used everyday examples to illustrate what evolutionists could not theorize because the technology and science were not available in their time. Utube, DNA sequencing and computer literate primates.

I also covered traditional text book material on natural selection and chromosome counts and why humans are a few short here and in other places.

There are 32 pages of intense discussions. It is one of the most comprehensive material on evolution presented on a skeptic forum. No student of evolution should pass this opportunity to learn something new about evolution and its detractors.

 

[Dinwar]

Do you think you might choose a less arrogant title?

My money is on "No". Considering justintime's posting history, the idea that he knows more about evolution than those of us who study it for a living is laughable.

An ultra-simplistic explanation of the evolutionary process would be...
Step 1: Reproduction with variation
Step 2: Filter with selection
Step 3: Go to step 1.

It's not as ultra-simplistic as you think. Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium demonstrates how this can happen. Youc an prove evolution true with a few hundred marbles and a paper bag.

Any given animal seeks to survive; it puts most of its resources into survival.

Well, not entirely. It depends on the animal; some have evolved to seek survival AND mating, or survival AND the survival of their offspring. Survival is always in there, but other stuff gets added on. One of the trade-offs in biology is often of that nature. Octopi nurture their eggs, despite the fact that they die doing so. Crocodiles, on the other hand, basically just leave their eggs (though they do come if the babies call out). Obviously asexually reproducing species don't worry about mates, but sexually reproducing species certainly do--you can't say that complex mating displays are all about survival.

This gets back to something I've always said about biology: It's a series of exceptions held together by a few rules.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I used everyday examples to illustrate what evolutionists could not theorize...

Define "evolutionist".

 

[jimbob]

Nobody claims that natural selection introduces new genetic material. The role of selection is to filter the new genetic material introduced by variation. This statement indicates a profound ignorance of what evolution actually is.

An ultra-simplistic explanation of the evolutionary process would be...

Step 1: Reproduction with variation
Step 2: Filter with selection
Step 3: Go to step 1.​

Indeed. As long as you accept that organisms tend to resemble their parents but with some variation and that not all organisms breed, then evolution has to happen

 

[foophil]

Snipped to shorten

Thanks Barehl. I've already submitted my reply to them, but appreciate this information. They've not said anything yet since yesterday. If they do, I'll have some further good arguments to come back at them with.

You could ask him for some examples where Darwin was wrong about which creature evolved from what. I'd be interested in the answer. Searching for information about that now, all I can find is crackpot sites like darwinconspiracy.com

(Edited slightly since I couldn't quote with the website URL in there) - Wow... just... wow. That was an amusing read.

This gets back to something I've always said about biology: It's a series of exceptions held together by a few rules.

I like this!

 

[justintime]

Thanks Barehl. I've already submitted my reply to them, but appreciate this information. They've not said anything yet since yesterday. If they do, I'll have some further good arguments to come back at them with.



(Edited slightly since I couldn't quote with the website URL in there) - Wow... just... wow. That was an amusing read.



I like this!

I hope you are aware you are not only up against creationists. You also have to deal with Theistic evolution and modern aspects of Intelligent design. A new generation of Christian scientists taking Darwin to the task with scientific evidence unparallelled in all of Darwinism.

 

[Wowbagger]

The reason to accept evolution is because IT'S TRUE.

Well, that's the reason most of us have for accepting it. But, you're not going to convince a Creationist to change their minds, by arguing that way.

Arguing with Evidence is usually not effective. They have their own "evidence" to counter yours. Of course, their "evidence" is not as good a quality as ours.

However, simply telling them that isn't going to work. I found the better approach is to demonstrate how high our standards of quality are. And, the best way to do that, is through practical applications.

There is no such thing as "Applied Intelligent Design", and getting into the reasons why are important. But, you must first establish that this discrepancy exists.

The fact that it's productive in answering questions and has practical applications stem from that.

I agree.

By emphasizing practical applications, I am demonstrating just HOW MUCH we know evolution is true, or at least a reliable theory.

My argument is NOT "Evolution is true because it has practical applications."

My argument is more along the lines of "Evolution seems to be true enough, that we can get practical applications from it."

Your emphasis on productivity, here and elsewhere, paints science in a light that I do not agree with

My emphasis on productivity is in the context of generating new empirical knowledge. And, that is what science is really all about, right? How could you disagree with that?

When I say that the investigation of "HOW can it evolve?" is more productive than the attitude of "It is impossible to have evolved", that is what I am talking about. Answering the question gains us more knowledge than the attitude of incredulity.

--and one which hands FAR too many arguments to Creationists.

In my experience, I've never seen a Creationist get out of my arguments except through lying and exaggerating.

They might say "Well Creationism helped us predict that this thing was going to be more complex!", but when you ask follow up questions, their arguments never go beyond that level. It's just ends at "more complex". Then, I explain how Evolution not only predicted that same thing might be 'more complicated', but exactly what complications we can expect, by studying it in terms of fitness against a landscape.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this? Exactly what arguments are we handing over to Creationists with my attitude?

 

[jimbob]

It might be worth pointing out the various examples where any "designer" would have to have been incompetent or malign. The human appendix, for example or other vestigial organs.

Or that a hypothetical designer seems rather limited in imagination. Why do all vertebrates have similar body plans (snakes with vestigial legs etc) - why do none have six legs?

 

[justintime]

It might be worth pointing out the various examples where any "designer" would have to have been incompetent or malign. The human appendix, for example or other vestigial organs.

Or that a hypothetical designer seems rather limited in imagination. Why do all vertebrates have similar body plans (snakes with vestigial legs etc) - why do none have six legs?

Out of the millions and billions of things credited with intelligent design you pick on some insignificant adaptive failures of a few organism.

 

[justintime]

Well, that's the reason most of us have for accepting it. But, you're not going to convince a Creationist to change their minds, by arguing that way.

Arguing with Evidence is usually not effective. They have their own "evidence" to counter yours. Of course, their "evidence" is not as good a quality as ours.

However, simply telling them that isn't going to work. I found the better approach is to demonstrate how high our standards of quality are. And, the best way to do that, is through practical applications.

There is no such thing as "Applied Intelligent Design", and getting into the reasons why are important. But, you must first establish that this discrepancy exists.

I agree.

By emphasizing practical applications, I am demonstrating just HOW MUCH we know evolution is true, or at least a reliable theory.

My argument is NOT "Evolution is true because it has practical applications."

My argument is more along the lines of "Evolution seems to be true enough, that we can get practical applications from it."




My emphasis on productivity is in the context of generating new empirical knowledge. And, that is what science is really all about, right? How could you disagree with that?

When I say that the investigation of "HOW can it evolve?" is more productive than the attitude of "It is impossible to have evolved", that is what I am talking about. Answering the question gains us more knowledge than the attitude of incredulity.


In my experience, I've never seen a Creationist get out of my arguments except through lying and exaggerating.

They might say "Well Creationism helped us predict that this thing was going to be more complex!", but when you ask follow up questions, their arguments never go beyond that level. It's just ends at "more complex". Then, I explain how Evolution not only predicted that same thing might be 'more complicated', but exactly what complications we can expect, by studying it in terms of fitness against a landscape.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this? Exactly what arguments are we handing over to Creationists with my attitude?

You are handing over to creationist the finality of your conclusion. You have exhausted all other options. Incomplete transitional fossils, the limits of complex adaption and natural selection an amateur concept.

 

[Dinwar]

You are handing over to creationist the finality of your conclusion. You have exhausted all other options. Incomplete transitional fossils, the limits of complex adaption and natural selection an amateur concept.

Never speak for me again, justintime. This insane drivel has no relationship with what I was talking about. I will answer the question in my own time, and do not need you clouding the issue with this sort of nonsense.

 

[Wowbagger]

You are handing over to creationist the finality of your conclusion. You have exhausted all other options. Incomplete transitional fossils, the limits of complex adaption and natural selection an amateur concept.

I understand Dinwar is not pleased with this answer. So, I won't pretend it has anything to do with him. However, I will address it, anyway:

My approach might emphasize practical applications. But, it doesn't need to stay there!

When it is necessary to bring forward the evidence regarding specific things, such as transitional fossils, complex adaptations, etc; I can do so.

If a Creationist claims the fossil record is "incomplete" regarding transitions, we can first show them how the findings (even in 'incomplete' form) still match the nested-tree patterns we would predict from evolution.

Then, on top of that, we can bring the point home with a practical application or two regarding the findings of those transitions, if we can find some.

We might say, for example, "discoveries made in the transitional properties of these eyes is giving us insight into how and why glaucoma forms in our own eyes, and is yielding hints in how to we could prevent it from happening."

Though, to be honest, it is usually pretty hard to be able to find examples as dramatic as that one, especially on short notice. But, I do dish them out, whenever I happen to hit upon one.

 

[Brian-M]

Out of the millions and billions of things credited with intelligent design you pick on some insignificant adaptive failures of a few organism.

I don't see how this is a valid objection to his post. You won't find many organisms with significant adaptive failures because those organisms tend to go extinct, and you can't reasonably fit more than a small number of examples in a post.