Evolution: the Facts.

[Henners]

...and you can discuss anything you like, as you well know.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm waiting for people to answer my question.

So, unless this has been covered already, what other processes would be necessary for the beginning of the very beginnings of life, in mono cellular form?

You just told me that we have to think on those processes. This is Q&A period, not "what-you-should-research" period.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm confused here. The OP brought up the origin of life and ways to tell the age of the Earth, but it seems like we can only discuss species-ation?

Have you read where we've already covered this subject in the thread?

What we end up with at the moment is a series of "best guesses", based upon the knowledge we have of the conditions at the time. I guess that's probably the major problem - until we get that composition right, we're largely dancing in the dark, as Miller-Urey showed. Pretty hard to be exact based on data we don't have in its entirety, but we'll get there.

...and you can discuss anything you like, as you well know.

Sure, relating to the subject and as Lone has said, abiogenesis is a big part, because without the start we wouldn't be here talking about it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Have you read where we've already covered this subject in the thread?

Obviously not.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But abiogenesis is still very important when discussing the origin of life, which is a very common thread of discussion, especially when considering what the OP is really about. "How did life arise" was brought up as a key point of discussion for this thread.

Please note here, what I said, and what the response was:

Note I didn't ever mention "evolution". Then, Henners comes in to save the day.

I didn't bring up "evolution", he did. He then dismissed the entire line of discussion by saying that it had nothing to do with evolution.

I'm confused here. The OP brought up the origin of life and ways to tell the age of the Earth, but it seems like we can only discuss species-ation?

I was responding to your citation of Cosmos. But you're right though, the OP does raise () the issue of how life arose. Have you checked out the Talk Origins FAQs on abiogenesis? They have a couple of good ones that will serve as a starting point if you want to move beyond Miller-Urey.

 

[Henners]

we're largely dancing in the dark, as Miller-Urey showed

Don't be too hard on them, Athiest. Just because they made a reasonable guess about the early Earth that turned out to be wrong, doesn't mean that life didn't start off in those conditions somewhere else in the universe.

 

[arthwollipot]

To sum up, most "evolutionists" would agree that abiogenesis does not play a part in the theory of evolution. Evolution happens regardless of how life got started. However, in my experience creationists usually conflate abiogenesis (and for that matter the Big Bang) with evolution, because they confuse evolution with philosophical naturalism. Thus I think it is important to include it in any listing of "evolution: the facts".

 

[Dr Adequate]

I added a piece on [swiki]Reproducibility[/swiki] to the Principles of Science section, with a link to it from the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki], icrouse its one of the things creationists tend to get ludicrously wrong. Enjoy.

 

[steenkh]

Enjoy.

I did! Thank you!

It actually cleared my mind about how to argue this point in the future.

 

[steenkh]

One creationist argument that I have heard often, but which is not covered in the list is this:
"Evolution must be wrong because a dog can only evolve into another dog, it never evolves into a butterfly, just like a piece of dung never will evolve into a human being".

The argument is so nonsensical, that I actually find it hard to decide on which part of the argument is the best to attack first.

 

[Vorticity]

One creationist argument that I have heard often, but which is not covered in the list is this:
"Evolution must be wrong because a dog can only evolve into another dog, it never evolves into a butterfly, just like a piece of dung never will evolve into a human being".

The argument is so nonsensical, that I actually find it hard to decide on which part of the argument is the best to attack first.

Well, as you've stated it, the argument is of course circular and meaningless.

I've always heard it in the following very slightly less nonsensical (though still wrong) form:

"Evolution must be wrong because a dog can only give birth to another dog, it never gives birth to a butterfly, just like a monkey will never give birth to a human being".

This is usually proffered by creationists who have no idea what the theory of evolution actually is. They have no notion of incrementalism, and have often been taught that the "theory of evolution" says that "one day on the savanna, an ape spontaneously transmogrified into a man", or perhaps "one day, squillions of years ago, a tomato gave birth to a leopard."

 

[Dr Adequate]

One creationist argument that I have heard often, but which is not covered in the list is this:
"Evolution must be wrong because a dog can only evolve into another dog, it never evolves into a butterfly, just like a piece of dung never will evolve into a human being".

The argument is so nonsensical, that I actually find it hard to decide on which part of the argument is the best to attack first.

How about: "As the theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into anything at all, not even another dog, as you for some reason claim, the observation that this never happens is in accordance with the theory of evolution."

 

[steenkh]

How about: "As the theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into anything at all, not even another dog, as you for some reason claim, the observation that this never happens is in accordance with the theory of evolution."

Although correct, I have the feeling that this will not be a very persuasive argument!

 

[sphenisc]

How about: "As the theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into anything at all, not even another dog, as you for some reason claim, the observation that this never happens is in accordance with the theory of evolution."

From Marvin Minsky:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

Is a dog a population of things that reproduce? It's made of dog cells, so 'yes'.
Do they reproduce at different rates in different environments? I'm guessing a dog spermatogonium reproduces more rapidly than an astrocyte, so 'yes'.

Does a dog cell have a collection of inheritable traits? Yes
Do the rates of reproduction depend on those traits? Well, the type of cell cetainly influences its rate of reproduction, and the type is related to, the amongst other things, the epigenetics which are trait which can be inherited - so 'yes'.

[Wiki - Because all cells within an organism inherit the same DNA sequences, cellular differentiation processes crucial for epigenesis rely strongly on epigenetic rather than genetic inheritance. ]

Are those traits subject to occasional mutation? This dependes on your definition of "occasional", but certainly alterations of the epigenetic status of a cell do occur - so a provisional 'yes'.

Are some of those mutations inherited - 'yes'.

So I'd argue that the changes in a dog, over time, are a thinly disguised form of evolution, which we happen to call 'development', and what prevents a dog evolving into a butterfly? extinction.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not everything that's described by Minsky's "theorem" is evolution in the sense that we're discussing it. It would be an abuse of language to call a dog getting cancer "a dog evolving into another dog". That's not what the phrase would mean. We might talk about the cancer evolving --- we do --- but not the dog.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, I've tried everything else, now I'm going to threaten suicide.

Someone besides me try to do something or I will slit my sodding wrists.

I could weep.

Most of you are willing to spend any amount of time carefully explaining science to morons who are off their heads and who blank out anything factual you might say to them, and now you're asked to explain it to thousands of sane intelligent people who might actually listen, and you all shut up.

Oh for ****'s sake.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, I've tried everything else, now I'm going to threaten suicide.

Someone besides me try to do something or I will slit my sodding wrists.

Well, I'd love to, but in the immortal words of Spike Milligan, I don't know enough knowledge.

(Slitting wrists is very messy, if you do it right)

 

[articulett]

Okay, I've tried everything else, now I'm going to threaten suicide.

Someone besides me try to do something or I will slit my sodding wrists.

I could weep.

Most of you are willing to spend any amount of time carefully explaining science to morons who are off their heads and who blank out anything factual you might say to them, and now you're asked to explain it to thousands of sane intelligent people who might actually listen, and you all shut up.

Oh for ****'s sake.

Well we are building our own knowledge and confidence (and exercising our frustration) by baiting the woo... come on-- you've done it too. This is what will work Dr. A-- Ask people to write something specific... refer to a post of theirs that you thought was well written or useful and I'm sure they'll be glad to give it a go. We just don't know who or what you think is clear or useful or worded well.

Here's something I learned about human psychology... If you need help don't do this: http://streetlights.tripod.com/queens/kitty-genovese.html

But it's not apathy as the article suggests--it's uncertainty... http://objectivistcenter.org/ct-25-Why_Did_Kitty_Genovese_Die.aspx

So instead of screaming in the crowd, focus on someone specific...grab their eyes (or ears) and say, "hey sir call the police!"-- When you vent at crowds people will assume someone better equipped or more in on the situation will take care of it-- but if you give someone specific a specific job or directive (and flatter their writing on the topic in this case) then people rush to help.

We just don't know who you are talking to or what it is you want of whom and we don't want to be the one impeding the goal or the clueless person who calls the cops on a neighbor's screams only to find out someone was just having a really good orgasm.

 

[joobz]

Okay, I've tried everything else, now I'm going to threaten suicide.

Someone besides me try to do something or I will slit my sodding wrists.

I could weep.

Most of you are willing to spend any amount of time carefully explaining science to morons who are off their heads and who blank out anything factual you might say to them, and now you're asked to explain it to thousands of sane intelligent people who might actually listen, and you all shut up.

Oh for ****'s sake.

As a "sticky' relating to the "FACTS of EVOLUTION" I thought it inappropriate to post anything that would dilute the intellectual content contained. I do not view myself as informed enough to speak authoritatively on the topic. There are many people here much more qualified to handle the topic.

If there was a "sticky" thread on drug delivery, biomaterials or polymer chemistry, I'd be there instantly. But evolution isn't my field.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Saving Kitty Genovese

Well we are building our own knowledge and confidence (and exercising our frustration) by baiting the woo... come on-- you've done it too. This is what will work Dr. A-- Ask people to write something specific... refer to a post of theirs that you thought was well written or useful and I'm sure they'll be glad to give it a go. We just don't know who or what you think is clear or useful or worded well.

Here's something I learned about human psychology... If you need help don't do this: http://streetlights.tripod.com/queens/kitty-genovese.html

But it's not apathy as the article suggests--it's uncertainty... http://objectivistcenter.org/ct-25-Why_Did_Kitty_Genovese_Die.aspx

So instead of screaming in the crowd, focus on someone specific...grab their eyes (or ears) and say, "hey sir call the police!"-- When you vent at crowds people will assume someone better equipped or more in on the situation will take care of it-- but if you give someone specific a specific job or directive (and flatter their writing on the topic in this case) then people rush to help.

We just don't know who you are talking to or what it is you want of whom and we don't want to be the one impeding the goal or the clueless person who calls the cops on a neighbor's screams only to find out someone was just having a really good orgasm.

Yes, I know the story of Kitty Genovese.

I know it well.

I first read the story when I was in my teens, and like you (as I suppose) I read it in a psychology textbook. She was murdered, and three dozen witnesses watched, and one of them might have called the police, but they didn't because each of them thought that someone else would do that. So each of them just watched as she was murdered.

Yes, I read the story --- and so I resolved never to do likewise.

You write: "When you vent at crowds people will assume someone better equipped or more in on the situation will take care of it ..." Well, I am that man in that crowd, as I know from painful and terrifying experience. I am not "better equipped", nor am I "more in on the situation". But I have read about Kitty Genovese.

And I will save Kitty Genovese, though I give my life to do so.

And you ... you explain how you will be a bystander, how you will do nothing, and your stated reason for doing so is that the witnesses watched Kitty Genovese die. Do you not realise that the whole point of the story is that if one person had intervened, as it might have been you or me, Kitty Genovese might have lived? Her story does not prove that we should be bystanders, apathetic, sitting on our hands. It proves the very opposite. The moral of her death is that one person can make a difference, and that we should be ashamed of and disgusted with ourselves if we neglect the chance to be that one person.

Of course, I know full well that the cause that I call you to is not so urgent. Kitty Genovese was a living woman, and when she was murdered, she was dead, and that was the end of her. Whereas the truth, as I trust, may be spat upon, assaulted, raped, mutilated, murdered, and yet will rise again.

But we are still responsible, if we do nothing but look on.

Let us act.

Let us do whatever little we can.

Before we die, before we fail, before we go down into the great darkness alone ---

--- let us save Kitty Genovese.