An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[Ryan]

<< Evolution is a FACT AND a THEORY Rahvin, You (and others, I am not picking on Rahvin) need to use a more specific term than "Evolution". Is Evolution a FACT? Only if you consider a very small part of what all comes under the subject by that name. Some "evolutionary" processes have been observed. BUT, by and large, what most people mean when they say Evolution is most certainly not Fact. At best, it is a theory supported by scant evidence. The preponderance of supporters has more to do with a lack of competing theories than substantial evidence FOR Evolution. The truth is that there is so little evidence, that any concrete statement for the General Theory of Evolution is a statement of faith. John >>



So little evidence?!?!?! There is evidence PROVING Evolution, tons of it. I have yet to see ANY evidence proving creationism.

 

[rahvin]

<< You (and others, I am not picking on Rahvin) need to use a more specific term than "Evolution". Is Evolution a FACT? Only if you consider a very small part of what all comes under the subject by that name. Some "evolutionary" processes have been observed. BUT, by and large, what most people mean when they say Evolution is most certainly not Fact. At best, it is a theory supported by scant evidence. The preponderance of supporters has more to do with a lack of competing theories than substantial evidence FOR Evolution. The truth is that there is so little evidence, that any concrete statement for the General Theory of Evolution is a statement of faith. >>



Did you read Gould's quote above? Do you know who Gould is? Here are some more for you:



<< Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983 >>





<< It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. >>





<< Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434 >>





<< Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution - that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p.972 >>



And finally, what is evolution.



<< First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. >>

 

[straubs]

<< My problem with evolution and its theories is that we are supposed to beleive that all the factors that are needed to make up the planet and its life sustaning process came into existence accidentally. When you look at the planet and how everything ties in together you realize that one process can't exist without the other. So the question that needs to be answered how is it possible for organisms and other processes to take millions of years to evolve when current science shows that the Earth needs those conditions to survive. For example, plants need carbon dioxide which animals and humans give out. Humans and animals need oxygen which plants put out, so if one of those factors took millions of years to develop how was the other life sustained?

Thats a very simplified example, but it gives us an idea of how the planet's ecological system works. There are thousands upon thousands of processes that work together in order for our planet to sustain life. If you were to completely remove or alter those processes then life would cease to exist, what evolution fails to explain is how would life continue if these things were not in place while millions of years in the evolving cycle took place. >>




So then you believe in creationism? I hope not!

It would be strange to wonder in disbelief how this could have happened so perfectly, but then believe that "God" went *poof* and there appeared the universe. That's definitely more believable! ROTFL

 

[straubs]

<< As I said before, there's way too much luck involved in the theory of evolution. I find it highly unlikely that these specific changes occurred at the exact same time in the exact same place so that these two whatevers could get together and procreate to prolong the existence of the species. I have to go with Genesis on this one. >>




And it's more likely that some "deity" waved his wand and suddenly there were humans???

 

[straubs]

<< So little evidence?!?!?! There is evidence PROVING Evolution, tons of it. I have yet to see ANY evidence proving creationism. >>




<nods head wildly>

 

[BoberFett]

I don't believe in pure creationism, but I have doubts about pure evolution as well.

One of the points that confuses me most is reproduction. If anyone could give me a solid answer I'd be grateful. That means no answers like "it had to have happened that way because evolution is true".

There are two types of reproduction, asexual and sexual. Asexual reproduction is an evolutionary dream, because any mutations in the individual will be carried over to the "child" which may or may not be beneficial to it's survival and subsequent reproduction.

But how do large leaps in evolution occur during sexual reproduction? Features such as height, skin color, hair color, eye color, or anything "skin deep" are all variants of the same DNA structures. But how does a species evolve into a different species? That means something that isn't just a variant on an existing trait. I'm talking about completely new traits.

Any two humans can reproduce, the DNA is an exact fit. The strands combine perfectly to create a child. A human and an ape can't reproduce, they're too different. How different can DNA be to produce offspring? If the mutation of the individual involved different DNA structures than the rest of the species, how would it reproduce to pass those features on?

I hope I'm making sense here, if not let me know and I'll try to clarify.

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn! Sorry Bober, my shot at your answer went poof about 3/4th through. Maybe somebody else will try.

 

[BoberFett]

Bump

Thanks for trying Moonbeam. Anyone else wanna take a stab?

 

[KokomoGST]

<< Basically, if a life-form is able to form in harsh conditions (like ancient Earth) it already has the necessary characteristics to survive in those conditions. It is kinda of "survival of the fittest", the inferior life-forms never even got the chance to multiply and grow, whereas the one that was most fit survived. >>

Isn't that natural selection? Not biological evolution?

 

[BoberFett]

I know I was a little late to the party, but where'd everyone go? Surely there must be someone who can answer my question.

It's been pointed out in this thread that humans share 99% of our DNA, and that this fact alone should be enough proof that we have a common ancestry. Well where did that other 1% come from? Obviously sharing 99% isn't enough, because I've never heard of any successful human/ape matings. So is 99.9% close enough to mate? Or 99.99999%? Are there any two species that can mate today without a 100% match and have offspring that live?

Isn't it the mule that's a mix between a donkey and horse? Look at what happened there, the damn things are sterile. Not a good way to pass on mutations.

I will keep bumping this until it gets answered.

Although I believe before that happens I'll get lots of replies stating that I'm a religious zealot because I don't believe in evolution blindly.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not a geneticist so others could better answer, but.......

First off chimps and humans can probably bread, but scientific proof is concidered unethical.

A large breeding population promote genetic stability because mutations are randon and many genes are recessive. A large population prevents inbreeding and the homozygous expression of recessive genes that express pheontypically and thus expose themselves to selective pressures. A large mixing population then prevents speciation from occuring. Now consider what happens when a small population is split off from a larger one and genetically isolated say by orogenesis. In that case all the genes the population carries that are recessive will be expressed phenotypically, leading, doubtless to death, in most cases, but maybe to some selective advantage in some others. This hidden trait can thus become expressed in the general population. Also, if the population remains small, mutations that would remain invisible in a large group will express more quickly. Since mutations are random different ones will occur in the split off than in the parent body. Thus over time, especially with different environmental factors at work, presumably in different geographic locations, the populations will drift apart genetically such that in time they will be very different genetically even if they look alike, form following function. With slight differences in selective pressures form will drift in different directions randomly which will mean that with every difference the options for future differences will differ. Specialization will lead to sophisticated, but potentially dead end survival strategies. The origin of feathers may have been the result of some mutation to scales that caused some frizziness that did nothing good or bad for a million years but may have begun to acquire an insulative effect that confered survivability but may have made animals that evolved flight particularly suited to it. In such a way birds dominate the world of flight. So evolution works on what is at hand and mutation creates the palate.

As to any two humans being able to reproduce, I know you weren't thinking of me so we'll leave that point here.

I don't know how different two species have to be not to be able to reproduce. We are 98+% chimp, but way more than 99% identical as humans. I forgit the decimal places. But you can get a situation like the horse and donkey. You get a mule when you cross them, but they are sterile. There are mice of the same species that are 10% different which is why I say we are chimps and that we, I mean you, can likely breed with them.


Maybe somebody else will do the DNA part.

 

[yodayoda]

<< Bump

Thanks for trying Moonbeam. Anyone else wanna take a stab? >>



i would like to have a try. first off, i want to give you a little background about myself. i regard myself as a pretty serious scientist--i have degrees in biology and computer science. i did some work in medical school before deciding to get a phd in computer science, but i do quite a bit of biological research too. however, none of these things preclude me from being a religious person--as it turns out, i am a muslim, but i could be a devout christian, jew, hindu, sikh, etc.

religion and science are not mutual exclusive--in fact, there are quite fundamentally different systems that are not in the same boat. for instance, the chief engine of support for religion is faith. in fact, the word "faith" is often synonymous with religion. we believe our respective religions on faith: faith in the existence of God or gods, faith in superhuman acts, etc. science, on the other hand, is based mostly on experimentation, observation, and reasoning through this to make consistent statements. this engine of science is called "empiricism."

some people must think that we each have an internal pendulum that swings either towards religion or to science. but this is not true; we each actually have two pendula that independently swing. people who strongly believe one and not at all the other have shut their minds and are committing an egregious error to each of their respective beliefs. this is a weird quirk but one thing that both religion and science have in common is open-mindedness. science teachs that one must take all observations in, work through them, then decide what is right, NOT to off hand discard an idea. religion (in theory) teaches ideals of forgiveness and generosity and charges wrath as a deadly sin.

ok, on to evolution. the thing you have to realize about evolution is that it is an idea that itself is evolving. it is not a static thing--as we discover more about the Earth, we adjust, refine, and make better our understanding of evolution. one of the most important new changes in evolutionary thought is punctuated evolution by Stephen J. Gould. he states that evolution is not a constant process that occurs at a regular rate, but has an ebb and flow. at times, species remain relatively constant while at other times, perhaps due to a great stress, species evolve at an accelerated pace.

but your specific question was regarding sexual reproduction and how new species are made. the process of speciation is an offshoot of evolution and is NOT all of evolution. speciation occurs when two populations of a species become sexually incompatible and can no longer produce viable, reproductive offspring. an example is a donkey and a horse. these two species seem very similar and can actually mate, resulting in a mule as an offspring. however, the mule itself is sterile and cannot make new mules, hence the donkey and the horse belong to different species.

two populations can diverge and become separate species in many ways. one way is physical: geography. an example of this is the darwin finches of the galapagos islands. the galapagos islands actually broke off of south america and were moved by plate tectonics away from the continent. a population of finches were on these islands, and became isolated from one another. each island had some variations from one another--different plants and seeds present, different trees for homes, etc. these finches each bacame adapted to their respective island with different shaped beaks to crack the seeds and different plummage for camoflage to their homes. in fact, these finches after several thousands of years may PHYSICALLY look so different that they would be unattracted to each other (different mating dances, different plummage) and hence could not reproduce efficiently. a study of their DNA may reveal very common DNA sequences, yet they cannot reproduce and produce viable, reproductive offspring and thus are different species.

there are many other ways of speciation and i have only touched on one. but suffice it to say, the process of creating new species is a slow procedure and sometimes surprises us. for instance, lions and tigers are actually able to mate and produce offspring, often called ligers. but think about a chihuahua and a great dame. sure, they are both dogs but are these two breeds going to mate? a female chihuahua may produce pheremones and eroticize a male great dane, but the resultant mating would probably leave the female dead. hence, if they can't physically reproduce, they could diverge over a number of years sufficiently that they could not have viable offspring. i hope this rant help ya out boberfett =)

 

[Deleted member 4644]

In general change doesnt occur that fast in the world. If changes occurs too rapidly for an organism to adapt, two things happen-- either it migrates to a better climate, or it dies out. The death of the millions of dead species proves that evolution can only occur at a slow rate.

 

[Rakkis]

BoberFett:

--- you said: ---
There are two types of reproduction, asexual and sexual. Asexual reproduction is an evolutionary dream, because any mutations in the individual will be carried over to the "child" which may or may not be beneficial to it's survival and subsequent reproduction.
-------------------

By this, I understood that you believe mutations are passed on during ONLY asexual reproduction. Mutations in germ cells (e.g. sperm and ova in our case) can lead to mutations when organisms produce asexually.

Most mutations are "variants of the same DNA structures". Do not think of DNA as coding for a leg or a wing. DNA does *not* code for structures. It codes for proteins. It is the interations of these proteins that result in characteristics you and I can see (the phenotype of the animal). The absence of a protein at a crucial time can, for example, have an animal have little tumpy things for feet instead of apendages because the protein, when present, promotes bone growth that leads to "finger" bones.

A somewhat lay-man-aimed, more detailed example about drosophila (fruit fly) and wing formation can be found here.


You might not think that changes like these lead to new, never-before seen mutations. But if you think about it we're basically the same animal as our good friend C. nematoda. We're carbon based, reproduce by DNA replication, and most of us survive on one of just 3 ways to get energy. Here's where all the homocentric, "MAN IS SUPERIOR TO ALL" zealots (and by this I do not mean people that follow a religious creed.. though there seem to be a dispropotionate number in this group) start jumping around and flaming me. But seriously.. we're not that different. My intent was to show you and other interested AT members that humans are not the be-all-end-all of carbon based organisms.

Lungs are most certainly not the same as breathing through skin like WORMS do!!! How do I explain such a novel feature as lungs?!?! Wait no.... lungs are basically modified, invaginated skin.

Certainly bones will stump me. How did bones arise from a soft-tissue organism? Wait.. no.... foiled again. Bones are but the calcified results of cell excretion.

Do not think me pompous, there certainly are many many things to which a clear explanation has not been found. Say... organisms that get their energy through chemical means that live along ocean vents. But just as we've been doing since the universe and our flat planet were constructed from fire, water, earth and fire, we continue to question and search for reasons. Sometimes we find them, sometimes we find more questions.


note: wow... this is my 2nd longest post. curious thing... my longest one is another post about evolution. : I

 

[skylark]

Architech: Asking why or where did bacteria come from in the beginning is trying to ask Science to associate it's birth by the divine hands of God. It's like asking what was before the birth of the universe. You basically answered your own question.

Bornstar:
My scientific upbringing was not neglected, my father is a chemist and I'm currently studying to be a computer engineer. I just think that the incredible amount of luck involved in evolution is well beyond what can be normally expected. Every mutation we've seen has resulted in premature death for the most part. Does that mean we have been perfected and there's nowhere else to go?

>>>Luck, aye? It tickles the fancy of an existenialist (sic), doesn't it? I have a hard time comprehending creationists: that we *are* the only lifeform in this universe divined by God. Are you sure God made the universe just for us? Dump us on a piece of rock out in the middle of nowhere and took off on us is more like it! *LOL Sure, the complexity of human life is evident ~ but using generic creationist logic of "there is just too much luck involved" really lacks much depth in understanding the scale of complexities.

What do you mean mutation causes death? Cancer?

And what's up with Evolution theory != factual? If it isn't, we might as find all the specialized fields that study evolution right down to the DNA a waste of time. Sure the ET it not 100%, but wait for another thousand year, the creation of life won't be that mysterious anymore. To date, the 'evolution' of creationism hasn't changed much - rather stuck in a past-time loop while the science of ET progresses steadily for the future.

Oh, I found this on another site. If anyone knows what the heck he's talking about, I'd like to hear it:

I am an Athiest. Due to the fact that I see evolution in the form of selective pressure every day at the molecular level. In my OPINION evolution and creation are at odds with each other. Personally, I don't understand how an individual believing in creation can be an objective scientist. But I digress...


quote:
1)the world is just too complex to happen by chance, our bodies are perfect examples of it cause it is sooooooo complicated, that i believed that a Higher Being ie. God created us.


I don't see the relevance of chance within evolution. Evolution is driven by energy minimization. Are you referring to a chance mutation in an organism's genome as "chance"? If so, I would argue that what you refer to isn't "chance" ... all of the machinery responsible for genome replication allows for a degree of randomness, or errors in replication. The "chance" is built into the ingenious system. It's allows for random mutations to propagate and for the environment to dictate which organisms "survive".

I also make the argument that we are encountering "reverse evolution" due to advancing medical technology. Every person with a heritable mutation that is "saved" by theraputic treatment and in turn procreates, in some respect hasn't been "selected" against and increases the incidence of that mutation within the population. Do I think we should withhold treatment, NEVER. Do I believe in a "perfect race"? NO! I am just proposing an argument that we will eventually reach an asymptotic point of evolution. Are we there yet? Perhaps. Who knows?


quote:
2)The so called fossil theory, we have old fossils but we seem to have a gap in the theory and it has never been found and never been explained. Also if we decended from monkeys and stuff, wouldn't there be fossil in the process of changing like humans with monkey tails and stuff.


While the "fossil theory" is interesting, I don't find it as conclusive as genome sequence analysis. Also, based on your tone concerning our descendency "from monkeys and stuff" it appears that you are appaled by this. I had several discussions with people upon the release of the tandem human sequencing projects. Most people can't believe that they only differ less than 2% from several species of monkies. It upsets them! That makes me sad. Science is very misunderstood, due to the inadequecy of the "scientific community" to connect with the general populous.

By the way, I would challange you to illustrate a "gap" in the predicted evolutionary systems based on highly conserved rRNA or cytochrome sequences. Those "missing" fossils possibly existed at one time, perhaps not now, or they may be yet "undiscovered".

Please excuse any typographical/grammatical errors and/or general confusion. I haven't slept in 24hrs as I am presenting a review of aerobic/anerobic respiration and photosynthesis focused on its impact on evolution. Life started in the deep sea at hydrothermal vents giving off IR radiation. Photosynthtic bacteria used inorganic ions as final electron acceptors to produce the oxygen in the atmosphere. Just my theory ... but I digress ...

 

[BoberFett]

yodayoda, Rakkis, Moonbeam

Thanks for the serious answers. Around here it's hard to get anything but zealotry from either camp; there's rarely any intelligent discussion.

I understand that species will adapt due to natural selection, and segregation of the population like Moonbeam mentioned. The issues with the finches on the Galapagos sound like they were mostly cosmetic, though I could be wrong. I'm sure it's painfully obvious to you that I'm no biologist, but I'll try to sound like I'm talking about.

Adaptation of species occur due environmental pressures and mating habits. The fact that humans are getting taller, giraffes necks are getting longer, or moths are changing color are all part of the adaptation part of evolution. But those are all variations on the same genetic material. What I want to know is how to more significant DNA mutations occur? Once a human is born, the only way to have your DNA changed is if your bitten by a radioactive spider. Am I wrong on this point? Once your DNA has spread to millions of cells since the time you were conceived, it's pretty much written in stone. So the only way genetic mutations can occur is through reproduction.

But how can that happen? As humans, we have DNA containing 23 chromosomes. Those are made up of thousands of genes which in turn are made up of thousands of base pairs. How will humans evolve beyound those current counts? Will humans evolve into something that has 24 chromosomes? Is that possible? It must be under current evolutionary theory, but I have yet to find a source that explains how.

Unless a mutation occurred simultaneously in a male and female who then reproduced, that mutation would be lost. Lets say a human had one of those chromosomes mutated somehow so that it was a single base pair longer than other humans. What happens when he reproduces with one of those "average" human females? Does the offspring just have an extra bit hanging off the end of one of those chromosomes?

 

[rahvin]

<< But how can that happen? As humans, we have DNA containing 23 chromosomes. Those are made up of thousands of genes which in turn are made up of thousands of base pairs. How will humans evolve beyound those current counts? Will humans evolve into something that has 24 chromosomes? Is that possible? It must be under current evolutionary theory, but I have yet to find a source that explains how. >>



There are actually 23 pairs of chromosomes. Did you know there are humans born with an extra chromosome? So instead of 23 pairs they have 22 pairs and one triple. We call this mutation "Down Syndrome". There is also in nearly every living organism as sequence of genes that will trigger massive mutations. If activated this causes the proteins that are charged with correcting errors in our DNA to run around inserting random sequences. We don't know what triggers this sequence, but it does exist and effort is expended to preserve it.



<< Unless a mutation occurred simultaneously in a male and female who then reproduced, that mutation would be lost. >>



The beauty of our DNA is that there is a lot of stuff out there in it that is ressesive. Start sticking sequences in and they could end up recessive and cause no damage, but if you make a change to a dominant gene you don't need a partner that has that mutation, if the offspring get the gene they have the mutation.

The complexity of DNA is well beyond what I can describe here. There is a book called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan that attempts to explain this complexity for the lay man and why Molecular biology (the study of DNA) provides more proof for evolution than any other branch of science.

 

[Fritzo]

<< We are clearly evolved from apes/monkeys.


There is no evidence that man evolved apes or any other animal for that matter. Whats interesting about that subject is that virtually every scientist who has tried to use fossils as the missing link between the so called prehistoric man and modern man has ultimately been proved a fraud. >>



Huh? Can you provide some evidence of that statement? I've never seen a news story saying "Fossil of early man proved fake." They've got the fossil record pretty well documented showing various stages of man, offshoot species of man, and related species. I'm not sure why evolution is still an argument.

 

[Mephistokur]

<< My problem with evolution and its theories is that we are supposed to beleive that all the factors that are needed to make up the planet and its life sustaning process came into existence accidentally. When you look at the planet and how everything ties in together you realize that one process can't exist without the other. So the question that needs to be answered how is it possible for organisms and other processes to take millions of years to evolve when current science shows that the Earth needs those conditions to survive. For example, plants need carbon dioxide which animals and humans give out. Humans and animals need oxygen which plants put out, so if one of those factors took millions of years to develop how was the other life sustained?

Thats a very simplified example, but it gives us an idea of how the planet's ecological system works. There are thousands upon thousands of processes that work together in order for our planet to sustain life. If you were to completely remove or alter those processes then life would cease to exist, what evolution fails to explain is how would life continue if these things were not in place while millions of years in the evolving cycle took place. >>



Improper assumption. The fact that all life on this planet is *suited* to live here does not mean that it did not evolve to do so. Basically, the reason all life on earth is suited to live on Earth is because it evolved on Earth. Of *course* if a major environmental change happened, most of life on Earth would die.

 

[Mephistokur]

<<

OK lets just say that I accepted the beleif that life started as bacteria that in itself leads to a multitude of questions.

For example where did the bacteria come?

Why was there even a need for bacteria to evolve? And if the enviroment stimulated the bacteria to evolve what changed the enviroment? >>



Who said anything about it starting on Earth?
We know for a fact that the Earth has been bombarded by meteorites and astroids for its entire existence. We also know for a fact that some of these rocks are "dirty" with life. Want an example? Remember the rocks that were positively ID as from Mars but found in the Antarctic? That had fossilized organisms on them.

You have just proven the main reason why creationism just doesn't work. Creationists assume from the start that the Earth and Humans themselves are the center of the universe. Let me give you a hint: There are nine other planets in this solar system alone. Plus the moons of those planets. There is one other planet *just in this system* that has been proven to have once had life on it. Two other worlds in this system (both of them moons, BTW) that we have found ICE on. WATER ICE. Now, take that small chance for life and multiply it by, just to be fair, the 50-60 other planetary systems that we *know* exist.

This is the background of science. The absolute insignificance of the Human Race.

 

[Mephistokur]

<<

<< Evolution is not a theory. It is a FACT. Religions just choose to ignore the facts in order to stay consistent with the bible. >>



"Evolution is a theory, one that has increasingly been supported by a mounting body of genetic evidence." - Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology

The earth being flat was a fact too...

>>



The Earth being flat was a theory that was propagated by ignorance and the church. Let us not forget that according to the church, it was a FACT that the sun revolved around the Earth, too.

 

[Lalakai]

the theory of evolution also incorporates the "random factor" idea, along with "mutation". Both of these ideas preclude a prolonged adaptation, presenting instead, quick modifications/changes. Many of these modifications/changes do not survive, but the ones that do, take a short-cut across years of change, and can suddenly introduce new variables that are more suitable for survival. These new variables are passed along in subsequent off-spring.

overall though, this'll be a good flame-fest for creationism vs evolution, but I think it'll be the same players using the same dialog, with increased forcefulness. Hmmmmmmm, might that be called "stagnation"??? Taking that a bit further, could you call truly an "evolutionist" as such, if they can't adapt to new thinking??? A "creationist" is easier to label as they don't think for themselves but merely voice doctrine. Yuck, this slope is getting more slippery all the time.

 

[BoberFett]

<< There are actually 23 pairs of chromosomes. Did you know there are humans born with an extra chromosome? So instead of 23 pairs they have 22 pairs and one triple. We call this mutation "Down Syndrome". There is also in nearly every living organism as sequence of genes that will trigger massive mutations. If activated this causes the proteins that are charged with correcting errors in our DNA to run around inserting random sequences. We don't know what triggers this sequence, but it does exist and effort is expended to preserve it. >>

Yep 23 pairs, 46 chromosomes. As I said, I'm no biologist.

And I hope Down's Syndrome isn't what the future holds for mankind. We have enough problems as it is.

<< The beauty of our DNA is that there is a lot of stuff out there in it that is ressesive. Start sticking sequences in and they could end up recessive and cause no damage, but if you make a change to a dominant gene you don't need a partner that has that mutation, if the offspring get the gene they have the mutation. >>

OK, but my biggest question still remains. How different can two things be to procreate?

<< The complexity of DNA is well beyond what I can describe here. There is a book called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan that attempts to explain this complexity for the lay man and why Molecular biology (the study of DNA) provides more proof for evolution than any other branch of science. >>

I'll check out the book. But I still don't buy evolution as it stands.

 

[CTweak]

What I don't get is the fact that creationist always love to point at the percieved flaws in evolution theories, always coming to the "Yea, well how did the first organisim just 'happen'"? So why can't they ask themselves, since they beleive that Mr Sky-Daddy created the whole thing, "Yea, well how did Sky-Daddy 'just happen'"?

Either way you're faced with the age old 'how did it all start' question. A question we simple cannot answer beyond doubt. So why fight about it? Niether side can 'prove' anything. At least the scientist (read: evolutionist) are not usually dogmatic in thinking that there is only one answer, and usually are constantly trying to figure out how the whole thing works/worked.

 

[rahvin]

<< OK, but my biggest question still remains. How different can two things be to procreate? >>



There are levels of difference, minor differences present no problems. Add up a number of minor differences and you have major differences. All life on earth changes over time, the new species are a result of population splits where there is no comixing between the groups. As each group makes minor changes and adaptions to their enivornment the two groups begin to diverge on a larger scale, factor in thousands and millions of years and massive divergences can occur.



<< But I still don't buy evolution as it stands. >>



Doubt is good, but let me ask you a question. Cave fish are born without eyes, although they have a structure (socket & tissue physically resembling an eye) where an eye used to be. Without evolution how would you explain why the cave fish appears to have had an eye? As another example, whales have a pelvis and leg bones. Why would a whale, a water born mammal require a pelvis and leg bones?