Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Brigandier]

Has anyone actually crunched the numbers to even see if this is possible? It would be difficult, but not impossible using the natural rate of mutation in a given species.

Anyway, there are other limitations to mutation. Mutation has never been shown to add new information to a genome.. It can only change, or rearrange what is already there.

So with that said, how is it that we have so much bio diversity on Earth, given that mutation itself has such inherent limitations?

The rate of evolution is exponential, when there were few species on the planet earth, mutation could not do much, the longer it goes on, however, the more it can do. The more complex an organism, the slower its rate of reproduction and therefore the slower the rate of mutation. Life started at single cells with reproductive cycles measured in minutes, each day 1500 new generations happened, with slight mutations, eventually some did better, and when they evolved motility, they moved elsewhere. Their moving produced new stresses on the population, so new mutations were beneficial. Still at a reproductive day(or so), millions of years ago, they did this, moving and mutating. thousands of times a year, for millions of years.

If you cannot see how this causes biodiversity, I cannot help you.

Remember the things living on this planet have been living for hundreds of millions of years, some species died, but the kingdoms of biology still survive. Dinosaurs are dead and we still have reptiles, and the death of large reptiles can be entirely attributed to the ice ages. Some dinosaurs survived, by having warm blood, we call them birds.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Anyway, there are other limitations to mutation. Mutation has never been shown to add new information to a genome.. It can only change, or rearrange what is already there.

I see you're still blindly copy-pasting Creationist dogma without bothering to search for counter-arguments.

"Mutation has never been shown to add new information to a genome" - a quick search turns up the Creationists spouting that, but also real science refuting it, like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...s-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

If you aren't going to do your homework you should just go back to relying on faith.

 

[DrPizza]

found the banned member who this thread reminded me of:

PhineasJWhoopee last post was 10/27/10

Because there is no evidence that it does. Scientists have performed countless experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, exposing them to all kinds of environmental stress over hundreds or thousands of generations, and yet, even though the organisms mutate, they do not mutate into another species entirely.

Mutations are far more likely to be neutral, harmful or fatal, than beneficial. In fact, cells have defenses and repair mechanisms against mutation!

Why would cells have such defenses against mutations if mutations were necessary for evolution?

Relying on random mutation as the engine that drives evolutionary changes is definitely a weak point in the theory of evolution.

Okay, either you're very stupid, else lying again. Cells have defenses against mutation - and when those don't work, we end up with things like cancer. Lots of people get cancer. Obviously, there are lots of mutations that go unrepaired. Nonetheless, a cell on my left knuckle isn't going to turn into a new species, or even the same species. And, mutations also occur as sperm or eggs are formed. Not all of these are corrected either. Sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it's neutral, sometimes it's neither.

However, random mutation is NOT a weak point in the theory of evolution as you apparently dismiss it as. Care to back that up with a peer reviewed article (i.e. not a bullshit article?) Random mutation is actually a strong point in the theory of evolution.

What mutations that you're aware of were actually beneficial?

Scientists have studied the effects of mutations on fruit flies in labs over countless generations, by exposing them to radiation and increasing the rate of mutation by several orders of magnitude, yet all they ever got were deformed fruit flies.

With over decades of research in mutation and it's effects, why is it that no new species was ever created?

Surely, if mutation were the primary cause of evolution, then why is it so damn hard to make positive mutations, much less create a new species entirely?

I quoted the first poster about Phineas. Go back and look at some of his posts. He wasn't a freaking retard. He would never have made this post that I just quoted. Hey idiot. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA. Their mutations resulted in strains that aren't affected by things like penicillin.

AND QUIT BEING A TROLL (of course, you created this thread purely to troll. Problem is, you're not smart enough to do so very well.) It's been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread that speciation takes a LONG time - MUCH longer than a few generations in a lab.




Hey, I have an idea, answer this question: how old is the Earth?

 

[Aikouka]

*sigh*
Irreducible complexity, huh? That's a claim made by one group, and one group only - creationists.

"Irreducible complexity" is the fun little buzzword of a different theory -- Intelligent Design.

I had a fun Philosophy course in college called History of Science and Metaphysics where the professor seemed to have a hard-on for Intelligent Design, and trust me... I heard all about the flagellum. I even heard the nice visual example, "it's like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and assembling a working Boeing 747."

The one other thing I learned is that you never call a person that believes in Intelligent Design a "creationist." Those people are just religious dogmatists! Although, to me... ID is kind of like the Agnostic Theist's own form of creationism.

there are only TWO main points of contention between Biblical creationists and science - Big Bang, and evolution.

You know... I think there are some smarter creationists out there. I know how crazy that sentence sounds, but let's take a peek at holidays. There must have been some smart guy that said, "hey... let's take some of these Pagan ideals and put them innocuously into our own celebrations." That's where something like "Theistic Evolution" comes into play. It pretty much says, "evolution happened, but God caused it!"

With over decades of research in mutation and it's effects, why is it that no new species was ever created?

I think you're drastically misinterpreting what should happen. Chances are you won't blast something with radiation and get some magical new species. At most, you may notice small changes over time, and do remember that one of the major concepts is adaptation.

At best, all you'll get are some annoyed fruit flies that are pissed that you keep zapping them with gamma rays expecting them to start stretching or turning invisible!

 

[DaveSimmons]

At best, all you'll get are some annoyed fruit flies that are pissed that you keep zapping them with gamma rays expecting them to start stretching or turning invisible!

No, you need to bombard the flies with cosmic rays to make them invisible or stretchy.

Gamma radiation turns them green with tiny purple pants but and gives them incredible strength. Fly smash!

 

[Aikouka]

No, you need to bombard the flies with cosmic rays to make them invisible or stretchy.

Gamma radiation turns them green with tiny purple pants but and gives them incredible strength. Fly smash!

I have failed as a nerd.

 

[DrPizza]

Has anyone actually crunched the numbers to even see if this is possible?

Seriously... are you that fucking stupid?!! Of course they have. Because if evolution wasn't possible, it would NOT be considered as fact by EVERYONE who has actually studied the subject.

 

[Carfax83]

The rate of evolution is exponential, when there were few species on the planet earth, mutation could not do much, the longer it goes on, however, the more it can do. The more complex an organism, the slower its rate of reproduction and therefore the slower the rate of mutation. Life started at single cells with reproductive cycles measured in minutes, each day 1500 new generations happened, with slight mutations, eventually some did better, and when they evolved motility, they moved elsewhere. Their moving produced new stresses on the population, so new mutations were beneficial. Still at a reproductive day(or so), millions of years ago, they did this, moving and mutating. thousands of times a year, for millions of years.
.

Well, apparently, mathematical calculations have already been done regarding whether evolution via mutation is possible.

In this article, a Mathematician gives his views on evolution.

Also, in 1966, there was an event called the Wistar symposium, in which world famous mathematicians and physicists converged a long with evolutionary biologists in Philadelphia to see whether evolution, as understood by Darwin, was mathematically possible.

Link

Here's an actual statement from one of the mathematicians involved:

"t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent."
(Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)

As far as I can tell, all of the other mathetmaticians and physicists expressed great skepticism to outright disbelief that darwinian evolution could produce the bio diversity now present on planet Earth.

 

[Carfax83]

I see you're still blindly copy-pasting Creationist dogma without bothering to search for counter-arguments.

"Mutation has never been shown to add new information to a genome" - a quick search turns up the Creationists spouting that, but also real science refuting it, like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...s-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

If you aren't going to do your homework you should just go back to relying on faith.

LOL, nice google work.. However, the examples in that "article" don't negate my comment, although admittedly I should have been more clear. I said in my OP, that mutation has never been shown to produce a completely new species from previous one.

Is speciation via mutation possible? Yes.. However, is macroevolution via mutation possible? No, and there is no evidence for this at all..

If there is, show me. Show me how one organism becomes something else entirely via mutation.

 

[Brigandier]

Well, apparently, mathematical calculations have already been done regarding whether evolution via mutation is possible.

In this article, a Mathematician gives his views on evolution.

Also, in 1966, there was an event called the Wistar symposium, in which world famous mathematicians and physicists converged a long with evolutionary biologists in Philadelphia to see whether evolution, as understood by Darwin, was mathematically possible.

Link

Here's an actual statement from one of the mathematicians involved:

"t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent."
(Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)

As far as I can tell, all of the other mathetmaticians and physicists expressed great skepticism to outright disbelief that darwinian evolution could produce the bio diversity now present on planet Earth.

Your post says it all, it takes thousands, near millions of generations to produce something new, life on this planet has those generations and more, can you admit defeat now?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, apparently, mathematical calculations have already been done regarding whether evolution via mutation is possible.

In this article, a Mathematician gives his views on evolution.

Also, in 1966, there was an event called the Wistar symposium, in which world famous mathematicians and physicists converged a long with evolutionary biologists in Philadelphia to see whether evolution, as understood by Darwin, was mathematically possible.

Link

Here's an actual statement from one of the mathematicians involved:

"t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent."
(Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)

As far as I can tell, all of the other mathetmaticians and physicists expressed great skepticism to outright disbelief that darwinian evolution could produce the bio diversity now present on planet Earth.

Still ignoring my posts, huh?

It seems that the thing that you don't understand about evolution is that it's not all in one go; it is a recursive process. Change. Select. Change. Select. On and on. Anybody that says that evolution is impossible or vanishingly improbable because all the necessary mutations required had to have happened in one go or in one sequence, is creating a straw man. And anyone else saying that it is similarly unlikely because the chances of ending up where we are now is highly improbable, is committing the Lottery Fallacy.

Also, why are you so enamoured with Michael Behe and Darwin's Black Box? That book is obsolete. Scientific progress has come along and made a laughingstock of it.

 

[AbAbber2k]

You're a joke, and so is the Wistar Symposium. You evolved through sweat and blood to become the most intelligent species on this planet... so fucking use your head like you were born to.

You again fail to understand the process of evolution.

Evolution is NOT just purely random mutation over time (how many times does it need to be explained to you?). In addition, THE ENTIRETY OF REALITY as it exists is the result of an infinitesimally small probability. So by your logic, nothing as it is today should exist in it's current form because the probability is near zero!

 

[AbAbber2k]

Also, why are you so enamoured with Michael Behe and Darwin's Black Box? That book is obsolete. Scientific progress has come along and made a laughingstock of it.

Rhetorical question?

If you must know, it's because ID fools have no real arguments against evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, but nothing to refute it. So they attack pieces of the theory that were previously flawed. Their sheep don't know any better and blindly believe that the theory hasn't changed in the last 50+ years to account for new evidence.

Again... these fools don't even understand the scientific method.

 

[Carfax83]

I think you're drastically misinterpreting what should happen. Chances are you won't blast something with radiation and get some magical new species. At most, you may notice small changes over time, and do remember that one of the major concepts is adaptation.

At best, all you'll get are some annoyed fruit flies that are pissed that you keep zapping them with gamma rays expecting them to start stretching or turning invisible!

So basically even though you and yours claim that evolution via mutation is factual, you have no hard evidence at all to support your claim, and when people like me ask you,"Where is the evidence," your retort is not enough time!

The theory of evolution hinges on it's ability to show that evolution via mutation is possible, yet there is no evidence, let alone proof of this.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Rhetorical question?

If you must know, it's because ID fools have no real arguments against evolution. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, but nothing to refute it. So they attack pieces of the theory that were previously flawed. Their sheep don't know any better and blindly believe that the theory hasn't changed in the last 50+ years to account for new evidence.

Again... these fools don't even understand the scientific method.

This is a legitimate criticism against all of mainstream science reporting. People don't seem to understand the difference between a good, and fallacious, argument from authority. They don't understand that some authorities are better than others, and that science isn't just something other people do. Compare this to the Andrew Wakefield debacle - his study was only discredited by the mainstream media because he was a crappy authority figure, when it was obvious right from when his study was published that there was something horribly wrong not with his authority, but with his science. Such thinking is also why alt med proponents scramble to get themselves 'doctorates' in homeopathy, or naturopathy, or acupuncture, because authority lends an instant credibility for people who don't know better.

This is not just about creationism and evolution. It's indicative of sloppy, lazy, useless thinking by the public, people who really should know better and who easily could do better.

 

[AbAbber2k]

So basically even though you and yours claim that evolution via mutation is factual, you have no hard evidence at all to support your claim, and when people like me ask you,"Where is the evidence," your retort is not enough time!

The theory of evolution hinges on it's ability to show that evolution via mutation is possible, yet there is no evidence, let alone proof of this.

A massive fossil record doesn't count as hard evidence? I'm sorry... are you expecting a YouTube upload? Oh wait... that wouldn't be good enough for you either. I suppose you want it streamed live, huh?

 

[Carfax83]

Your post says it all, it takes thousands, near millions of generations to produce something new, life on this planet has those generations and more, can you admit defeat now?

Did you even read any of those links? Probably not..

Anyway, why should I admit defeat, when the basic necessity for validating the theory of evolution has not the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?

In other words, there is no evidence for evolution via mutation.. And by evolution, I'm referring to macroevolution.

As for Time, ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?

 

[AbAbber2k]

Anyway, why should I admit defeat, when the basic necessity for validating the theory of evolution has not the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?

You just went "Full Retard".

NEVER go Full Retard.

I can't believe I'm even responding to this Trollshit.

 

[Carfax83]

Still ignoring my posts, huh?

It seems that the thing that you don't understand about evolution is that it's not all in one go; it is a recursive process. Change. Select. Change. Select. On and on. Anybody that says that evolution is impossible or vanishingly improbable because all the necessary mutations required had to have happened in one go or in one sequence, is creating a straw man. And anyone else saying that it is similarly unlikely because the chances of ending up where we are now is highly improbable, is committing the Lottery Fallacy.

Also, why are you so enamoured with Michael Behe and Darwin's Black Box? That book is obsolete. Scientific progress has come along and made a laughingstock of it.

I was ignoring your posts originally because it seemed you could not have a civil debate.

I will not debate with mindless idiots that froth at the mouth and are so enamored with evolution that they think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it..

Anyway, you make light of a serious subject. Michael Behe aside, some very intelligent people have issues with how the theory of evolution is presented..

Also, as I said in my OP, Michael Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum (as well as other systems) is irreducibly complex has never been successfully rebuked, despite what you may think.

 

[sandorski]

I was ignoring your posts originally because it seemed you could not have a civil debate.

I will not debate with mindless idiots that froth at the mouth and are so enamored with evolution that they think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it..

Anyway, you make light of a serious subject. Michael Behe aside, some very intelligent people have issues with how the theory of evolution is presented..

Also, as I said in my OP, Michael Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum (as well as other systems) is irreducibly complex has never been successfully rebuked, despite what you may think.

Fail

 

[JSt0rm]

Stop talking to the idiot

 

[yhelothar]

6 pages and no one mentioned natural selection yet? Evolution does not happen purely through random mutation. It happens just as much through MATE SELECTION and BREEDING, then through NATURAL SELECTION. Everytime breeding goes on, a new genetic combination is created. Then natural selection takes its course to select those who are most fit to pass their genes on.

 

[Carfax83]

Hey idiot. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA. Their mutations resulted in strains that aren't affected by things like penicillin.

Is this guy really an Administrator? This has to be some kind of sick joke..

Anyway, this is the kind of idiocy that I'm dealing with..

This guy calls me an idiot, because I apparently don't know that mutations were responsible for antibiotic resistant bacteria..

Now, I'm a great fan of ironies, so I had to pounce on this one :sneaky:

Apparently, researchers have found that anti-biotic resistant genes have been in bacteria for tens of thousands of years, long before the advent of penicillin and other anti-bacterial drugs. :awe:

This is a large part of the reason why not all mutations can be viewed through the same lense. Natural, or advantageous mutations don't really qualify to me as random mutations, since they are purpose driven, typically in response to specific threats.

The genes for these supposed mutations already existed in the genome, but were dormant until environmental pressure turned them on I suppose.

This is a lot different from the type of mutation espoused by darwinian evolutionists, which state explicitly that random mutations is what drives evolutionary changes.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I was ignoring your posts originally because it seemed you could not have a civil debate.

Nice. Just do what all creationists do and cry foul when things don't go your way.

Anyway, you make light of a serious subject. Michael Behe aside, some very intelligent people have issues with how the theory of evolution is presented..

See, this is the problem. Because you are right. Except many, many more very intelligent people think that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

For a comparison, just look at this list. It's the AiG's list of scientists who accept creationism, rather than evolution. 333 people; that's quite a lot. Note, however, two things. First shall become important later on; that is, that there are only two of them with the first name Steve, Steven, Stephen, or Stephanie. The second is that relatively few are biologists, microbiologists, or evolutionary biologists.

Compare that to this list. As of two weeks ago, there are 1170 people on that list - far more than the AiG's list. Two other things, however; first, these are all "Steves" - Steve, Steven, Stephen, or Stephanie. Even by limiting the list to these names, estimated to be 1% of the total population, there are over 3 times as many people for evolution than against. A further point: all of the Project Steve names are contemporary scientists; whereas some of the names on the AiG list...well. Look at them. Galileo Galilei. Johannes Kepler (which the list mis-spelled, by the way). Isaac Newton. Liebnitz. Bacon. Davy. They are intelligent people, one and all. Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the most intelligent person ever to have lived. Yet even these people had their intellectual limits. And at their intellectual limits, everyone seems to invoke the God of the Gaps. Even when evidence shows that someone later will come along, who will stand on the shoulders of giants and grasp the subject better.

Neil deGrasse Tyson actually gave a good lecture about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

Evolution is not a scientific controversy at all, just the same way that the germ theory of disease is not a scientific controversy. Sure, there are people who deny such a theory (like Bill Maher). But that does not mean there is a legitimate controversy. And it also does not mean that lay-people are more informed than the scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to rigorously (much more rigorously than the likes of you, I am happy to say) studying such a subject.

Also, as I said in my OP, Michael Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum (as well as other systems) is irreducibly complex has never been successfully rebuked, despite what you may think.

This is just flat-out not true. Because the fact of the matter is that the position you say we are advocating is a straw man. Nobody believes that bacteria just one day evolved a fully-fledged flagellum that wasn't there the day before. Flagellar proteins can (and were) originally used for several other functions - cell integrity, cytoskeletal transport, ion transport, adhesion, bacteria-bacteria communication, etc. Each part evolved separately and in response to selection pressures placed on it by its original respective purpose.

But hey. Don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

 

[Brigandier]

Did you even read any of those links? Probably not..

Anyway, why should I admit defeat, when the basic necessity for validating the theory of evolution has not the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?

In other words, there is no evidence for evolution via mutation.. And by evolution, I'm referring to macroevolution.

As for Time, ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?

Ho0w can you believe in the Cambrian explosion and not evolution? That explosion happened at a high CO2 period, which means a lot of creatures had carbon to spare. The evidence via mutation is in the fossil record and years proved. You seem to want a creator beyond hope, and that is okay, just don take t hat belief into the scientific realm. Science requires proof that can be tested, but forward a hypothesis that can be tested, and you will be taken seriously.