Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[olds]

It's not on the ropes.
But "man made" global warming is.

 

[Lemon law]

I won't say no scientific progress occurred before the year 1400 AD, but that time period somewhat marked to start of what, for the lack of a better name, what lead up to Newtonian Physics. And the demonstration that the same physical laws that described the trajectory of a rock throw on earth also described Planetary and solar motions motions in the Universe. Leading one Physicist in circa 1860 to remark, it was now a fixed and boring science, because everything was already know and described.

But really gaining critical mass in the early 20'Th century, came a group of scientists working on quantum mechanics and theories on the atomic nucleolus. And then we must also mention Albert Einstein who came up with the theory of relativity. But it instantly became clear, Newtonian Physics didn't describe certain very large and very small things.

But the point is and remains, it does not mean the theory of Newtonian Physics must be thrown into the garbage can because it was wrong wrong wrong. And that answer is no, because Newtonian Physics is very good at describing most conventional mass particle movements, and when other methods must be used, the trick is knowing when to convert one Physics into another. Which indeed Einstein did to prove his theory of relativity, as he predicted as one start eclipsed another start, how much the photons would be deflected by gravity and in how many angular degrees.

We can say the same thing about the theory of evolution, its not imitable as we find more facts, but so far, there has been little need to question Darwin's theory.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The Owl feels bad for any student of DrPizza's that brings up Intelligent Design in his class.

The Owl also wants to let the OP know that he is a Creationist whether he believes it or not.

hooooo

intelligent design isn't a theory with any basis in fact whatsoever and thus shouldn't be brought up in a classroom...except maybe bible study.

I agree with Doc Pizza.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

The Cambrian "explosion" occurred over a few million years.

lol "macroevolution"

this is what happens when you don't go to school, people. sad

 

[zinfamous]

It's not on the ropes.
But "man made" global warming is.

heh, no it isn't.

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry, but Behe twists the truth to fit his beliefs. :thumbsdown:

Behe himself presented his contention that the bacteria's flagellum is "irreducibly complex" during the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, and this was soundly refuted by real scientists.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Trial testimony also revealed how the proponents for "intelligent design" were actually biblical fundamentalists looking to disguise their religious creationist beliefs as science.

While the exact paths and mechanisms behind evolution are still the subject of honest debate, the fossil record leaves little room for doubt that life evolved from generally simplier forms to more complex and diverse forms over millions of years.

Yeah, Dover basically put the smack down on Creationism (ID). I work with a guy that wrote opinions for that case; and god bless that judge for bankrupting the morally corrupt school board that wreaked havok on those kids' education simply so they could play social terrorism for a few years.

 

[Iron Woode]

the only thing that is on the ropes is Creationism and its illegitimate half brother Intelligent Design.

now be a good ID'er and go eat a banana while walking your crocoduck.

 

[911paramedic]

First off, this post isn't an attack on the Theory of Evolution. I'm not a biologist, or any kind of Scientist, but I'm very interested in living things and I want to understand as much about them as possible. My issues with the Theory of Evolution could be due to my own ignorance, which is why I posted this thread to see if anyone could shed some light on it.[/snip]​

/thread

Take any college level (hell, probably even HS or Jr. High) biology class that includes a lab session and everything will be explained to you in great detail. :thumbsup:
​

 

[TheAdvocate]

Seriously, another creationist troll hooked this many people?

:sigh:

 

[gophins72]

One thing about the evolution debate that closely mirrors the current situation in American politics, is that the people who believe in creationism have more stamina and patience than the people who do not.

 

[911paramedic]

Seriously, another creationist troll hooked this many people?

:sigh:

OMG, I saw your avatar full size on the Chive the other day. Why couldn't I have grown up in a place like that? :\

As to the links supplied by the OP, I saw this on that site and had to run:

Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis. In it you will find fascinating content and stunning photographs that present creation and worldview articles along with relevant cultural topics. Each quarterly issue includes a detachable chart, a pullout children’s magazine, a unique animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles, plus bonus content. Why wait? Subscribe today and get a FREE DVD download!

Includes a pullout children's magazine too? Brainwash them as early as you can, isn't that the rule? Ugh.

semi-technical, lmao. And you come in here talking about theories...

 

[Meghan54]

One thing about the evolution debate that closely mirrors the current situation in American politics, is that the people who believe in creationism have more stamina and patience than the people who do not.

Not that, they just learned from Hannity, et al from Fox News "interviews", to out shout, drown out, talk over, attempt to discredit by denial but never providing a solid, fact-based alternative, and generally be a nuisance to those with an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Carfax83]

The overwhelming majority of the variability comes from reorganisation and recombination of things that are already present. Bacteria have 'plasmids' which serve to transfer DNA from one to another (sometimes even between species). Viruses because of the way they hijack cellular machinery from higher cells, often end up mixing DNA from the host, other viruses, etc. Higher plants and animals utilise sexual reproduction, which is an excellent method of shuffling and recombining genetic elements.

If most variability comes from reorganization and recombination, then how do you explain the different kingdoms, orders, species etc....?

Can reorganization and recombination fully explain macroevolution?

The discussion about antibiotic resistance is a bit of a red-herring. Antibiotics are natural substances - they come from bacteria, fungi and other organisms. Penicillin comes from a fungus, cefalosporin antibiotics came from bacteria, etc. It's not surprising that in the presence of a selective pressure (e.g. bacteria and fungi living together in the same environemnt), a bacterium that has some resistance to a fungal toxin is likely to become more dominant than one that doesn't. In fact, the mechanism of penicillin resistance is very complex - it's an interaction between dozens of different genes (called penicillin binding proteins) of which there are hundreds of variants. However, most of them are critical to the bacterial function, so their penicillin related effects are secondary to whatever their primary purpose is (experiments have deleted the genes from bacteria, and found that the resulting bacteria are non-viable). It is the complex interaction and intermixing of all these different genes that tends to infer resistance, although very occasionally mutations can occur which alter the degree of penicillin inactivation that results. The ability of bacteria to exchange DNA via the plasmid method above, means that such beneficial recombinations can be rapidly transmitted to new populations and recombined in other novel ways.

Thanks for clearing this up..

 

[sao123]

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?

im still a little fuzzy on this math thing... i just want to think about this for a minute...



The accepted age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years?
The accepted age of life on earth places abiogenesis at about 2 billion years ago.

So... there are about 9 unique million species living on the earth.

With a linear model, you would have to find a new species approximately every 220 years in order to have the variety of life we see today.
With a binary model, using a 2^23 (slightly less than 9 million) as a base, you would have to have the number of species double every 86 million years. This is an average of 730,000 new species every 86 million year period or 1 every 115 years...


The simplest of all organisms on the earth right now has about 2000 genes to the most complex having about 25,000 genes. For the sake of math argument, lets assume the average number of genes per species is about 10,000, which we know is on the low side. How many of them must change for a new species to exist? 1, 2, 100?


Logic tells me there must be more positive transformations than there are years available, not including all the failed ones.... The rate of change is too slow for this to be solely responsible for the amount of species here today.

 

[sao123]

Actually, Darwinian evolutionists don't believe that it is mutation that is the driver change. It's well known that in many cases, it doesn't.

The overwhelming majority of the variability comes from reorganisation and recombination of things that are already present. Bacteria have 'plasmids' which serve to transfer DNA from one to another (sometimes even between species). Viruses because of the way they hijack cellular machinery from higher cells, often end up mixing DNA from the host, other viruses, etc. Higher plants and animals utilise sexual reproduction, which is an excellent method of shuffling and recombining genetic elements.

Of course, something has to create the underlying change in the first place - and that is the role of mutation. However, mutations in functioning genes are often detrimental - but mutations in non-functioning or duplicate/redundant genes may persist. In fact, this is a common pattern seen in DNA examination - there are certain 'building blocks' in genes which often get reused, with a few changes. Presumably, these were duplicate genes, one copy of which ended up gathering mutations, until it did something interesting when recombined with something else.

The discussion about antibiotic resistance is a bit of a red-herring. Antibiotics are natural substances - they come from bacteria, fungi and other organisms. Penicillin comes from a fungus, cefalosporin antibiotics came from bacteria, etc. It's not surprising that in the presence of a selective pressure (e.g. bacteria and fungi living together in the same environemnt), a bacterium that has some resistance to a fungal toxin is likely to become more dominant than one that doesn't. In fact, the mechanism of penicillin resistance is very complex - it's an interaction between dozens of different genes (called penicillin binding proteins) of which there are hundreds of variants. However, most of them are critical to the bacterial function, so their penicillin related effects are secondary to whatever their primary purpose is (experiments have deleted the genes from bacteria, and found that the resulting bacteria are non-viable). It is the complex interaction and intermixing of all these different genes that tends to infer resistance, although very occasionally mutations can occur which alter the degree of penicillin inactivation that results. The ability of bacteria to exchange DNA via the plasmid method above, means that such beneficial recombinations can be rapidly transmitted to new populations and recombined in other novel ways.

Mutation would seem to be a larger role than you allow for...
recombination cannot explain the creation of a new gene... Every gene must have been successfully mutated first correct?

 

[Mark R]

Then why isn't it called the theory of expansion?

Because the Big Bang theory is a legitimate theory. The expansion was observed. The explanation, published in 1931, was that things erupted from some sort of extremely hot 'big bang'. Several predictions were made from this theory. The most important was as follows: If the big bang was extremely hot and cooled as it expanded, then the universe must have a background non-zero temperature, related to its size and age (approx -270 C).

One of the most important astronomic discoveries came in 1965 when the 'microwave background radiation' of the universe was discovered. Later experiments measured this and found that it corresponded to a temperature of -270 C.

 

[Mark R]

Mutation would seem to be a larger role than you allow for...
recombination cannot explain the creation of a new gene... Every gene must have been successfully mutated first correct?

Yes. Mutation is the 'raw material' for genetic change. However, a very large number of organisms perform some sort of reproduction whereby genes can be shuffled and recombined in some way - even if that is not the dominant form of reproduction.

One of the reasons that sexual reproduction is so prevalent in the more complex organisms is that this extended recombination is so important in ensuring a rich genetic diversity from which selection can take place.

 

[Gibsons]

If most variability comes from reorganization and recombination, then how do you explain the different kingdoms, orders, species etc....?

descent with modification. Lots and lots of time.

Can reorganization and recombination fully explain macroevolution?

First, I refuse to acknowledge "macroevolution" as a legit term.

Second, there's more than reorganization and recombination. Point mutations, duplications, deletions, etc.

Anyway, yes, the things we know that genetic materials (DNA and RNA) are capable of are easily sufficient for what we see in the fossil record and the extant species.

 

[zinfamous]

Mutation would seem to be a larger role than you allow for...
recombination cannot explain the creation of a new gene... Every gene must have been successfully mutated first correct?

recombination can account for "parts of one gene" fusing to a "part of another gene," potentially leading to a new gene.

mutations in themselves come in many flavors: Indels (insertion/deletion--implies exactly what it sounds like), translocations, SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphism--often leads to neutral or null effects, being that several codons can code for the same amino acid; but a SNP can also have drastic effects).

there are several types of recombination and in general, it is essential for maintaining genetic diversity. crossover--recombination between the two pairs of the same chromosome, is perhaps the most commonly-studied type. This occurs during meosis when chromosome pairs divide. You can have different gene families now grouping with other gene families. While an individual gene may not effectively change, the location of genes along a chromosome in relation to other genes can effect the organism's phenotype.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

I linked to a variety of examples of speciation that *have* been observed.

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?

And I already explained to you that "macroevolution" is a misnomer. There is no real distinction between evolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution = evolution over millions of years. Attacking that it hasn't been reproduced in a lab in just 40 years is idiocy.

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.

There have been several links in this thread that state otherwise.

You are just a troll. You started the thread with the same cut and paste type of things "I'm just trying to understand evolution" - yeah, right. That line has been done dozens of times here before the person turns into an intelligent design idiot.

You are arguing against evolution, while claiming that evolution was guided. That's idiocy. If evolution didn't happen - if there's no evidence for evolution (you claim, but there's so much evidence FOR evolution that your claim is more ridiculous than claims that the Earth is flat) then why is intelligent design about guided evolution? You can't have it both ways - you're a creationist and are too stupid to apparently realize it.

 

[Carfax83]

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.

Who says I don't believe in evolution? I must have stated that I do believe in evolution at least a dozen times throughout this thread..

Intelligent design does not preclude evolution, and neither does a belief in God or any sort of Higher Power.

Anyway, the reason I brought up the Cambrian period is because it was a time in History where multitudes of very complex life forms abruptly appeared in a very short span of time.

Since you and others keep bringing up the massive Time scales involved to make evolution by numerous, small, successive changes work, I thought I'd bring up the Cambrian explosion and how most major animal phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record in approximately ten million years or so, rather than taking place over hundreds of millions of years or billions of years..

Then, there's also the fact that these creatures that evolved back then were in many respects, just as complex as those found today.

 

[yhelothar]

If most variability comes from reorganization and recombination, then how do you explain the different kingdoms, orders, species etc....?

Can reorganization and recombination fully explain macroevolution?



Thanks for clearing this up..

Take dogs for example. EVERY single breed of dogs, from a chihuahua to a great dane came from selective breeding of a wolf. There was no mutation involved, just recombination of genes that has occurred through just a few thousand years.
Granted this breeding is done selectively, but this goes to show how drastic of an effect recombination has without taking random mutation into account at all.

And no, it does not FULLY explain macroevolution, you'd have to look at the mountain of evidence from geology, the fossil record, biology, etc for that.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

LOL, why do people feed this ignorant troll?

 

[yhelothar]

Then, there's also the fact that these creatures that evolved back then were in many respects, just as complex as those found today.

The Cambrian explosion happened after how many billion years of evolution? Of course they're going to share many of the complexities that we have.

 

[Gibsons]

Who says I don't believe in evolution? I must have stated that I do believe in evolution at least a dozen times throughout this thread..

Intelligent design does not preclude evolution, and neither does a belief in God or any sort of Higher Power.

Anyway, the reason I brought up the Cambrian period is because it was a time in History where multitudes of very complex life forms abruptly appeared in a very short span of time.

Since you and others keep bringing up the massive Time scales involved to make evolution by numerous, small, successive changes work, I thought I'd bring up the Cambrian explosion and how most major animal phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record in approximately ten million years or so, rather than taking place over hundreds of millions of years or billions of years..

Then, there's also the fact that these creatures that evolved back then were in many respects, just as complex as those found today.

"abruptly" in the geological scale means millions of years. If a human had been there with a notebook taking specimens and recording them daily, s/he wouldn't have noticed any explosion.

Try to take in the idea of what a million years is. Consider that that's tens of millions of generations for some creatures. Now, figure out what a 0.1% change per generation works out to.