Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Carfax83]

Someone already mentioned that the genes used to make a flagella today had/have other uses as well. Second, while it might take 60 genes today, it might have taken 59 or 58 or 20 several million years ago.

Imo, you have a poor understanding of genetics, mutations in general and protein structure/function. That lies at the heart of your objections. Mutations aren't always single base changes. Read Mark Rs post about the shuffling. Read up on duplications. Entire genomes can be duplicated at once. Clusters of genes can move around. Small portions of genes can be swapped, duplicated or deleted.

While I have no formal training/education in genetics, I can still form an opinion, and I respect that you seem to know more about this subject than I do.

However, your explanation about the genes used to make flagella mirrors the supposed rebukes of Behe's ID that I've read, in that it side steps or glosses over the fundamental difficulties involved in explaining how evolution could create such parts via numerous, slight, successive changes over long periods of time.

This is a very recent article in which the author attempts to show why Behe hasn't been refuted on the flagella.

It's rather technical in nature, but perhaps you could fully understand it.

 

[Gibsons]

While I have no formal training/education in genetics, I can still form an opinion, and I respect that you seem to know more about this subject than I do.

However, your explanation about the genes used to make flagella mirrors the supposed rebukes of Behe's ID that I've read, in that it side steps or glosses over the fundamental difficulties involved in explaining how evolution could create such parts via numerous, slight, successive changes over long periods of time.

This is a very recent article in which the author attempts to show why Behe hasn't been refuted on the flagella.

It's rather technical in nature, but perhaps you could fully understand it.

He's been refuted. The article is a long winded take on the popular argument of incredulity. With a lot willful ignorance.


Here's a very simplified and generalized explanation. There's a protein somewhere that has a function. One day, another protein happens to stick to it. This is a very common thing with proteins, they tend to be sticky. This interaction helps the first protein do its job in a slightly better fashion. It's more stable, it's more efficient, it localizes better, whatever. Again, this is a very simple, easily accomplished thing. The organism with this interaction has a competitive advantage. This weak advantage isn't necessary, but it spreads throughout the population(s). Because it's a selectable advantage. Over time, mutations in both genes optimize the interaction, and thus improve the original function. As these mutations accumulate, eventually the interaction becomes necessary for the original function. You now have an "irreducibly complex" system. Acquired through very mundane, known, genetic and biochemical mechanisms. No great genie in the sky needed or found.

Behe's made an idiot of himself more than once, the flagella argument is just a more subtle one. Look into his laughable embarrassments with malaria and antigen receptors.

 

[Meghan54]

Another thing I always find funny is when you ask a "true believer"...you can substitute creationist as someone who believes only in creationism is a fundamentalist at heart....when the Bible was written.

The answers you get are hilarious.....and almost always wrong. They really fume when it gets pointed out that the New Testament was assembled from hundreds of candidate books by the Roman Catholic Church over a few hundred years and was bastardized by the King James Version translation.

This is as opposed to the Old Testament, which is simply a regurgitation of the Hebrew Bible, just with the books split up more.

 

[Carfax83]

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

lol "macroevolution"

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

Thats the whole point of why I brought up the Cambrian explosion. If evolution requires inordinate amounts of time perform numerous, slight and successive changes, then how do you explain the abrupt appearance of most major animal phyla in the fossil record?

Can numerous, slight, successive modifications produce such diversity in only 10 million years? 10 million years is a long time to us, but it's just a blip on the geological scale, and I've never heard any darwinian evolution saying that dramatic evolutionary changes could occur in such a short amount of time.

 

[Meghan54]

He's been refuted. The article is a long winded take on the popular argument of incredulity. With a lot willful ignorance.


Here's a very simplified and generalized explanation. There's a protein somewhere that has a function. One day, another protein happens to stick to it. This is a very common thing with proteins, they tend to be sticky. This interaction helps the first protein do its job in a slightly better fashion. It's more stable, it's more efficient, it localizes better, whatever. Again, this is a very simple, easily accomplished thing. The organism with this interaction has a competitive advantage. This weak advantage isn't necessary, but it spreads throughout the population(s). Because it's a selectable advantage. Over time, mutations in both genes optimize the interaction, and thus improve the original function. As these mutations accumulate, eventually the interaction becomes necessary for the original function. You now have an "irreducibly complex" system. Acquired through very mundane, known, genetic and biochemical mechanisms. No great genie in the sky needed or found.

Behe's made an idiot of himself more than once, the flagella argument is just a more subtle one. Look into his laughable embarrassments with malaria and antigen receptors.

Don't attempt to use science to refute any creationist....they simply won't accept scientific evidence as valid or useful.

Of course, they'll surely take advantage of and believe in everything else science has given humanity.....antibiotics, etc. But somehow, science doesn't know crap when it comes to one subject, when/how the earth was created or that evolution is a fact.


Naturally, you could point to the righteous religious flock that used to believe the Earth was the center of the solar system as an established fact, or that the Earth was flat---again, an established fact at one time----and both later refuted by science and are now ideas seen as ignorant or silly. And the religious accept those facts determined by science. But bring up evolution, and science is crazy. Reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Imp]

This is a very recent article in which the author attempts to show why Behe hasn't been refuted on the flagella.

It's rather technical in nature, but perhaps you could fully understand it.

Sign, sealed and delivered.

Glad I skipped 8 pages and just looked for the words "creationism" and/or "intelligent design".

Praise the Lord!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

LOL, why do people feed this ignorant troll?

The whole point of coming to these places is to feed and be fed by trolls. It's the Circle of Forums.

 

[Carfax83]

descent with modification. Lots and lots of time.

How much time exactly are we talking about? 5 million years? 10 million years? 500 million years? 10 million years is approximately the amount of time in which the Cambrian explosion took place, yet nearly all major animal phyla developed during that short period of time.

Speaking of time, here's an excellent article about a peer reviewed paper by Doug Axe to mathematically determine just just how long it takes to evolve traits that require multiple mutations before any adaptive benefit is conferred on the organism.

It's a very technical article, and beyond the education of myself and most people here I'd wager, but it goes to show that the validity of neo darwinian evolution is being challenged in Scientific circles.

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.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the article I linked to if you have the time.

 

[Gibsons]

How much time exactly are we talking about? 5 million years? 10 million years? 500 million years? 10 million years is approximately the amount of time in which the Cambrian explosion took place, yet nearly all major animal phyla developed during that short period of time.

Speaking of time, here's an excellent article about a peer reviewed paper by Doug Axe to mathematically determine just just how long it takes to evolve traits that require multiple mutations before any adaptive benefit is conferred on the organism.

It's a very technical article, and beyond the education of myself and most people here I'd wager, but it goes to show that the validity of neo darwinian evolution is being challenged in Scientific circles.



I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the article I linked to if you have the time.

Look at the editorial board for that "journal." It's a house organ for the DI. If the article is beyond your education, how do you know it's "excellent?"

 

[Aikouka]

It might sound crazy, but I had an interesting discussion once with someone on a dating site. I noticed that the person seemed non-religious, yet they answered that creationism and evolution should be taught side-by-side. I thought it was a strange answer, and I inquired about it.

The person told me how when they were in high school, people were allowed to opt out of Biology while they were teaching evolution because it "conflicted with their belief." A majority of the class didn't attend for those lectures, and her thought was that maybe if you "tossed the dog a bone", they'd be content enough to at least attend the evolution classes.

That just made me feel awful about the state of education these days. Since when has learning about a theory in science become so taboo. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "la la la not listening!" It reminds me of the time when my mom ripped up my sister's Harry Potter books because they were "full of witchcraft." :hmm:

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.

I think the problem with your logic is that you consider all change the same. This is purely my own thought on the subject, but I would assume that far more major change took place near the beginning than takes place now. The reason being is that you had a significant amount of simplistic organisms where a smaller amount of change results in different organisms.

In short, it's easier to change simple things.

heh, no it isn't.

Ahh yes, because it was never plausible reasoning to being with, right? Zin, you are so witty! :sneaky:

 

[Carfax83]

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.

The point is, the abruptness of the appearance. The cambrian explosion took place approximately 530 million of years ago. According to neo darwinian evolutionists, life first appeared on the planet approximately 3 to 4 billion years ago.

So there is an inordinate amount of time for life to evolve during that time, however the fossil records indicate that complex life forms akin to what we see today first appeared during the cambrian explosion.

So if darwinian evolution relies on slight, successive, numerous modifications occurring over lengthy periods of time, why is there such a massive gap in the fossil records?

I mean, we're talking about billions of years here..

 

[911paramedic]

It sounds like you are just regurgitating crap from this site: http://www.discovery.org/a/9721

For somebody that says they have no scientific knowledge or background in biology you sure are pulling some impressive factoids out of thin air. How about doing some thinking on your own instead of blindly taking in the information on these sites? Science is all about questioning things, you are simply restating other peoples stances and opinions.

But that's how it always is with these topics...

 

[Gibsons]

The point is, the abruptness of the appearance. The cambrian explosion took place approximately 530 million of years ago. According to neo darwinian evolutionists, life first appeared on the planet approximately 3 to 4 billion years ago.

So there is an inordinate amount of time for life to evolve during that time, however the fossil records indicate that complex life forms akin to what we see today first appeared during the cambrian explosion.

So if darwinian evolution relies on slight, successive, numerous modifications occurring over lengthy periods of time, why is there such a massive gap in the fossil records?

I mean, we're talking about billions of years here..

There is nothing about the theory that indicates the apparent rate should be even throughout the record.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

While I have no formal training/education in genetics, I can still form an opinion, and I respect that you seem to know more about this subject than I do.

However, your explanation about the genes used to make flagella mirrors the supposed rebukes of Behe's ID that I've read, in that it side steps or glosses over the fundamental difficulties involved in explaining how evolution could create such parts via numerous, slight, successive changes over long periods of time.

This is a very recent article in which the author attempts to show why Behe hasn't been refuted on the flagella.

It's rather technical in nature, but perhaps you could fully understand it.

Still the same creationist tripe. It still doesn't address the main issues that everyone has brought up already; that flagellar proteins need not have been evolved solely for flagellar purposes; and that not all of them are necessary for function, since even crude motility is better than no motility for a bacterium.

Thats the whole point of why I brought up the Cambrian explosion. If evolution requires inordinate amounts of time perform numerous, slight and successive changes, then how do you explain the abrupt appearance of most major animal phyla in the fossil record?

Can numerous, slight, successive modifications produce such diversity in only 10 million years? 10 million years is a long time to us, but it's just a blip on the geological scale, and I've never heard any darwinian evolution saying that dramatic evolutionary changes could occur in such a short amount of time.

Note that the Cambrian explosion does not necessitate the complete evolution of all that life. All it requires is the evolution and spread of something that makes these organisms apparent in the fossil record.

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.

Your painstaking differentiation is strange. Because not even Judge Jones, given the best evidence that "intelligent design" proponents could give in a court of law, could tell the difference between creationism and intelligent design. If you really aren't Christian, you're fooling yourself. Plain and simple.

The main problem that I have with the theory of evolution, is how it stipulates that a random mutation could have created the vast amount of diversity in life forms on Earth, and that life arose from inorganic matter through seemingly miraculous, but naturalistic methods.

The problem is that it doesn't necessarily have to be mutation.

I don't understand why you even bothered to post that list, because I've already stated numerous times, that I'm not a Creationist!!!

I'm not a Christian, nor a member of any religious faith. I believe in a Higher Power however, but I reject the biblical account of Creation completely..

I know it may sound unbelievable, but it's quite possible to believe in a Higher Power and also believe in evolution at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

See above.

But your answer still doesn't rebuke Behe's claim, because the flagellum require over 60 genes to function properly, and removal or tampering with any of those genes results in the flagellum ceasing to function competely.

So, unless random mutations acted on those genes at the same time all at once (which contradicts the slow, gradual and successive nature of random mutations to begin with), then I don't see how it's even possible..

Well, yes. Yes it does.

 

[Carfax83]

"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.

So if life first appeared on Earth 3 or 4 billion years ago, why isn't there a gradual increase in complexity such as what darwinian evolution would predict?

Instead, we have a massive leap in evolution during a period of time that is relatively short compared to the amount of time life has existed on Earth.

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.

One human generation = about one million bacterial generations, yet despite Scientists trying their best to provoke evolution in such creatures using methods like irradiation and who knows what else over the course of numerous decades, they still haven't succeeded in making bacteria anything other than what they already were.

 

[zinfamous]

Ahh yes, because it was never plausible reasoning to being with, right? Zin, you are so witty! :sneaky:

no it's not that. It's simply that politically-minded individuals--the type to pick and choose that science which is convenient to them--will interpret "more information has been gathered" as "soundly rejects x," and often without fail.

I understand that climate science has become one of those issues that is impossible to divorce from the round of politics, but that is only because those that are threatened by the field are firmly within and of the pockets of DC.

It is not shocking that there is a strong correlation of those that deny evolution tend to deny climate change--they question evolution on the basis of "has not been proven," despite thoiusands and thousands of journal articles, published yearly that firmly back it up, and yet for climate science it only takes one scientist on the fringe of the industry, to publish one article that examines data in a new light (or 10 out of 200 papers, say), to convince them that their single source is irrefutable.

the problem with science and politics is that you have different languages converging, and many who simply have not the desire nor background to understand how one language works. It you're coming from law, business, politics--the language of science, in your mind, is just as the language in your field--you bend it the way you want it to work for you and likewise, if you see something that you simply do not agree with--you outright accuse that study of bending data to appease it's own end.

absofuckinglutely asinine, these people.

 

[zinfamous]

Question for OP:

since Jesus rode dinosaurs, which do you think was his favorite to keep as a pet?

 

[Gibsons]

So if life first appeared on Earth 3 or 4 billion years ago, why isn't there a gradual increase in complexity such as what darwinian evolution would predict?

Instead, we have a massive leap in evolution during a period of time that is relatively short compared to the amount of time life has existed on Earth.

Strawman. Again, there's no reason for the apparent record to show a linear or smooth increase in complexity. There's no reason from theory to assume that the actual increase in complexity should be linear or smooth.

One human generation = about one million bacterial generations, yet despite Scientists trying their best to provoke evolution in such creatures using methods like irradiation and who knows what else over the course of numerous decades, they still haven't succeeded in making bacteria anything other than what they already were.

You're demanding that labs growing around 10e7 or so bacteria per generation, in under 10e2 years, should do something similar to what was seen in I dunno, 10e21 organisms, in hugely diverse niches, at a time span well over 10e7? You're really trying to make a direct comparison between these two things?

 

[zinfamous]

You're demanding that labs growing around 10e7 or so bacteria per generation, in under 10e2 years, should do something similar to what was seen in I dunno, 10e21 organisms, in hugely diverse niches, at a time span well over 10e7? You're really trying to make a direct comparison between these two things?

Well, he's also preposterously wrong with his assertion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

it's easy to ignore/discount this rather famous project when you don't want to understand, or simply hear, what is going on.

 

[Jeff7]

So if life first appeared on Earth 3 or 4 billion years ago, why isn't there a gradual increase in complexity such as what darwinian evolution would predict?
...

Evolution doesn't require an increase in complexity.

1) We've still got bacteria. They're single cells. They've been around for billions of years. It's an exceedingly durable format for life, arguably better than anything else. It's really difficult to exterminate all bacteria from something. Even probes that are sterilized before going to other planets are still not 100% devoid of life.
2) Alligators. There's a more complex life form that's also very good at surviving. They've been darn near the same for many dozens of millions of years. Big teeth, strong jaws, stealthy hunting behavior, strong skin, slow metabolism.

Evolution by no means requires or mandates an increase in complexity. That which survives best has a better chance of continuing to do so. If complexity increases in the process...well, yeah, that'll happen sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't. That's about it.

One human generation = about one million bacterial generations, yet despite Scientists trying their best to provoke evolution in such creatures using methods like irradiation and who knows what else over the course of numerous decades, they still haven't succeeded in making bacteria anything other than what they already were.

That's why we have absolutely no problems with bacteria becoming immune to the effects of things intended to kill them. Thank god we found penicillin and were able to simply stop wasting resources on developing new antibiotics.




So, no, evolution is not on the ropes. It's got real world evidence, not ancient myths made up by scared tribesmen who were trying to explain a world that they saw as infested by demons, talking animals, as well as a world that often didn't seem to care much for the welfare of most of its inhabitants. (And they didn't do a good job of closing off plot holes. Oops, a tsunami just wiped out a few hundred square miles and dozens of coastal cities...thank you, "benevolent" deity!)


Concerning the whole "intelligent design" thing: It's Creationism. They took the Creation tale from the Bible and made God anonymous, and tried to force some sciency words into it, and ditched the talking snake. But for all their effort, it still makes exactly the same amount of sense as the original myth.

 

[Aikouka]

It is not shocking that there is a strong correlation of those that deny evolution tend to deny climate change

My original post on it was kind of a joke, but I think this is where one problem may lie. It seems for some reason, people keep using the term "climate change" to refer to what others call "made-made climate change." The argument isn't about what's happening... it's about what's causing it.

My biggest qualms lie in what the government keeps trying to do to "go green." I really do not like the $7500 green car credit, but I have no problem with spending money on valuable research to build more efficient systems. It's technological advancements vs. pushing unsustainable methods.

 

[Broheim]

It sounds like you are just regurgitating crap from this site: http://www.discovery.org/a/9721

For somebody that says they have no scientific knowledge or background in biology you sure are pulling some impressive factoids out of thin air. How about doing some thinking on your own instead of blindly taking in the information on these sites? Science is all about questioning things, you are simply restating other peoples stances and opinions.

But that's how it always is with these topics...

this x1000


intelligent design is for scared little christians who knows creationism is bullshit, but don't have the balls to jump ship. OP is a pussy.

 

[Carfax83]

He's been refuted. The article is a long winded take on the popular argument of incredulity. With a lot willful ignorance.


Here's a very simplified and generalized explanation. There's a protein somewhere that has a function. One day, another protein happens to stick to it. This is a very common thing with proteins, they tend to be sticky. This interaction helps the first protein do its job in a slightly better fashion. It's more stable, it's more efficient, it localizes better, whatever. Again, this is a very simple, easily accomplished thing. The organism with this interaction has a competitive advantage. This weak advantage isn't necessary, but it spreads throughout the population(s). Because it's a selectable advantage. Over time, mutations in both genes optimize the interaction, and thus improve the original function. As these mutations accumulate, eventually the interaction becomes necessary for the original function. You now have an "irreducibly complex" system. Acquired through very mundane, known, genetic and biochemical mechanisms. No great genie in the sky needed or found.

Behe's made an idiot of himself more than once, the flagella argument is just a more subtle one. Look into his laughable embarrassments with malaria and antigen receptors.

I've found that things are not always as simple as they appear, and that darwinian evolutions have a tendency to trivialize things. You offer a simple and generalized explanation, but I can't help but think why it wouldn't occur to Behe (and many others) who has a PhD in Molecular Biology that it really is as simple as it appears to be.

I wonder how Jonathan M, the man who wrote that article would respond to your assertions.?

Any way, the reason why your explanation doesn't make sense to me, is that it doesn't account for the fact that for mutation to be responsible for such an elaborate and well ordered system (if you read the article, synethesis of the flagellum is dependent on a "tightly ordered cascade in which expression of one gene at a given level requires the prior expression of another gene at a higher level") as bacterial flagella, all the right mutations (and none of the harmful ones) would have to occur at the same time without mistakes, instead of the numerous, slight successive changes ascribed to by darwinian evolution.

Natural selection would not select parts/components that weren't already well connected and regulated now would it? Especially when according to the article, "untimely expression of flagellum proteins may induce a strong immune response in the host system, something no bacterium wants to do."

So for darwinian evolution to create bacterial flagella the way you explain it, would require it to not be subject to chance or random probability.

But that can't be true, since random mutation is obviously an unintelligent and random process.

 

[Carfax83]

There is nothing about the theory that indicates the apparent rate should be even throughout the record.

The rate doesn't have to be even I agree, but there should be far more transitional stages in the fossil record before the cambrian explosion.

We're talking billions of years here, yet the fossil record doesn't indicate any sort of major or minor transitional changes that occurred during the time before the cambrian era.

 

[zinfamous]

My original post on it was kind of a joke, but I think this is where one problem may lie. It seems for some reason, people keep using the term "climate change" to refer to what others call "made-made climate change." The argument isn't about what's happening... it's about what's causing it.

My biggest qualms lie in what the government keeps trying to do to "go green." I really do not like the $7500 green car credit, but I have no problem with spending money on valuable research to build more efficient systems. It's technological advancements vs. pushing unsustainable methods.

well, there are many, many ways to get there, and ignoring one piece of the puzzle simply to focus on one other is a recipe for failure. A massive part of going green is increasing the overall efficiency of current infrastructure.

If people can be convinced to access current technology now, then all the better.

There was a really awesome Nova program on the current trend in green technology and development, as well as the current paradigm of how best to address the overall climate issue. One professor designed a really nice visual aid, basically categorizing various technologies and practices into individual pieces of the larger puzzle of addressing climate change--each individual aspect getting it's own various sized wedges to represent a percentage of the money, time, and the technology/practices ability to address the larger issue.

The bottom line was that ignoring even the smallest bits is profoundly disadvantageous, yet it is also true that one can focus far too much time effort and money into the wrong technology and further exacerbate the problem.