Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Mark R]

Obviously you didn't understand what I was implying. In science, everything is a "theory". It could very well be completely factual, but as science isn't close-minded, everything is labeled as theory to leave it open to possibility and other opinions.

That's not true at all.

"Theory" in the scientific meaning is very precisely defined. It means:
An explanation of facts from which testable predictions can be made.

The "Theory of evolution" is a "theory" because it explains the fact that there are numerous species on earth, and because it predicts certain patterns to the way in which those species are located and are related to each other, which can be tested by experiment.

If an experiment demonstrates facts that a "theory" cannot explain, then the theory must be discarded, and a new theory created to explain the new facts.

The fact that evolution is treated as fact in the scientific community is because it provides a clear explanation for the diversity of life, because there are no relevant facts that it cannot explain and because all the testable predictions made, have been found to have been correct.

That's not to say that tomorrow, someone will discover something that contradicts evolution - they might - and the theory will have to be discarded, rewritten or adjusted.

 

[Mark R]

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.

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.

 

[Carfax83]

6 pages and no one mentioned natural selection yet? Evolution does not happen purely through random mutation.

Random mutation is the engine (or the cause if you will) that drives evolution, and makes the actual changes possible (supposedly). Natural selection merely allows the beneficial changes to pass on to future generations and thus proliferate.

Therefore, I don't think natural selection is as important as mutation when discussing the mechanics of evolution.

 

[Carfax83]

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

I didn't cry foul. I do not insult people, unless they insult me first. My conversation with Brigandier for instance has been quite civil.. That Dr.Pizza guy on the other hand is scum as far as I'm concerned.

These are just opinions, so I don't see why he, or anyone else would get so wound up over them..

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

Again, as I said in the first post, you have to make a distinction between plain evolution, and the theory of evolution....at least with me.

I've already mentioned that I believe in evolution, as in the concept that all life adapts and evolves over time to environmental pressure and changes. Intelligent Design does not negate, or replace evolution in this regard..

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.

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.

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.

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 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..

 

[Carfax83]

Man I need a break. My eyes are red as hell from staring at the computer screen..


Brigandier and Mark R, you raise some valid points, and I will reply to them when I wake up

 

[JJChicken]

Stopped reading after that . . .

Came to post this...

 

[Gibsons]

Therefore, I don't think natural selection is as important as mutation when discussing the mechanics of evolution.

wat.

That's like arguing if the left wheels on your car are more important than the right.

 

[disappoint]

One of the tenets of the Scientific principle is observation. Some of the greatest Scientific theories cannot be tested in any way, ie the Big Bang theory.

The big bang theory was established because astronomers observed that the Universe was expanding.

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

 

[Gibsons]

\
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..

This is the mousetrap analogy, which has been debunked quite thoroughly.

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.

 

[kami]

How come every time I hear someone argue for intelligent design it's nothing more than a lesson in circular reasoning. Oh wait...

 

[IronWing]

Still no testable hypothesis of intelligent design? OP, you're wasting a lot of effort preaching an idea you can't even cogently express.

 

[arcenite]

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

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

IIRC, the TOE doesn't say 1,2,or 3.

Most people that I encounter that disagree with evolution don't even know what it means.

Everyone that has a dog has a pet that only exists due to evolution (and a little domestication ..... most people don't know what domesication means either).

Most surprising is that het OP typed all of that without having any thumbs.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Why is this in Off Topic?

 

[IronWing]

Why is this in Off Topic?

Off Topic is the closest thing we have to an Incoherent Babbling Forum. P&N is for Incoherent Rants but not babbling. Based on the OP's mastery of biology it might be a fit for L&R.

 

[Meghan54]

What always amazes me in these types of "discussions" is the fact that the creationist will exclaim God is just, truthful, etc., etc.

But when it comes to fossil records and the like, esp. with scientific dating methods like carbon dating, they claim "The record's wrong, scientific testing is wrong. It's just God's way of testing our faith."

So, essentially they claim God is lying to everyone, testing faith.

Show me where in the Good Book that God lied to anyone to test their faith? I seem to remember God requesting outlandish sacrifices of those He wished to test their faith, but never lied to test.


So, when did God become a liar? And given the logical extension of God is indeed a liar, then how can anyone trust what's written anywhere purported to be inspired by God? Very well could be a lie.....just testing your faith........

 

[sdifox]

Wow, can you try not frothing at the mouth and have a reasonable debate?

May be I was wrong to post this topic on this forum, as people aren't as civil as I thought they'd be.

There are 2 kinds of organism in this world.

Those that learn, and those that don't.

The don't learn types tend to get eliminated by Darwin.


The problem is, the don't learn type, because they can't learn, keeps coming back with the same question stated a different way, driving the learning type up the wall til the type that learns clobbers the don't learn type to death.

That is probably the origin of the Abel and Cain section in the Bible.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Why is this in Off Topic?

Where else would it go? :hmm:

 

[sdifox]

Wait a second. You've claimed that you're not a creationist - you're an intelligent design proponent. If you're in favor of an intelligent designer guiding evolution - you can't argue against evolution. That is, unless your ultimate motive is... Creationism. You're not a very good bullshit artist. You've basically said that evolution can't produce new species. That implies that all species were... created.

I have to stop you right there. You are spewing logic. That is definitely not part of intelligent design.

 

[sdifox]

DNA is written in an early form of BASIC. This is why it took so long to make sense of the Code. :hmm:

whut? all this time I thought it was Pascal. Might explain why my mutation experiments don't work

 

[sdifox]

Evolution DOES have a hard time explaining creationists though. Something that dumb should have been weeded out some time ago.

Too short a time frame :awe:

 

[sdifox]

Why is this in Off Topic?

we don't have a faith based teaching subforum

 

[mephiston5]

In science, nothing can ever be proven as true. Nothing, ever. There is only a probability of truth based on the evidence we currently have and understand.

Therefore, everything in science in a theory...science adapts to new discovers in an attempt to best explain the world.

Sadly, many people degrade the value of the word "theory" because it is difficult to grasp that ultimate truth is impossible to know (you could always discover something in the future that calls "truth" into question).

If new evidence was discovered in regards to evolution, science would adapt and adjust the theory accordingly.

 

[Number1]

It's funny how truthers, creationists and the like readily admit of having no scientific background yet claim to know better then scientists who dedicated their entire life studying, developing and proving their theories.

You can never change a truther or a creationist belief.

 

[PowerEngineer]

...

I've read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and in it, he uses the bacterial flagellum as an example of something he calls an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is a system "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".​

Bacterial flagellum is apparently so exquisitely composed and complex, that it in many ways completely surpasses the most complex machines built by the hand of man.. And it's all the more amazing because it's on the nano scale.​

Here's a great video on how amazing bacterial flagellum are in addition to the link I posted above.​

And yet, Darwinists expect people to believe a random, and unintelligent process could have created something like this, in addition to hundreds of millions of life forms that have existed throughout Time on Earth? :\​

But even more damning than the unbelievable complexity of bacterial flagellum, is the fact that the genes (up to 50 of them) required for their functioning are as Behe stated, irreducibly complex. In other words, removing or tampering with any of the genes that control the production and or function of these proteins, results in a complete and utter loss of mobility.

...​

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.