Denial of evolution II

[TheVisitor]

Saquist, the Visitor and a few others anti-evolutionists, even with their combined efforts, fall far short of the good the Baron was doing.

Anti-evolutionist...
I said evolution is just a small part of the process of creation and still I am labeled an anti-evolutionist.
The mechanisms science has observed were set in place and operated by certain dynamics.

Don't throw me all the way in with the religious anti-evolution "young earth" crowd.
I never denied evolution exists, or deny the earth is billions of years old.
Neither does the bible.
Can't handle that spin on it?
Most here want it to be either or, pure science or religion...but it's not IMHO.
It's a little of both.

Science can document the mechanics of it, the physical laws at work. That much could very well be true.
Explain the force that set it all in order, that provided the raw materials to begin with and set those physical laws into play...

No one in science that supports evolution apart from creation can explain that.
Mechanics without the dynamics are just a dead lifeless form.
There are types that prove this out. You can't break the types in theory or practice.
Where did the space dust, the particles, the original matter and energy that condensed into a critical mass and caused the "big bang" ....where did it originate?

There is more to life than just evolution.
I believe in evolution plus......
We are just getting a small part of the picture from evolution alone.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Where did the space dust, the particles, the original matter and energy that condensed into a critical mass and caused your "big bang"....where did it originate?

Why do most people assume without argument that the universe had a beginning? Many people are quite open to the possibility that it will have no end. So why do so few people consider a model in which it had no beginning?

Can time not be symmetrical? Our measurement of time is highly influenced by the way we sense time, flowing at our own definition of a constant rate. Perhaps our analysis of the first few femtoseconds after the Big Bang is muddled because time passed more slowly then. Perhaps we see an "absolute zero" on the time axis because we graph it the wrong way. If we graphed it on a log scale that zero-point would be moved to minus infinity. And who's to say that might not be a better representation of reality?

We have a good precedent in our model of temperature. Temperature has an "absolute zero" only because of the way we happen to measure it. It's actually not possible to reach absolute zero because the closer you get the harder it is to remove that last tiny bit of energy that keeps the subatomic particles moving at an ever-slower speed. Just the way it may not be possible to reach absolute zero on the time axis. To try to express the state of the universe at that moment might involve division by zero, and to express the state of the universe before that moment might result in imaginary numbers.

Our model of the universe is, perhaps unconsciously, influenced by our status as living creatures. Every life has a beginning and an end, so we assume that everything else that exists, including everything else that exists taken in aggregate also has a beginning and an end.

That may turn out to be a strange sort of anthropomorphism. And it might turn out not to be true.

 

[Ophiolite]

I disagree with BaronMax and wholly agree with BillyT. No conflict.

 

[Billy T]

.... Science can document the mechanics of it, the physical laws at work. That much could very well be true.
Explain the force that set it all in order, that provided the raw materials to begin with and set those physical laws into play...

No one in science that supports evolution apart from creation can explain that.
Mechanics without the dynamics are just a dead lifeless form.
There are types that prove this out. You can't break the types in theory or practice.
Where did the space dust, the particles, the original matter and energy that condensed into a critical mass and caused the "big bang" ....where did it originate?

There is more to life than just evolution.
I believe in evolution plus......
We are just getting a small part of the picture from evolution alone.

OK you have God to launch evolution. Did he guide the mutations to make man evolve or was it just chance?

Explaining the physical laws, the condition of the universe is in now, was once a very tough problem (Our universe required a highly improbable set of initial conditions). The original big bang was modified to include "inflation" phase and that problem was removed. So, yes there is an explanation, but too complex for me to follow.

I agree there is no good response as to why anything came to exist with the big bang, but saying God made it is equally non-explanatory. Where did God come from? Both POVs have no answer to the "How did it get started" problem.

 

[Zeno]

I remember learning that at some loci in the human population there are more than 4 alleles.
The creationist explanation is that the different alleles have arisen through mutation. I find however that this explanation is rather dubious. It's almost like saying that people have different eye colors through 'mistakes'.

So did the descendants of Adam and Eve acquire the different alleles through some kind of programming to create variation?

Or did the different alleles arise through mutations?

Or, if there are 64 alleles at a certain locus in the population, it means there were at least 32 different people that were created at the beginning? (16 men, 16 women).

 

[GeoffP]

I remember learning that at some loci in the human population there are more than 4 alleles.
The creationist explanation is that the different alleles have arisen through mutation. I find however that this explanation is rather dubious. It's almost like saying that people have different eye colors through 'mistakes'.

Correct: this is exactly the case. If you disagree, answer me this: Why should genetics - of all phenomena in the rest of existence - not be prone to error or chance?

So did the descendants of Adam and Eve acquire the different alleles through some kind of programming to create variation?

First off, the "Adam and Eve" construct is really just a story. I mean, it's supremely unlikely that all people came from just two humans, mitochondrial Eve or no. There were undoubtedly more humans initially (or close relatives), which contributed alleles as a population.

Or did the different alleles arise through mutations?

Originally, yes. But again: more alleles would have been present in any arbitrary "pass" from our nearest ancestor into "human". (You have to keep in mind that these "barriers" are imagined for simplicity; in fact, the differences are of degree and not kind. Consider Canis: dogs can breed with wolves, coyotes and red wolves, although we laughingly call them different species.)

Or, if there are 64 alleles at a certain locus in the population, it means there were at least 32 different people that were created at the beginning? (16 men, 16 women).

One might say that; mutation would also result in more alleles over time. Both processes are occuring simultaneously, really.

 

[AlanCast]

I'm no expert on this but as far as i understand it, the human dna to cromosome value is that we use approx 12 percent of the actuall code into our body, leaving a good amount of code redundant, effectively if there was a divine creation of adam and eve there is plenty of scope within human dna for potentionally many different types of ppl, ie the 6.5 billion we have worldwide today.
hope this makes sense.

 

[phlogistician]

I'm no expert on this ...
hope this makes sense.

No, it's utter arse. Go read a book.

 

[Zeno]

Correct: this is exactly the case. If you disagree, answer me this: Why should genetics - of all phenomena in the rest of existence - not be prone to error or chance?

1) It seems highly unlikely that random mutations would cause something like variation in eye color or skin color.

2) Living organisms have safeguards in place in order to prevent errors from occuring.

3) It seems reasonable to assume that the designers of living organisms would have simply chosen to create a certain amount of variation within each species.

Do we have any proof that different alleles have arisen through mutation or is it just merely speculation?

First off, the "Adam and Eve" construct is really just a story. I mean, it's supremely unlikely that all people came from just two humans, mitochondrial Eve or no. There were undoubtedly more humans initially (or close relatives), which contributed alleles as a population.

True. I personally believe that there were initially more than two people created at the beginning.

 

[phlogistician]

1) 3) It seems reasonable to assume that the designers of living organisms would have simply chosen to create a certain amount of variation within each species.

Assuming we were designed does not answer any questions though does it? How did the designer evolve? You don't answer questions about evolution there, you just push it one step back.

 

[Ophiolite]

1) It seems highly unlikely that random mutations would cause something like variation in eye color or skin color.

This is an argument from incredulity. Just because you are unable to imagine the plausibility of this is no reason to reject it.
We can identify genes responsible for eye colour. We can note the differences between them. The necessary mutations are not at all challenging.

 

[Pteriax]

I have some serious questions on evolution.

I read the first page of this topic and it seemed like high schoolers patting each other on the back for a clever joke more than anything. I hope this is the right place for this, and if not I will start a new topic.

Can someone actually explain how and why evolution works?
Can someone tell me exactly what a species is?
Can someone explain how life began?
I have other questions, but only when these are answered.

I am not asking for one sentence answers here. I am not a child or a simpleton. I want detailed explanations if at all possible.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I have some serious questions on evolution.

I am not asking for one sentence answers here. I am not a child or a simpleton. I want detailed explanations if at all possible.

Then what the hell are you posting here for? :bugeye:

Do you really think that you will get complete and detailed answers to those very broad and complex questions at a chat-based internet science forum? We have some very educated and informed people here, but we also have crackpots, weirdos and wilfully ignorant creationists. Surely someone who is not a child or simpleton would know what you are going to get here or on any science forum – a series of disconnected posts, some from people who know what they are talking about and some from people who do not. This thread is a perfect example. The posts will not contain sufficient detail to satisfy your interest, if it is indeed genuine.

So, if you are actually sincere in your wish to learn about evolution in detail, then go and read a textbook! If you want to pursue online sources of info, then there are numerous resources where you could start before resorting to an open forum. When you have formulated some more specific questions, then it might be worthwhile to ask them here.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://pandasthumb.org/
http://darwinlibrary.amnh.org/

 

[iceaura]

1) It seems highly unlikely that random mutations would cause something like variation in eye color or skin color.

It is almost certain, by simple statistical probability, that hundreds of theoretically viable random mutations affecting eye and skin color will have occurred among the thousands of generations and millions of individuals of human genetic history.

 

[Pteriax]

Sorry, but I have been to sites like that and they don't have all the answers. They do have answers, but not adequate.

The evolution and species questions go hand in hand: to evolve a species must change, eventually becoming incompatible with the original species. The problem with this is that no one can agree on just what constitutes a species. That's just a problem with what exactly evolution is - to say nothing about how it works. I ask the origin of life question for the same reason: No one really knows - there are several competing theories, each with their problems.

Now why come to a forum? Well, every site, book, or university has its expert that has all the answers. These experts have all the answers - but from book to book, and place to place those answers vary. This makes any one of those sources a great candidate for scientific bias. They cannot seem to agree with each other.

So yes, I may not get great answers here - but that is no different than the problems I have everywhere else I go. And I might get lucky in an open forum frequented by so many people.

 

[James R]

The evolution and species questions go hand in hand: to evolve a species must change, eventually becoming incompatible with the original species. The problem with this is that no one can agree on just what constitutes a species.

You just gave a reasonable definition - lifeforms that cannot interbreed. The usual definition is that species are kinds of lifeform that cannot interbreed and produce offspring that are also able to breed successfully. That's why horses and donkeys are different species; you can breed a horse and a donkey to create a mule, but the mule will be sterile.

 

[iceaura]

The problem with this is that no one can agree on just what constitutes a species. That's just a problem with what exactly evolution is - to say nothing about how it works.

I don't see the problem. What difference does it make to evolutionary theory how you define what a "species" is? Any reasonable definition will do.

It's like saying that difficulties in defining what a "planet" is cast doubt on theories of the origin of Jupiter and Saturn and Mars and Pluto.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can someone actually explain how and why evolution works?

Firstly, if you wish to know why evolution works, which is a way of asking what is its purpose, then you need to raise that in the philosophy forum, for it has no place in science.

Secondly, the detail of how it works is - as befits any proper scientifc study - the subject of some debate. The simple explanation is that natural selection, acting upon variations within a population, favours the survival of some forms over others. There are a variety of means by which the initial variations may arise. These means are not generally debated, only their relative importance from situation to situation. The opportunity for speciation arises whenever populations become isolated through circumstance.

You really need to identify which aspects of the process lack clarity or conviction for you. We can then address these in turn.

Can someone tell me exactly what a species is?.

No. There is no single definition. The species concept is an artificial one imposed on nature as a consequence of the human propensity to classify. As iceaura has pointed out this fuzziness has really has no bearing on the character of evolution. If you still feel it does please set down why you feel so.

Can someone explain how life began?

This is a more complex issue and is largely irrelevant to evolution. (I do not say it is unimportant, only irrelevant in a thread related to evolution.)

Sorry, but I have been to sites like that and they don't have all the answers. They do have answers, but not adequate.

Specify two or three of these inadequacies and I, or another poster, shall be happy to address them.

 

[Zeno]

The species concept is an artificial one imposed on nature as a consequence of the human propensity to classify.

So, do the evos believe that it's possible for a species to go extinct?
Also, is the Endangered Species Act kind of a joke since species don't really exist?

 

[Billy T]

I don't see the problem. What difference does it make to evolutionary theory how you define what a "species" is? Any reasonable definition will do.
It's like saying that difficulties in defining what a "planet" is cast doubt on theories of the origin of Jupiter and Saturn and Mars and Pluto.

That is a really good and fair comparison, which I extend as follows:

First read text below with:
X = solar system's "planets."
Y = solar system
T = solar system evolution

Then read again with:
X = different species
Y = different species
T = evolution of the species

Experts cannot agree on exactly how the X should be defined, yet the concept of how the X formed is a very central part of the whole idea of how the Y came to exist. Despite this lack of definition agreement, the exerts now almost all (>99% of them) have become confident that they know the answer, but cautiously still call it the "T theory", which explain how the Y came to be as we observe it today, or evolved from earlier forms.

Not only has science and logic, based on more than 200 years of data collection and, very detailed, careful observations, lead these experts to the conclusion that the theory of T is correct, but they can even observe today the continued evolution of the Y exactly as predicted by the T theory.

None the less there exist some ignorant (ill informed) people who doubt the truth of the T theory and postulate that God, for whom there is not even existence evidence, made the Y exactly as observed today a long time ago. They tend to just deny the current observations that Y is still occurring or some are even so ignorant that they know nothing about this current evidence. Obviously, for them faith without any evidence is stronger than 200+ years of carefully collected evidence, which has supported the T theory as correct, without a single exception.