Evidence for or against evolution

John Connellan said:
What do u mean by right?
Click to expand...
complete
Very few theorys may be considered right (even relativity) but they work. However, of all theories u pick to argue this, Natural selection is one which actually does happen both theoretically and practically.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to account for everything that falls under the category of evolution.
We cannot prove that Natural selection has given rise to all of evolution
Click to expand...
That would be a neat trick. Please expand on that.
 
So problem causes the variable rate of evolution for the concept of naural selection persol?

You have to point it out because it is not obvious to me.
 
Persol said:
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to account for everything that falls under the category of evolution.
Click to expand...

But thats not a problem with NS. We've already established THAT happens. Its more of a problem with current evolutionary theory if u believe it.

That would be a neat trick. Please expand on that.
Click to expand...

I menat the same thing u did when u said there were holes in NS. U tell ME what those holes in evolution are since u probably know them better than i, and also I don't really beieve there is a problem with NS.
 
John Connellan said:
But thats not a problem with NS. We've already established THAT happens. Its more of a problem with current evolutionary theory if u believe it.
Click to expand...
That's my point. People always use NS as what 'put us here', but evolution is more than natural selection.
I menat the same thing u did when u said there were holes in NS. U tell ME what those holes in evolution are since u probably know them better than i, and also I don't really beieve there is a problem with NS.
Click to expand...
Lol, nope. My claim (which may be false) is based on:
a reading of 'dumbed down' versions of articles on evolution
the fact that people still research areas of it
 
Persol said:
My claim (which may be false) is based on: a reading of 'dumbed down' versions of articles on evolution the fact that people still research areas of it
Click to expand...
The science of evolution contains both facts and theories. Mutation, Natural Selection, and Heredity are facts; they have been observed and tested. Historical evolution (how exactly it all happened) is far more complex and is largely theoretical.

~Raithere
 
Raithere said:
The science of evolution contains both facts and theories. Mutation, Natural Selection, and Heredity are facts; they have been observed and tested. Historical evolution (how exactly it all happened) is far more complex and is largely theoretical.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Historical evolution has also been recorded quite nicely with the fossil record. Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously? Also relationships between genomes indicate historical evolution. These models have been observed and tested also. Moreover if natural selection is observed and tested than automatically historical evolution is observed and tested. Natural selection is after all a historical process and affect evolution. It is a bit strange to disentangle both concepts.
 
Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously?
Click to expand...
How it happened, and that it happened are two different things... as I was first trying to say.
 
I've never really studied fossils, so I don't know much about those. But personally I don't see how anyone could look at the specific biochemical steps involved in ATP production and not think that it was a process that evolved gradually over time. You can clearly see how organisms used to use some ATP variant, then tweaked it a little, then a little more, and so on. There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Natural selection is after all a historical process and affect evolution. It is a bit strange to disentangle both concepts.
Click to expand...
I did say theoretical, not hypothetical. There is indeed a large body of supporting evidence (fossils, genetic comparison) as you mentioned. But there is a definite difference between paleontology and biology, between inference and observation. The reason why I go through the trouble of explaining the difference is that most attacks upon evolution make use of the unknowns within paleontology to attack Evolution as a whole. Explaining that Evolution is an observed fact, as well as a body of theories that address how it is likely to have occurred, demonstrates that you cannot invalidate Evolution quite so simply.

Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously?
Click to expand...
I thought you were a scientist.

~Raithere
 
Genetics tests it every day, guess what with every genome, cDNA, mtDNA, ect sequence, we find more and more proof that its true.
 
John Connellan said:
What do u mean by 'actual evolution'?
There is no other means of explaining evolution as far as I can tell other than natural selection, and there's not too much wrong with that theory. We do know the process of evolution on a short-timescale but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.
Click to expand...
Hi John,

I need to intervene here. Sorry.

Evolution is the change in genetic frequency in a population per generation,

since this change can occur without natural selection (i.e. neutral changes), then evolution can occur without natural selection.

sorry for butting in
 
Nasor said:
I've never really studied fossils, so I don't know much about those. But personally I don't see how anyone could look at the specific biochemical steps involved in ATP production and not think that it was a process that evolved gradually over time. You can clearly see how organisms used to use some ATP variant, then tweaked it a little, then a little more, and so on. There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.
Click to expand...
That is extremely interesting.

Do you have any scientific references (from scientific journals) that examine this phenomenon in more detail?

TIA
 
ya, most biochem textbooks, he simply stating his opinion based of biochemical pathways and their variations.
 
paulsamuel said:
since this change can occur without natural selection (i.e. neutral changes), then evolution can occur without natural selection.
Click to expand...
Is it still considered evolution though if there is no driving force.

I guess my question is, what's the difference between a mutation and evolution? I thought evolution required a 'better' (at least temporary) outcome to be evolution.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
ya, most biochem textbooks, he simply stating his opinion based of biochemical pathways and their variations.
Click to expand...
you misunderstand me.

i am looking for review papers on the evolutionary significance of residual/vestigal steps in biochemical pathways.

i'm hoping that Nasor can provide some refs.
 
I find that very doubtful, by the way do you have evidence against his hypothesis? Perhaps you could post your evidence then.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
I find that very doubtful, by the way do you have evidence against his hypothesis? Perhaps you could post your evidence then.
Click to expand...
what do you find doubtful, that Nasor can find the refs., or that i am looking for refs., or that such refs. exist?

of which hypothesis do you speak?

i am asking for references for my own edification.

WCF, thank you for your reply, but you need not spend any more time on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top