|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Molecules to Man Evolution
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Molecules to Man Evolution“Molecules to Man” implies man is some type of goal of an evolutionary process. That is hardly the accepted view among biologists. It must be noted that while there is a “growing dissent” among biologists regarding evolution, that is only because the number of biologists continues to increase, including the minority disputing the general consensus. That small minority is NOT growing proportionately, but shrinking or at best, maintaining their protracted percentage. The Gemini Oracle started to respond to this question, but gave up. So Wiki states: As of 2014 [update] , nearly all (around 98%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. That fits well with the general consensus on anthropocentric global warming (perhaps as low as 97% in 2014), and the prevailing view in other disciplines. Hot inflationary big bang cosmology enjoys roughly equal acceptance among cosmologists. Among chemists the periodic table is much closer to 100%. QM (QED and QCD) are accepted by 99% of particle physicists. Plate tectonics is accepted by the same percent among geologists. This one is the most recent radical changes, as the silly land bridge theory was the prevailing view a century ago. HIBB cosmology wasn’t quite as earth shaking as plate tectonics. (Pun intended, yes indeed). So what is the evidence for evolution? While we haven’t eliminated been over this ground many times, sometimes it bears repeating. Stromatolites. Fossil stromatolites reveal our earth was uninhabited for billions (two to three billion) years prior to the earliest metazoan fossils. Protozoans are single celled zoans (life forms), while metazoans are multicellular. The banded iron formations hearken to the origin of photosynthetic life forms, at the time only marine Cyanobacteria or blue green algae. On archaea and the origin of the immune system www.npr.org Why single cells band together www.npr.org Original of life research www.npr.org More research www.npr.org I had run across some really great research on this topic recently, but unfortunately didn’t copy the links. The above is a tiny sampling from a single resource. I will search for others, if for no other reason than to have a handy repository. |
|||||||||||||
|
Pink www.dw.com |
|||||||||||||
|
Experiments and Observations www.science.org |
|||||||||||||
|
More Examples www.nature.com Chiclid fish mate selection as a driver of evolutionary change www.jstor.org Adaptive divergence in drosophila www.jstor.org I recall someone once expressing doubt over the number of unique species of fruit flies. These diminutive organisms reproduce rapidly in a wide variety of isolated environments absent stiff competition for readily available resources—an ideal situation for rapid diversification and speciation. Moreover, drosophila is the type organism for genetics research. Recall transgender mice by the SOTU imbecile? TRANSGENIC mice are a food source for monoclonal antibodies, essential in cancer therapy studies, which is research now cancelled by Groper’s DOGE. My obligatory dig against the idiot taking a wrecking ball to our economy. The only eggs falling in value are 401(k) nest eggs. Anyway, McCain and Palin ridiculed fruit fly funding because farmers concerned about crop infestations ought to pay for their own research. Never mind no one was doing pest control—again drosophila melanogaster is the TYPE organism for genetics. Tinkering with fly genes has taught us so much about the evolutionary history of earth’s biosphere. |
|||||||||||||
|
Thought experiment Anyone who is interested... Go to your favorite AI program and ask the following two questions. 1. Is there any direct evidence for the existence of God. Note it's answer 2. is there direct evidence supporting molecules to man evolution? Note it's answer Which answer is correct? |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Patzer After all: "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", as Man calls it, has been in place since the big bang waiting for for life to spark, and Darwin found it for us |
|||||||||||||
|
A plea One thing I've noticed as a common thread is how eager such advocates are to point out the lack of direct observational evidence of the mainstream theories. They are eager to point out that virtually every dating tool used (e.g., Carbon dating) depends on assumptions that can't be directly verified, such as assumed C14 concentrations in ancient atmospheres. And they are quite right to do so; such assumptions should be investigated! Yet they have no problems taking Biblical narratives literally, despite them not having been securely recorded by contemporary instrumentation. Nor do they have problems with their 'explanations' of how certain landscapes show evidence of Noah's Flood, despite similar lack of direct observational evidence. So I ask two things only of this thread:- 1. That arguments put forward as 'based on evidence' should indeed be based on such evidence as is common in the relevant scientific field; and that any argument based on other evidence should not pretend to be scientific. Call it whatever you will, but not 'scientific'. 2. The inability to give a complete and comprehensive proof in every detail should not invalidate parts of the theory that are not dependent on the uncertain detail. It might indicate a more general weakness in the theory, or it might simply be a detail that is inadequately understood. Science does not work by getting the whole truth, but by pushing the boundary further into the unknown. There will be errors, but these errors should be corrected by more refined proposals that explain the errors, not by denigration of the effort. |
|||||||||||||
|
Gemini Oracle <<Yes, there is considerable direct evidence supporting the evolution of life from molecules to modern humans, including molecular biology, fossil records, and comparative anatomy.>> I’m satisfied with both answers. That doesn’t make me an atheist. There is a form of agnosticism that suggests God’s existence isn’t knowable. These fall into three categories: Deists despite, outright atheists (probably most atheists) and those with no opinion one way or the other: Regular “agnostics”. The original word was intended in the sense of “against knowledge,” in that the question simply was unknowable. People can convince themselves of anything they want. We have encountered those who think Earth is flat and the Apollo missions were hoaxes, that vaccines cause autism or haven’t been sufficiently tested or are just bad, climate science is a hoax, and biology is false. |
|||||||||||||
|
Interesting LS When asked it assumes Direct means scientific evidence and changed Direct to scientific. when pressed to keep to the narrow definition of " Direct evidence " AI says NO "there is considerable "scientific" evidence supporting the evolution of life from molecules to modern humans, including molecular biology, fossil records, and comparative anatomy. "Direct evidence" There is no direct evidence supporting "molecules to man" evolution in the sense you are likely referring to. The term "molecules to man" is not a scientific concept, but rather a phrase often used in creationist arguments against evolution. Scientific evidence for evolution comes from multiple lines of inquiry, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and observable changes in organisms over time. However, these are generally considered indirect evidence rather than direct observation of the entire evolutionary process from simple molecules to complex organisms like humans. Direct observation of evolution is limited to smaller-scale changes that can occur over shorter time periods, such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. While these observations provide valuable insights into evolutionary processes, they do not constitute direct evidence of the full scope of evolutionary history from the origin of life to modern humans. It's important to note that the lack of direct, observable evidence for the entire evolutionary history does not invalidate the scientific theory of evolution. The theory is supported by a vast array of indirect evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, which together provide a robust explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The definition of Direct evidence is... Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact without requiring any inference or presumption. It provides immediate proof of the matter in question. Here are key aspects of direct evidence: Definition: Direct evidence directly links a person to a crime or demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proved. Lord Shiva I am playing with definitions your AI program probably assumed you meant scientific evidence, rather that Direct evidence. Although I don't know why Gemini would repeat it back like that. The program I used replaced direct with scientific. When I pressed it for "Direct evidence only, It gave the answer I posted. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Patz |
|||||||||||||
|
Direct Evidence So for evolution we have direct evidence for changes in species, and we have the direct evidence of the fossil record. The induction is pretty straightforward. Some mathematicians find induction makes their skin crawl, but most are fine with it. Most organisms fit neatly into the tree of life, and the genetic markers closely parallel the anatomical classification. In the few cases that doesn’t hold true, biologists came to recognize there were other anatomical features more relevant to the evolutionary classification. You can find the tree of life here: evolution.berkeley.edu It is a truly mammoth work, build extensively on the basic foundation laid by Linnaeus and Darwin. |
|||||||||||||
|
Direct Evidence There is no way to telescope the millions of generations into the span of a single human lifetime. So is Andrew right? Well, in mathematics we have never found an inductive proof that failed for any integral value n such that n>k. Such a thing would certainly destroy induction. |
|||||||||||||
|
Shiva But mathematics is not biology. It would be more accurate to say that failure to observe 'genetic induction' in the sense of similarity down through genera to species would be a disproof of evolution, rather than to phrase it as a 'proof'. But the existence of genetic similarities is certainly acceptable as evidence, in that Evolution predicts this would occur while non-evolutionary theories would not predict it. |
|||||||||||||
|
The Cambrian Explosion My immediate reaction is that the Cambrian Explosion provides strong support for Evolution. The theory would predict that whenever a new ability or food source or environmental change appears, there would be a rapid evolutionary divergence as different critters suddenly find that one or more of the accumulated mutations suddenly confers some advantage. And the Cambrian Period certainly saw lots of changes! The development of the eye (or at least, phot-sensitive spots), higher oxygen levels, greater mobility as animals were no longer anchored in place or bottom feeders, etc. Some of these were inter-related, giving multiple different niches that different mutations could find advantageous. |
|||||||||||||
|
Can’t Argue True, science doesn’t do proof. This is a popular misconception. Instead, science says we provisionally accept these findings absent evidence to the contrary. Or not—really only a preponderance of evidence predisposes scientists towards conclusions. Not peer pressure or funds from fossil fuel companies or whatever. Evidence refuting evolution would be fairly easy, such as lagomorphs in Cambrian strata. A crockoduck actually disproves evolution. A dog birthing a cat. “The crocoduck is a fictitious hybrid animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck. It was proposed in 2007 by young-Earth creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to be an animal that should exist, were their misconceptions about the theory of evolution true.” |
|||||||||||||
|
<<I find nothing really to debate in your AI’s analysis. It is patently obvious there can never be direct observation of molecules evolving into men, which I gather is Andrew’s chief complaint.>> No, my chief complaint is there’s no evidence of one common-sense definition of species evolving into another common-sense definition of species. This is why I’m not commenting in this thread. I don’t feel like dealing with your trolling. |
|||||||||||||
|
Darwin observed changes within a species and then made the completely unsupported leap that what he saw meant one species evolved into another species beginning with a single-celled organism. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 01:38 This is absolutely correct! As I said in my 15:43 post, "I've noticed as a common thread is how eager such advocates (i.e., non-Evolutionists) are to point out the lack of direct observational evidence of the mainstream theories." But indirect evidence exists in abundance! Genetic studies as mentioned by Shiva, the fossil record showing a progression of very similar but subtly different physiologies, etc. Plus the grippingest question of all; why are there modern species that we see every day, both alive and as bones, which are totally absent from even comparatively recent (e.g., Eocene) strata? Did they appear out of thin air? Yet there ARE fossils of very similar critters in those Eocene deposits. So where did modern animals come from? You don't know? That's fair enough; lots of scientific theories are incomplete. So scientists tend to go with the one that offers the best explanation, and then test it against observation to refine or refute it. What alternative theory do you put forward, to be refined or refuted? By-the-way, the 'Third Way' you have mentioned in previous threads is not an alternative to evolution, but an additional mechanism by which evolution might happen but which had previously been unknown. <Darwin observed changes within a species and then made the completely unsupported leap> Am I the only one who sees a self-contradiction here? You list the support Darwin noted (i.e., 'changes within species') and in the same sentence say 'completely unsupported'. Perhaps you might like to explain why those changes do NOT support his theory. <that what he saw meant one species evolved into another species beginning with a single-celled organism.> Darwin never said that. You don't even understand the theory that you so vehemently oppose. Darwin titled his book 'The origin of SPECIES', not 'The Origin of Kingdoms, Families, Genera, Phyla, etc'. No mention of molecules at all! So do you want to debate Darwin's ideas as Darwin presented them? Then stick to what Darwin said. But if you want to expand the scope to the current state of the Theory, then you need to include the evidence that the current theory is based on. Take your pick! By arguing that Darwin didn't have the data that the current theory is based on is true in itself, but is comparable to saying Copernicus was wrong because he didn't include Uranus and Neptune in his scheme. Mis-matching the theory with the data supporting it would be a dishonest misrepresentation. Science is not Fact carved in stone, but a work in progress that provides the best understanding we have so far. If you think it's mistaken, then provide a better understanding! <science is supposed to be based on observation and experimentation and the chief claim by Darwin... is based upon neither> But you go on to say that Darwin OBSERVED CHANGES! isn't that 'observation'? <The last thing I’ll say in this thread is...> That disappoints me. I was hoping that you would recover, and say something that didn't contradict itself. Why don't you put forward something like 'Progressive Creation' as a possibility? Or 'Guided Evolution'? Or even something like 'Ab Initio Teleology', which I have read about and find difficult to refute. The big problem with Ab Initio Teleology is that it is totally untestable. It makes no predictions that would distinguish it from materialistic evolution (indeed, the whole proposal was deliberately designed to be indiscernible from materialistic evolution!). Also, it's probably a bit too close to a scientific version of Calvinism for your liking. |
|||||||||||||
|
This is another misrepresentation and why I no longer have interest in participating in a debate on this subject. I have said ad infinitum that I reject the theory of evolution, that is the theory that life began as a single-celled organism and that random mutations and natural selection led to millions of species of plants and animals, and humans. The Third Way of Evolution, while saying (paraphrased) Darwin’s theory is flawed, has not come up with a theory of its own so there’s no way for me to offer an opinion on it. I’m well aware the Third Way of Evolution is not “an alternative to evolution” as “Evolution” is in the group’s title. Until you guys can stop saying I said things I never said, I have zero interest in engaging in a debate on this subject. Here’s an idea – Stick to saying what you think and stop telling me what I think. |
|||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva I worded my post with those two questions. Because neither question has direct evidence based on the definition of direct evidence. I didn't mean to suggest that there was NO evidence. The point For one of those questions. Assumptions, suppositions that are form as conclusions are allowed and encouraged. With the other question they are disallowed and discouraged. If not mocked. That is the lesson and point I wanted to get across. |
|||||||||||||
|
<<Darwin never said that. You don't even understand the theory that you so vehemently oppose. Darwin titled his book 'The origin of SPECIES', not 'The Origin of Kingdoms, Families, Genera, Phyla, etc'. No mention of molecules at all!>> I haven’t read “On the Origin of Species” (I’ve never been interested in fantasy novels) so I’ll rely on this quote from an academic paper… <<The quest for the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) roots back to the much-quoted closing paragraph of On the Origin of Species where Charles Darwin infers: “…that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”>> pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov And “into which life was first breathed” was a sop to believers that Darwin later said (if my memory’s right) he regretted writing. It’d be helpful and encourage discussion if you didn’t falsely tell people they don’t know what they’re talking about and if you and L_S stopped misrepresenting what they’ve said. You expect me to engage in a debate when that’s going on? Forget it. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob Me: science is supposed to be based on observation and experimentation and the chief claim by Darwin... is based upon neither You: But you go on to say that Darwin OBSERVED CHANGES! isn't that 'observation'? Why did you use ellipsis to leave out what I said was the chief claim of Darwin’s theory – that one common-sense definition of species evolved into another common-sense definition of species? Because it invalidates your point? Me: The last thing I’ll say in this thread is... You: That disappoints me. I was hoping that you would recover, and say something that didn't contradict itself You expect me to participate in a thread where you misrepresent what I’ve said, falsely tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about and falsely say I’m contradicting myself? Do you know how to have a civil discussion? |
|||||||||||||
|
07:27, maybe you just need to take a walk... |
|||||||||||||
|
@vocihc If the moderators want to throw me out for objecting to misrepresentations of what I’ve said and insults, they’re obviously free to do it. Maybe you oughta familiarize yourself with the first two rules in the club description, which are allegedly going to be enforced. <<1. Posts shall be moderate in tone. This does not rule out irony or humour; but we draw the line at insults. 2. Responses shall be courteous, reasoned and proportionate. Above all, they shall be responses to what is posted. They shall not impute, misrepresent or extrapolate another's position except as explicitly acknowledged as a possible consequence.>> |
|||||||||||||
|
But apparently even disagreeing with the theory is enough to warrant trolling in response. Nothing’s changed in the GK forum in 10 years… |
|||||||||||||
|
'cause you're still here... |
|||||||||||||
|
@vocihc Like I said, take your suggestion that I take a walk to the moderators. I know, and have long known, evolutionists on here can’t stand to have Darwin’s nonsense criticized or even questioned. I think deep down they know how pathetically weak the theory is. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic Today we call it the "spark of life" and science still doesn't know how it happened. Oh well. It's quite easy to hand responsibility for the "Spark of life" to God --- Not that Man will ever learn how God actually did it unless Science somehow learns how to ask God the question. And at the very least: It was certainly part of His plan. Biblical timing, of course, means nothing, because bible time is Man's huh? Not God's infinite time. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
