|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Evolution
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 EvolutionEvolution occurs when there are changes in the genetic makeup of a population over generations, primarily driven by a process called "natural selection" where organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in the population over time; this happens through mechanisms like mutation, genetic recombination, and environmental pressures that favor certain variations within a species. Key points about evolution: Variation is key: Individuals within a species naturally have slight variations in their traits due to genetic differences. Natural selection: When environmental conditions change, certain variations may provide an advantage, allowing those organisms to survive and reproduce more successfully. Inheritance: Beneficial traits are passed on to offspring through genes, causing the population to gradually shift towards those characteristics over generations. Mutations: Random changes in DNA can introduce new traits into a population, which can then be acted upon by natural selection. Adaptation: Over time, populations evolve adaptations that help them thrive in their specific environment. From Wiki: All life on Earth—including humanity—shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite to microbial mat fossils to fossilized multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped by repeated formations of new species (speciation), changes within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Morphological and biochemical traits tend to be more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, which historically was used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees, although direct comparison of genetic sequences is a more common method today. Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but also other fields including agriculture, medicine, and computer science. |
|||||||
|
Successes of Evolution Another rousing success was the prediction of Tiktaalik, “a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya.” Why do we find fossils of amphibians in this rock strata, but never fossils of birds, bats, deer, mice, dinosaurs, or any reptiles or mammals? Opponents of biology have no answer but instead are left with egg coating their faces. |
|||||||
|
The answer to both those questions is “No,” and science is based upon observation and experimentation. The only evidence for molecules-to-man evolution is an unknown number of alleged transitional fossils (which are extrapolated into animals via imagination and fantasies) and similar genomes, which could easily be attributed to a similar design. Molecules-to-man evolution is a joke, and Darwin was a fraud. He had no evidence to support his theory when he put it forward, but many people embraced it because it got rid of God. And that’s largely the reason it’s embraced today. Fortunately, some scientists who realize it’s a crock are exploring alternative naturalistic explanations for the origin of species. |
|||||||
|
Observation Yes, there are multiple instances. One involves a mutation resulting in a species of orchid sexually incompatible with ancestral species. Quote: Two modes of speciation are particularly common in plants: Speciation by hybridization: For example, when Loren Rieseberg and coworkers reconstructed the phylogeny of several sunflower species, they found that several species had been formed by fertilizations between other species. Often the hybrid offspring of such fertilizations are sterile, but occasionally they are fertile and are reproductively isolated from their “parent” species. In the latter case, a new species is formed. Speciation by ploidy changes: In terms of plant speciation, a ploidy change generally means multiplying the number of chromosomes the species has by some number. So a species that normally has 18 chromosomes might produce a lineage that has 36 or 54 chromosomes. Ploidy changes are common in plants and often produce a species that is reproductively isolated and distinct from the “parent” species. For example, speciation in these anemones involved a ploidy change. [Photo of anemones not included]. evolution.berkeley.edu. The following link illustrates the glory of evolutionary theory in explaining the findings in the fossil record. In every instance we find fossils supporting the illustrated lineage. evolution.berkeley.edu |
|||||||
|
Are you one of the guys who believes 5,000 species of fruit flies exist and 17,500 species of butterflies exist? |
|||||||
|
Drosophila There are more than 1,600 described species of Drosophila, but the genus is estimated to have several thousand. The genus is a rich source for comparative studies because of its diversity in appearance, behavior, breeding habitat, and ecological niches. en.wikipedia.org If you scroll down to the chart below, you will get a better understanding of why there are so many species of drosophila. www.sciencedirect.com They have had sixty million years in which to bifurcate into so many species. Image here: ars.els-cdn.com |
|||||||
|
This same kind of deception in ambiguity occurred when I asked evolutionists on here how many transitional fossils existed, and I got answers that ranged from a dozen to hundreds of thousands. |
|||||||
|
Ambiguity So for extremely clear, compelling, and unambiguous transition fossils there are a great many--dozens just in the Elephantoidea. †Stegotetrabelodon (4 species) Subfamily Elephantinae †Primelephas (2 species) Elephas (7+ species) †Stegoloxodon (2 species) Loxodonta (6 species) †Palaeoloxodon (14+ species) †Phanagoroloxodon (1 species) †Mammuthus (10 species) †Stegodibelodon (1 species) †Selenetherium (1 species) Otherwise yes, many thousands. Practically however many fossils there are. Or, to be conservative, however many non juvenile fossils that had likely produced offspring. |
|||||||
|
African Forest Elephant |
|||||||
|
LOL. Every fossil is either a transitional or represents the last of its kind (an extinction).>> So the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution being true assumes the theory already is true? |
|||||||
|
Truth? Sufficiently weak theories are discarded, but in general a hypothesis strengthened by multiple lines of evidence becomes a theory. And theory is the foundation of science--it is what science is built upon. Theory assembles facts into a logical and cohesive explanation. Generally speaking, the simpler a theory is, the more accurate it is. Evolution rests upon two primary facts. These are that offspring exhibit variations from there parents or progenitor stock, and that nature favors individuals based on a combination of survival skills or breeding success. So geology--plate tectonics was a ridiculous notion when first proposed. Early 20th century geologists favored a "land bridge" explanation, proposing the continents enjoyed connections whereby species could cross which subsequently sank beneath the seas. Ultimately we measured continental drift, after developing satellite GPS technology and other techniques, as well as noting geological features of subduction and orogeny. So you don't deny the theory of plate tectonics--you recognize this is genuine science supported by a host of observations while refuted by none. We could go on with every other scientific discipline. But when it comes to biology, you balk. You have some deep seated reason for rejecting the science which you insist I have falsely ascribed to religious conviction. The reason I did that is because it is common to encounter resistance to biology from fundamentalist Christians as well as fundamentalist Muslims. The rejection is almost entirely based on religious belief. In your case, you insist your objections are "science" based, but then you disagree with the "third way" scientists you abuse to back up your claim, and you never get around to explaining the real mechanism behind the origin of species. If God created them all simultaneously 6000 years ago (which we both agree is false), this is a purely religious belief void of any scientific foundation. I did have one acquaintance (a professor of biology) who insisted that instead of evolution species formed by a series of "saltations." We called him "Salty" for that reason, which is a name I think he actually used himself, IIRC. But he was never able to propose any mechanism for these saltations. I was compelled to dismiss them as religiously motivated. If you could lay out your competing theory of evolution, which better explains the fossil record, a Nobel Prize awaits you, of course. You don't actually have to do all that work--just explain your theory to a biologist (like our dear Stalhandske, may he rest in peace) who can properly flesh out your theory. In science we don't throw out a really good theory like evolution until we can replace it with something better. A prime example is the hot inflationary big bang model. It explains a rich tapestry of details observed in particle experiments and regarding the large scale structure of what we observe. We started to see some minor fissures in this with the Hubble Deep Field, and now recognize that while the theory is robust, it may not account for the very early structures observed by the JWST without a bit more refinement. Possibly someone may propose some superior alternative, and cosmologists will dump the HIBB the way they abandoned Newton when Einstein's GR came along. I do recall reading books published in the 1950s (five decades after SR) striving to explain why Einstein was wrong about his 1905 theory. Even by 1950 these authors were pushing the minority viewpoint--and even *I* could see why they were obviously wrong. It was just sad. But I didn't mean to delve into philosophy this way--I prefer sticking to the plain and simple facts. In the late Devonian we find fossils of Tiktaalik, a sarcopterygian lungfish with features primordial to acanthostega and other Carboniferous amphibians. The Carboniferous comprises the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian epochs, yet this entire 60 million year period of time lacks any fossils of anthophyta (flower plants) which mark the Cenozoic, or ANY Mesozoic or Cenozoic mammal. No Cenozoic reptiles are found in the Carboniferous. None. Sixty million years of utter absence of flora and fauna pervasive the world over today. I would love to hear your explanation for this. Evolution explains these species simply had not evolved during the Paleozoic era. It is simple, straightforward, and beautifully fits observed findings, including our genetic data. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
LUCA Quote AI: Based on current scientific understanding, LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) would likely have been a single-celled organism, probably living in a hot, chemically rich environment like a deep-sea hydrothermal vent, with features including: a simple prokaryotic structure, ability to utilize basic chemical compounds for energy (autotrophic), reliance on RNA as both genetic material and catalyst, potential for genetic flexibility, and a tolerance for extreme temperatures; essentially, a primitive microbe capable of basic metabolic functions in a harsh environment, considered the ancestor to all life on Earth today. Key features of LUCA: Prokaryotic nature: Lacking a nucleus or membrane-bound organelles, similar to modern bacteria. Anaerobic metabolism: Likely did not require oxygen to survive, potentially using hydrogen as an energy source. RNA-based genetics: RNA molecules may have served as both genetic information storage and catalytic enzymes (ribozymes). Thermophilic: Adapted to high temperatures, possibly due to its hydrothermal vent habitat. Autotrophic metabolism: Capable of producing its own food from simple inorganic compounds. Simple cell membrane composition: Likely with unique lipid structures compared to modern organisms. Genetic flexibility: Potential for horizontal gene transfer, allowing for rapid adaptation. Important points to remember: Hypothetical construct: LUCA is a theoretical concept based on genetic analysis, not a directly observed organism. Ongoing research: Scientists are still actively studying the characteristics of LUCA through comparative genomics and evolutionary modeling. Environmental factors: The extreme environment of hydrothermal vents is considered a likely location for LUCA's origin due to the availability of necessary chemicals and energy sources. End quote. How long ago would the common ancestor of eukaryotes (plants and animals) have lived? Quote AI According to current scientific understanding, the common ancestor of eukaryotes, known as the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA), is estimated to have lived around 2 billion years ago. Key points about this topic: Fossil evidence: The oldest fossil evidence of eukaryotes is approximately 2 billion years old. Origin theory: Most scientists believe that eukaryotes evolved from a prokaryotic ancestor through a process called endosymbiosis, where one cell engulfed another. Molecular clock data: While fossil evidence provides a rough timeline, molecular clock analysis of genetic data also supports the 2 billion year ago timeframe for the LECA. End quote. So the fossil evidence agrees with the molecular clock. Pretty obvious fiat or spontaneous creation wasn’t occurring, else why would God engineer evidence supporting the evolutionary paradigm? Forgers try to make something look exactly like something else. But what would motivate God to forge evidence against His plan en creation? I understand you are not a creationist, and that you have a far superior theory for the origin of species you simply haven’t divulged yet. No rush. Take your time. |
|||||||
|
Me You see my weakness. Still, no, I have zero idea why Softaire and P. booted me from NG, nor did either ever bother to explain. Both ignored repeated entreaties. Pussy said he wouldn’t take me back, so dialogue is truly pointless. When he is going to censor true to his base nature any time he knows he loses rational argument, which is all the time, what is left to say? |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
So Darwin’s crackpot fantasy is true because a better naturalistic explanation for the origin of species doesn’t exist? That’s like saying 2+2=5 is true until we come up with a better way of counting numbers. And I am a creationist and never said I wasn’t. I‘ve said I’m not a YEC. |
|||||||
|
Yes Yes, single cells are indeed quite complex. Quote AI The last universal common ancestor (LUCA), the shared ancestor of all life on Earth, lived approximately 4.2 billion years ago. This is significantly closer to the origin of Earth than previously thought. Scientists estimate that LUCA was: A complex anaerobic acetogen Lived in a pre-existing ecosystem Ate carbon dioxide and hydrogen Produced acetate that may have fed other life A simple prokaryote Likely had an immune system Scientists used gene family analysis to estimate LUCA's age. They also retraced the physiological characteristics of living species to understand what LUCA may have been like. End quote. Now, over two billion years separate LUCA from LECA. But very little time separates the origin of life itself from LUCA. What, half a billion years? And most of that in a pretty harsh environment. The Theia collision forming the moon occurred 4.4 billion years ago, a mere two hundred million years before LUCA. In response to your 2+2=5 until a better theory comes along, if you query the AI on the origin of life it responds 3.8 billion years back. So LUCA becomes 400 million years older than life itself. I knew you would get a kick out of that. How long did it take the moon to form from the ring debris? Really fast. Ten thousand years. So how about how long did it take Earth to cool and recover? Probably a bit longer, maybe a hundred thousand years. If f we place the origin of life half way between Theia and LUCA, we still have a hundred million years in which to play. I’m also in no way committed to a purely natural origin for LUCA. If you wish to believe God created that, I’m perfectly content. No argument against here. Like Darwin, I only go from LUCA to modern man, not molecules to man. I’m not a creationist in that I don’t think God proofed LUCA into existence, but who knows? I tend to lean towards maybe God orchestrated the molecules somehow. I don’t have any idea how much divine intervention is required for abiogenesis. I completely agree it is a really tough nut, RNA world or whatever you want to throw out there, and we never did it. Yet. When we produced a purely natural route to a living organism my tune will change. But I certainly don’t know, and can’t say. I’m also fine with God creating the universe. Not as is, but via hot, inflationary big bang nucleosynthesis. The evidence is abundant and getting clearer all the time. Like you, I am not an atheist. No matter what Frank thinks. |
|||||||
|
2+2=5 Nah, a theory is provisionally accepted when all the evidence points that way, just as it does for Darwin’s theory. We replace a theory that works as well and has all the support of Darwin’s baby with one that is better, when such arrives. Nothing is remotely in the works on that score. Obviously someone needs to tell the AI LUCA cannot predate life itself four hundred million years. |
|||||||
|
Criticisms LOL. No they didn’t. Third Way, weak as that is, was your best source. Did you even cite genuine scientists not affiliated with ICR or AIG? |
|||||||
|
Enjoy! m.gameknot.com m.gameknot.com |
|||||||
|
Reason 1 << It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method (and I’m frankly tired of evolutionists on here dishonestly claiming it does.)>> AI responds: Yes, evolution does follow the scientific method; it is considered a well-established scientific theory that is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various fields, including the fossil record, genetics, and comparative anatomy, and can be tested and refined through observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and analysis, aligning with the core principles of the scientific method. Key points about evolution and the scientific method: Observable phenomena: Evolution is observed in the natural world, with changes in populations over time being directly witnessed in various species, like bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Hypothesis testing: Scientists formulate hypotheses about evolutionary mechanisms, like natural selection, and test them through experiments and observations in the field or laboratory. Predictive power: Evolutionary theory allows for predictions about the characteristics of organisms based on their evolutionary history, which can then be tested against new evidence. Falsifiable: Like any scientific theory, evolution is open to falsification if new evidence contradicts its predictions. |
|||||||
|
Reason Deux <<I suppose reason numero deux for my not believing the theory of evolution is the sheer mathematical impossibility of millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, arising from a blind-chance process of random mutations and natural selection. David Gelernter, a professor at Yale University, wrote about this in an article entitled “Giving Up Darwin” >> David Hillel Gelernter is an American computer scientist, artist, and writer. He is a professor of computer science at Yale University. So, relevance? He isn’t even a real natural scientist. Two years after the Unabomber tried to kill him, Ted sent Gelernter a letter, writing: "People with advanced degrees aren't as smart as they think they are." Nailed him a second time. These two other men summate Gelernter far better than I can. Bob Seidensticker writes: "Let's subtitle this story, 'Guy who made his career in not-biology is convinced by other not-biologists that Biology's core theory is wrong.'" Computer scientist and mathematician Jeffrey Shallit wrote: "Gelernter's review was not published in a science journal, but in a politics journal run by a far-right think tank. His review cites no scientific publications at all, and makes claims like 'Many biologists agree' and 'Most biologists think' without giving any supporting citations. So, not surprisingly ... Gelernter makes a fool of himself in his review, which resembles a 'greatest hits' of creationist misconceptions and lies." |
|||||||
|
Probability What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10^74 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 10^74 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 10^77. In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.>> AI replies: While not fully "spontaneous" in the sense of happening instantly without any conditions, simple proteins can arise spontaneously under certain laboratory conditions where amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, are present in a concentrated solution, allowing them to link together to form short polypeptide chains; however, the formation of complex, functional proteins with specific biological roles usually requires a more complex process involving genetic information and cellular machinery. So it IS done, for simple proteins. But really, this has nothing to do with Darwin, who never proposed a theory of abiogenesis. His theory concerns the origin of species given life that already exists. Darwin had no idea how life initially arose, 3.8 or 4.2 (or more) billion years back, nor does anyone else. So can we move on from that? We begin with LUCA, not with hypothetical scenarios no one understands. Or do you wish to continue attacking Darwin on things he never said? |
|||||||
|
“What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” (1859) And… To what extent did observation and experimentation support Darwin’s wild guess when he published it in 1859? And please don’t bring up the Galápagos Islands. Observing different beak sizes on birds hardly justifies claiming life began as a single-celled organism and that millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, are the result of an unguided, blind-chance process of random variation and natural selection. But I really have no interest in arguing this with someone who thinks a different “species” of orchid is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution. |
|||||||
|
Vic And take note: As a man of God AND science, Shiva is able to find sparks of God's magnificent essence in both --- maybe you should try the same. And, Darwin aside for now, it's my opinion that you would do well to learn that finding the full wonder of God is impossible in this physical life, and that believing in science might help y'all with further discovery. |
|||||||
|
@Jan The theory of molecules-to-man evolution is not science, as Darwin himself acknowledged and as more and more scientists are finally admitting. And I believe the Bible. I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that the way of salvation and reconciliation with God is made plain in the Bible. And the Bible is not a single book. It’s 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years on three continents and in three languages. Have you read it? No one has all the answers. But the Bible provides numerous answers to life’s biggest questions, though it’s obviously impossible for a finite human being with limited understanding and a finite perspective to understand an eternal and omniscient God with an eternal perspective. I do find God’s creative power and beauty in nature and science. I think you’re making the same mistake all evolutionists seem to make – you think anyone who questions, criticizes or doesn’t believe the theory of evolution doesn’t believe in science. It’s an intellectually-lazy and false stereotype. Plenty of scientists don’t believe molecules-to-man evolution. And for good reason. As evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis said, “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Science is a lot bigger and a lot more credible than a wild guess put forward by a naturalist in the 1800s. |
|||||||
|
Vic I was using "Book" to refer to all the books in the Bible, and, yes: I have read the Bible; and I have also read the Koran, passages from Buddha, and stories from the American Indians, etc; and I respect and honor all of them for what they can teach me. I don't understand WHY you don't accept evolution, which, although a bit of a variance from the story in Genesis, is a scientific, still a theory, that that has endured the scrutiny for two centuries --- not that flaws haven't been found that expose limits of Man's knowledge of the era; but it is, in-deed, more-or-less accurate as has been found by scientific investigation and archaeology. Not that I can't accept that God might have breathed into some animal to give her the power of speech, but Eve was born about 3,000,000 years ago; not 6,000 years ago. Finally: The first human was NOT a man as sexist men might prefer, but a woman, which has been confirmed when science isolated the human gene and further discovered that the human genome is carried ONLY in the female EG: If a man sired a baby from a female ape the result would NEVER be humanoid, and if a human female had a child from a male ape it would exhibit at least some humanoid characteristics --- that's scientific discovery for ya. |
|||||||
|
They’re in conflict with each other over who Jesus Christ is and how people are reconciled to God and saved. <<I don't understand WHY you don't accept evolution,>> I’ve said over and over again why I don’t accept it and nearly 600 posts are in two threads (links provided above) for why I don’t accept it. <<it is, in-deed, more-or-less accurate as has been found by scientific investigation and archaeology.>> I completely disagree with this and have shown why in the threads I provided links to above. At some point, I’m not going to indulge evolutionists by repeating the same points over and over again. <<Eve was born about 3,000,000 years ago; not 6,000 years ago.>> Eve wasn’t born. She was created by God. And I’m not a YEC, as I’ve said numerous times. <<Finally: The first human was NOT a man as sexist men might prefer, but a woman, which has been confirmed when science isolated the human gene and further discovered that the human genome is carried ONLY in the female EG: If a man sired a baby from a female ape the result would NEVER be humanoid, and if a human female had a child from a male ape it would exhibit at least some humanoid characteristics --- that's scientific discovery for ya.>> You’re free to believe whatever you want. As am I. Science has been gobsmackingly wrong numerous times. Science is done by fallible men who, as far as biologists, are overwhelmingly atheists and therefore unwilling to consider anything but a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and species. And you can think humans are animals who evolved from apes, but then you have to consider/explain the vast gulf between the abilities and capabilities of humans and the abilities/capabilities of the most “evolved” animals. They’re nowhere near each other. |
|||||||
|
Vic True, but God has also been looked at by fallible, near exclusively men who were too often biased by their own view points, sexist attitudes and even power grabbing (a well known flaw of Man). Finally: Please define the word "gobsmacking" for me --- I've only seen that word from you. |
|||||||
|
Gobsmacking Chiefly British, informal : overwhelmed with wonder, surprise, or shock : astounded Several minutes later I touch the bottom, pleased to discover that Louise—despite all her experience exploring caves elsewhere in the world—is as gobsmacked as I am. "This place is huge, and daylit," she says, her face glazed with awe. —Gregory Crouch Thus, when the cell-phone video surfaced, fashion insiders were so gobsmacked that to this day they'll tell you where they were when they first heard about it. Indeed. I can appreciate how Science can be wonderous, surprising, and shocking; but, for the life of me: I can't see how it fits in your sentence. |
|||||||
| ||||||||
