Re: Insights I've gained from my Bio class so far

AndreVan wrote:
unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

AndreVan wrote:

walkmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

AndreVan wrote:

Daniel Harper wrote:

Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)

What do you believe the cats, dogs, cattle, ducks evolved from and how?
Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.

You can pick up any number of scientific tomes and articles on the
evolution of cats, dogs, cattle and ducks.

Are you too afraid to post the scientific evidence yourself, or are you
unable to find any for biological evolution?

There's lots. I would think that if you were interested in the subject,
you would have looked.


I am not interested in evolutionary suppositions or evolutionary
philosophical stories about where the above animals came from. I'm
interested in the scientific evidence for their "evolutionary" origins.

OK. It comes from multiples line of evidence, from various sciences.
PLease note that not only are several of these in themselves sufficient
to suggest common descent via modification by natural selection, but
that they all point to the same scenario.

1. Simple forms in fossils approaching the modern forms, sorted
chronologically by (geographical) strata. (No human fossils old as
coal.)
2. Fossil ecosystems of plants and animals, with certain flora & fauna
co-existing. (No lobster fossils found with trilobites.)
3. These fossil ecosystems diverge and are associated with continental
drift. (When north Maerica joined South America, all placentals but the
possum went extinct.)
4. Nested hierarchy of morphology. Not only do the Linnaean-type
distribution of organisms lend itself to a family tree shape, but all
structures are modified from similar structures in predecessor
organisms. Moreover, these structures come in clusters matching
antecedants - no lateral mixing os organs. (No whales with gills, nor
birds with milk.)
5. Vestigial organs and behaviors. (Humans have a plantaris tendon, and
whales have fingers, and horses have three toes but only walk on one.)
6. Genetic science shows a nested hiearchy of life corresponding almost
perfectly (where it doesn't, we were less certain anyway) with the
nested hiearchy of morphology. (Human DNA is a lot like chimps. Even
mutations like the one that turned off the vitamin C maker.)
6. Miscellaneous supporting roles played by behavioral sciences, etc.


And please point us to, or post excerpts from, scientific papers that support a magical
origin of these organisms.

I believe their origins by God's supernatural creation account. I
believe by faith because I've never witnessed this creation first-hand,
just as you have never witnessed the evolution of a cell to all present
life today first-hand.

Not the same. It's all well and good if you want to believe in a
creator god - about 40% of scientists think so. But we have evidence
that supports common descent. See above.

Your evidence above is based on inferences and assumpions as well as
speculation. It is not the kind of empirical evidence required to make
evolution a 'scientific fact'.
Where is the observable, testable and repeatable scientific evidence
that all present day life evolved from a common cell?


The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
shrinks to almost nothing.

Considering that you've spent some time in the lab, are you able to
present us with the scientific evidence showing how the magnificent
diversity of life came about by random genetic mistakes from a
primordial cell? Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
in the lab?

First, let's establish that you do not understand evolutionary theory
and appear to be completely ignorant about natural selection, all
right? You could start with some of Stephen J. Gould's excellent
essays. Then, let's get you acquainted with the geologic time scale.
After you've gotten some of the basics, ask yourself if it's likely
that one would observe evolution during a 3-hour biology lab.

Are you implying that we need more time in the lab before we can
observe molecules to man evolution?

Yes. Haven't you been listening? It took three billion years. How much
time do you have - doing anything this afternoon? And it wouldn't be
man next time around. It would be something, though.

So you're saying that we cannot actually observe a cell evolving into
various life forms in the lab?


Gould was forced to consider the ridiculous notion of "punctuated
equilibrium" because of the lack of evidence for "gradual evolution" in
the fossil record and the obvious stasis it showed. ["The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould]

Why is it rediculous? Because it fits the data better than it fits your
preconception?


Why don't you enlighten me as to how natural selection is a scientific
mechanism for life diverging from a primordial cell.

Um, that rather what evolutionary science is all about.

Do you believe mutations happen?

Yes.

Do you believe some organisms are more likely than others to reproduce?

'Others' as in the same organism?

Do you believe that this is at least partly due to inheritable traits?

It is possible.

Then how could evolution *not happen? Scientists assumed this after
going over the evidence in the early nineteenth century. They just
didn't know *why it happened. Since then, we have only accumulated more
evidence, all pointing ot the same thing.

The following are not scientific mechanisms for the origin of all life
forms evolving from a common primordial cell, and go against
'biological evolution':
1.natural selection
2.genetic mutations.

Natural selection:
Organisms having an inheritable trait or character that gives it an
advantage in an environment over those who don't have the trait, will
have more chance of passing on the trait to future generations. Those
without the trait will not succeed in the population, an example is
Darwin's finches, where finches with a certain type of beak size
survived in an environment that suited the type of beak, as the
environment was dictating the type of food supply available.

In this way organisms become more adapted to their environment, those
without the trait are eventually lost from the population.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of genetic variation in
a given population, and by definition it cannot cause anything new to
arise.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the
permanent loss of some of the genetic information in that group of
organisms.

In an information losing process such as adaptation, there is always a
limit to the amount of variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing
their genetic information indefinitely, as can be seen by some
experiments with fruit flies, variation only went so far.

Scientists tested Drosophila birchii in the lab to see how quickly this
rainforest fly would be able to adapt to a dryer environment.
They exposed flies to desiccation (drying) stress until 80 to 90% had
died, and then bred from the survivors. The offspring were no better
than there parents at surviving drier-than-normal conditions. With
mounting surprise, the researchers repeated the process, for 30 cycles
over 50 generations, but still no increase in desiccation resistance.
Even after dry-stressing fresh batches of the flies from 4 separate
rainforest populations, the researchers noted that, "the most
resistant population lacks the ability to evolve further resistance
even after intense selection over 30 generations."

Natural selection eliminates genes in a population. It cannot create
new ones. This is noticeable in extreme environments, eg. In dry
conditions, flies that lose body moisture too quickly will die out and,
without offspring, their genes will be lost from that population. But
in a wet rainforest environment, there's no advantage in conserving
body moisture; what's needed is just the opposite; the ability to
withstand high humidity and the rampant diseases that thrive in such
conditions.

Therefore Drosophila birchii populations have become highly adapted to
life in the rainforests, but it has come at a cost. The price paid for
such specialization is the permanent loss of genetic information useful
for survival in a drier environment.

In contrast, the Drosophila flies (D. melanogastor, D. simulans, D.
serrata) from intermediate (less humid) environments still contain
sufficient genetic variation to enable the population to adapt to drier
conditions.
[Science 301(5629): 58-59 & 100-102, 2003.]
What we have here is a culling of genes already in existence. No new
genetic information was created, and the flies remained flies.

Darwin's Finches showed that adaptation and speciation may occur in a
couple of hundred years. What was observed with the finches was
variations in beak sizes due to environmental changes causing changes
in their diets. This is not "evolution" but adaptation, the finches
remained finches. The same loss of genetic information as with the
Drosophila flies occurs, a process in direct conflict with what
evolution of all life from a cell requires, because "molecules to
man" evolution requires massive amounts of new genetic code to be
added to an organism (and retained) that did not exist before. This is
a fact of science.

In a similar way dog breeders manipulate genes to breed new kinds of
dogs. Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from
over many generations. This was done by eliminating the genes for large
size. This type of breeding has separated genetic information from one
type of dog and another.

All observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of
pre-existing genetic code (information); evolution requires new genes
with new information. Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can
generate this new information, but observed mutations have never been
shown to do so. Natural selection and adaptation occur, but do not
support the hypothesis of diversification of complex life from a common
cell at all, even when we witness rapid organelle generation rates and
adaptation.

Natural selection is the effect the environment has on living forms,
selecting out life forms that are able to survive from those that
cannot handle their environment and therefore perish.

The reason why Darwin was never elected to the prestigious Zoological
Section of the French Institute, was given by a member of the Academy
as follows:
"What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the
science of those of his books which have made his chief title to
fame-the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is
not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous
hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and
these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself
cannot encourage."[From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D.
Appleton and Co., London, 2:400, footnote, 1911.]

This is still true today; Neo-Darwinism and evolution in general
survive on philosophical speculation and assertions about the
historical past of life and the universe. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a
religion, partly born out of spiritism (the domain of the demonic
spiritual realm) and partly due to a disbelief in the Creator God.

Natural selection does not contradict creation it supports it. God
created various life forms to reproduce after themselves, this is what
we observe occurring today.

"Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has
survived, not how it has evolved.

Genetic Mutations:
Random genetic mutations is not a mechanism for molecules to man
evolution.
Chance random genetic mutations are central to evolution hypothesis,
however, genetic copying mistakes have never been observed to add or
create any new genetic information (code) to an organism. In no known
case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information (base
pairs). [Spetner, L.S., Not by chance!, The Judaica Press Inc., New
York, 1998.]

Mutation rates per nucleotide per generation are very low. A mutation
is a random change in the nucleotides of a DNA molecule and occurs
during reproduction. They are small, random, and harmful alterations to
the genetic code.
You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are
already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you
won't get 'molecules to man' evolution.

There are a large amount of genes in each germ cell that can be
rearranged to allow for a wide range of variation in a life form, the
variation is limited within that life form. Isolation and inbreeding
within a population can cause genetic features to become fixed in that
population.

New mutations are extremely rare because DNA has it's own 'proof
reading' system, only low mutation rates can be tolerated, otherwise
error catastrophe would result.
Existing genetic mutations are inherited from parent organisms during
reproduction. The reason we appear to have many mutations in the human
gene pool is due to genetic load over many generations. We are becoming
more and more genetically "impure" as over thousands of years of
reproduction we've accumulated and retained most mutations in the
gene pool. Yet new mutation rates are too low to give any credible
support to diversification of complex life from a cell (evolution).

The 'simplest' known living organism has 580,000 letters of code
compared to humans who have 3 billion [Fraser, C.M. et al., The minimal
gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium, Science 270(5235):397-403,
1995; perspective by Goffeau, A., Life with 482 Genes, same issue, pp.
445-446.].
Where are the empirical scientific experiments that show an organism
gaining new additional letters of code 'de novo' by random mutations
within itself?

In reproduction the fertilized egg already has all the genetic code to
form a particular organism. The DNA code is the blueprint for the
construction of organism.
Adaptation of a type of bacteria to feeding on nylon is not a mechanism
or process for 'common cell to all life evolution', the bacterium
did not evolve into a different type of organism, no directional change
occurred, just stasis. An analysis can be found here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Even in genetic experiments of rapid generation cycles of bacteria,
there has never been an occasion where the bacteria evolved into
anything new, the bacteria always remained bacteria.

Random genetic drift and population bottlenecks severely limit the
genetic variation, which is the raw material of evolution by natural
selection. Therefore not scientific evidence that all present life
evolved from a common primordial cell.

Evolution by 'beneficial mutations': so-called beneficial mutations
are a small fraction of genetic mutations: 90-95% of mutations are
harmful, 5-10% are neutral. Observed beneficial mutations are not the
information-gaining type needed for evolution.

The smaller the change, the smaller the selective advantage.
This is expressed by the selection coefficient s. If a mutation has s =
0.001 or 0.1%, a supposedly typical value, then the number of surviving
offspring is 0.1% greater for organisms with the mutant than without
it. But the smaller the selective advantage, the more likely that
random effects (e.g. genetic drift) will eliminate it: its probability
of survival is about 2s.
So the above mutation has only one chance in 500 of surviving, even
though it is beneficial.

Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have a new
trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their
heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one
generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals
must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be
regenerated with these survivors.

Even if evolution happened at its maximum speed for 10 million years,
how many traits could be substituted in a creature with human-like
generation times of say 20 years? Only 500,000. This small number of
nucleotides is only a small fraction of the forty 500-page books worth
of information (120 million base pairs) which are needed to transform
an ape into a man. And in real life, selection is far less intense,
meaning that only about 1700 substitutions could occur. [AiG
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp]

Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a
population, the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is
the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which
can occur in a given time. [ Haldane, J.B.S., 1957. The Cost of Natural
Selection. J. Genetics, 55:511-24.]

All observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of
pre-existing information (genetic code); evolution requires new genes
with new genetic information that leads to a positive selection and
creation of a new organism. Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can
generate this new genetic code and instructions, but observed mutations
have never been shown to do so. Sometimes a loss of information can
help an organism so is 'beneficial', e.g. beetles born without
wings are less likely to be blown into the sea. But loss of wings is
the opposite sort of change to what cell to present life evolution
requires.
Many debilitating diseases are caused by mutations, like cancer. Most
mutations do not provide a selection advantage.

The fact that it took considerable human intelligence, effort and time
to decode the genetic code (as in the human genome etc), how were these
very same DNA codes encoded in the first place without intelligence?

As biological evolution is claimed to be a 'scientific fact', what
other processes/mechanisms are then left for 'common cell to all life
evolution' to be scientifically possible?



All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
direction.

Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
belief in evolution, which is just a supposition of how we all got
here. Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
awesome power of God's creation, and not some random blind process of
naturalism.
Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?

Scientific inquiry, by definition, excludes the supernatural. If you
invoke magic, you have left the realm of science, instantly. It's
really that simple.

Your argument is not sound. Naturalistic explanations exclude the
supernatural, but why should we only consider the naturalistic?

Because that's the only thing we can study. If ghosts exist, but are
rarely seen, and never by skeptics, and leave no footprints and no
images on film, ho wcould we study them?

We have to be able to hold something; photograph or record it; taste it
or hit it with a hammer or weigh it or measure its length with a tape
measure. When your god leaves evidence we can percieve in some way,
then he will be a fit subject for study.

All life present today is the result of God's once off creative fiat
and can be examined.


Especially when a naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything
lacks scientific evidence.

You are confusing methodolgical naturalism with philospophical
naturalism. The scientific method requires the former. It does not
require anyone to be a naturalistic philospher.

Science only assumes that anything it can investigate regarding
evolution will be material evidence - that's methodological naturalism.
Nothing assumed metaphysically or theologically.


The creation of everything can only have come about in one of two ways:
1. by a supernatural process, or 2. by a natural process. Which one
does the available evidence support the most?

There are many ideas which are compatible with the evidence. The ones
which most cosmologists prefer are testable (or may be soon). The ones
that are not testable (whether proposed by a cosmologist or a Hindu or
a Last Thrusdayist) are not hypotheses, are not scientific. They are
philosphy or religion, and cannot be investigated.

Their story about origins can be tested against the available evidence.


Do you think god makes it rain? Do you think weather is a fit subject
for scientific study? A scientist who is a theist would say that
science is studying how God does things. How does he make it rain? How
does he make new species?

Kermit



Definetely POTM material. Thank you.

AndreVan, please post in this evo-cheerleader-infested ng more often:)


--
Nicolas

"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Insights Ive gained from my Bio class so far
    ... about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms ... percentage of the life on earth. ... the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Species diversity through time
    ... that life is not some grand progression toward some predetermined goal. ... evolution in a more modern way. ... Large brains with thinking minds are attractors. ... he doesn't think much of selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... Doesn't the fossil record show that organisms have evolved from simple ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: database of historical events, people and literature of antiquity?
    ... I know there's Hadean stuff that strongly suggests life already ... adaptation of organisms to a given environment but rather ... cell nucleus that looked rather like some of today's bacteria. ... macroscopic conditions for the further evolution of life. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
    ... and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid ... I admit exact definitions of what constitutes life ... You're the one claiming that abiogenesis didn't occur, ... organisms reproductive fitness, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading