| Author |
Topic:
Evidence of Evolution
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
6/22 10:37pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
SWBob posted:
Just a question. I for one support evolution, but when i try to explain it to no followers of the evelutionary theory, they bring up the missing link think. What is evolutions stance on that.
The way I always respond to this is to point out that using this arguments shows that there's a profound ignorance of how science actually functions. I typically use an analogy to try to help get the point across. Imagine trying to confirm the theory of gravity in the same way you have to confirm the theory of evolution. Namely, you only get assorted snapshots of the phenomenon. In the case of the ball, you'd have a snapshot of it before it was dropped, a few points along the way down, and on the ground. If you plot up the change in position over time, it matches up with the prediction of gravity (that things fall). However, in this instance, you don't have images for all the in between stages of the ball being dropped. You have "missing links".
Does this mean that gravity is suspect? Of course not. Because all the data we do have matches predictions. That's what's important. The same is true for evolution. When we look at the fossil record, there are numerous cases where we see precisely what evolution predicts: species change and diverge.
So in reality, we've already matched the observations to the theory. That's what science is all about. We try to fill in gaps, but we don't dwell in them and make arguments from ignorance like the Creationists.
DarthKomar posted:
I don't see why both can't be true. (Creation and Evolution)
It depends on how you're defining "Creationism". If you're going with the extremely vague "belief that something did the creating" then sure, they can go together. However, if you're talking about "Creationism" as it's been in the public spotlight in past several years, then absolutely not. The entire premise of Creationism in that sense is that evolution is at best insufficient and at worst, completely wrong. Thus, those two cannot be reconciled.
DarthKomar posted:
So I personally choose to believe in evolution and that God is the driving force behind it
This is typically called theistic evolution.
DarthKomar posted:
The fact remains that no one was there when the universe came into existence, so who is to say one is right and the other is wrong?
Just my friend Mr. Evidence.
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/23 8:00am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
I learned in my undergraduate studies in anthropology in the 80s and 90s that there is no "missing link" in our understanding of human evolutionary science. The hominid fossil record is thoroughly complete; only the interpretation of those fossils -- their specific chronology and process of speciation -- is up for debate.
-----signature-----
"I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction.
I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece,
a fairy tale."--George Lucas
My "Vader's Origins" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
6/23 5:23pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
New Discovery Proves 'Selfish Gene' Exists
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
6/24 6:39am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
Interesting. There are a lot of implications that the existence of a selfish gene creates. I look forward to the information that will be published next month. I fully expect many more instances of this being found in the next few years as more and more species have their genomes sequenced.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
6/24 10:00am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
Vortigern99 posted:
I learned in my undergraduate studies in anthropology in the 80s and 90s that there is no "missing link" in our understanding of human evolutionary science. The hominid fossil record is thoroughly complete; only the interpretation of those fossils -- their specific chronology and process of speciation -- is up for debate.
Of course, then Creationists will just do as they always do and move the goalpost.
"Oh. We have a pretty complete fossil record for hominid evolution? Then what about all the processes leading up to hominids?"
Since the fossil record by its very nature can't be complete, they can just keep pushing it back until they find a suitably large hole to hide in. This is why we so frequently hear the posturing about "molecules to man".
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthKomar
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
6/24 9:44pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
VoijaRisa posted:
"Oh. We have a pretty complete fossil record for hominid evolution? Then what about all the processes leading up to hominids?"
Since the fossil record by its very nature can't be complete, they can just keep pushing it back until they find a suitably large hole to hide in. This is why we so frequently hear the posturing about "molecules to man".
They argue that since it can't be complete that it can't be true.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 2:35am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
DarthKomar posted:
VoijaRisa posted:
"Oh. We have a pretty complete fossil record for hominid evolution? Then what about all the processes leading up to hominids?"
Since the fossil record by its very nature can't be complete, they can just keep pushing it back until they find a suitably large hole to hide in. This is why we so frequently hear the posturing about "molecules to man".
They argue that since it can't be complete that it can't be true.
Which is patent nonsense.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yuna_kenobi
Registered:
Aug '06
|
Date Posted:
6/25 6:50am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
May I ask a question? I don't doubt the development of species, what I would like to know is how evolution proposes that life started.
Because if you in saeculae saeculorum adhere to the idea that chemicals just randomly came together to form amino acids, DNA and cells, then I am going to seriously begin questioning the scientific method as we know it. The idea was that, we assumed, if enough chemicals randomly reacted for long enough then presto! we have life as we know it.
But no one bothered to check the math. Take one amino acid: Tryptophan, has a chemical formula of C11H12N2O2. Now, if we perform a simple probability equation( disregarding the acid's intricate structure or the fact that it can only be formed from other equally intricate compounds) assume that elements are added and removed at random by basic reactions, you would require 1.2199640200879312516563201777138 x 10^67 seconds or 1.5463330799400857500650495319211 x 10^59 years which is
1.030888719960571667100330212809 x 10^49 times longer than the universe has been in existence.
Answer that.
-----signature-----
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rogue_Follower
Title: Manager: Literature
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
6/25 7:32am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 7:34am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Rogue_Follower
|
Most chemical reactions are well known and very predictable, not random. And the great thing about biochemistry is that certain structures are essentially self-organizing, like lipid bilayers. To make an analogy, what are the odds of finding a needle in a haystack while holding a rock? Pretty high? Well, what if that rock is a magnetic? Much lower.
And tryptophan need not have been present when life began. In fact, I'd say it's much more likely that the biochemistry that produces tryptophan evolved over billions of years, because it was useful to organisms.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master-FatBurt
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
6/25 8:00am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
Also, evolution doesn't explain how life begain and it never will do.
-----signature-----
rules are meant to be broken
All Bluebirds are Blue
COME ON BARRA!!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yuna_kenobi
Registered:
Aug '06
|
Date Posted:
6/25 8:01am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 8:08am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
yuna_kenobi
|
Alright, a simpler analogy since you are hell-bent on arguing details. (I chose tryptophan arbitrarity and many of the materials truly necessary for life would oxidize.)
Sit a monkey at a typwriter (to simplify it, the machine has only 26 keys) now the monkey randomly hits a key every second. How long would it take to get one nine-letter word? 5.4 x 10^13 seconds. Two nine letter words (without a space.)?
2.9 x 10^24 seconds or 3.7 x 10^17 years (longer than the universe has existed)
now then, how long would it take to arrange adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine in the correct order for the necessary 80000+ genes. Do the math.
And Master-FatBurt can God not exist? You already said you believe life is nothing more than an inexplicable apparition. Why not call it God since you have no other name?
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
-----signature-----
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 8:59am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 9:00am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Quixotic-Sith
|
Nope, you're horribly mischaracterizing the process.
First, evolution is not biogenesis, so don't conflating the two.
Second, in regards to the mathematics and duration, your model assumes single-step evolution, rather than continuous evolution. Dawkins has a neat and tidy explanation:
If you assume change occurs only at the level of single changes, yes, the process takes far too long. If, however, you look for closest approximations, it doesn't take anywhere near as long.
For instance, if you wanted to track the change from "ajtbnepwk" to "evolution" in single step terms (in which each letter has to change multiple times before it reaches the right one), it takes a long time (ajt... --> bjt... --> cjt... --> et cetera). If you look for the closest approximation ("ajtbnepwk" --> "avtbntpwk" --> "avtlntpwk" --> "avolntion" --> et cetera), however, you get there in many more steps. The actual mechanisms of evolution are more akin to the continual model, rather than the single-step model.
Third, DNA doesn't just happen - it's formed from simpler precursors (e.g., PNA --> RNA --> DNA), which are much more probabilistic. Chain lengthening of more complex structures like sugars (part of the phosphodiester backbone) can occur using weak acids like HCN, which would have been in abundance in the pre-biotic atmosphere.
EDIT:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
You're kidding, right?
-----signature-----
 Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 9:20am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 9:21am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
ShaneP
|
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
You're kidding, right?
Well yeah, obviously evolution assumes any animal can just wish additional appendages into existence.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 9:30am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
ShaneP posted:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
You're kidding, right?
Well yeah, obviously evolution assumes any animal can just wish additional appendages into existence.
I wish for supermodel telepathy and pheremonic control. Takes all the uncertainty out of dating.
-----signature-----
Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
6/25 9:40am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 9:42am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
VoijaRisa
|
See, people like yuna_kenobi are the reason I just can't have any respect for Creationists. Every one I've ever seen (which has been a lot given the 6 years I've been debating this topic) has the same basic characteristic: Complete lack of understanding of what evolution says or how it works. They try to argue against a topic without even knowing what they're arguing against.
I suspect some of them, like Behe, actually do know better, but for whatever reason choose to lie and present evolution as something other than it is (as Behe's Irreducible Complexity requires). Either way, it's a strawman. Not that this should be surprising given that astounding intellectual dishonesty that runs rampant in the ID/Creationist community, but it's yet another perfect example of why both should be banned from academia.
yuna_kenobi posted:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
Looks like FSTDT needs a new submission.
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
