| Author |
Topic:
Evidence of Evolution
|
Vortigern99
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/25 9:51am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
To clarify for yuna_kenobi's sake:
The science of evolution does not apply itself to the origin of life. Demanding an explanation of biogenesis from evolutionary science is like asking for the chemical composition of DNA from a quantum mechanical physicist. Two different fields of study.
The theory of evolution does not suggest, imply or in any way assert that "a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings". That is a Lamarckian idea that was discredited by Darwin in his first book, On the Origin of Species. Rather, using your statement as a guide, evolution would posit that random gentic mutation in the lizard population would randomly produce individuals equipped with wing-like membranes, which would give those individuals a distinct benefit in the area of food acquisition, which would in turn lead to successive generations of winged lizards, since the mutation would be passed down from parent to offspring in the genetic material.
-----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
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 12:53pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
Quixotic
I wish for supermodel telepathy and pheremonic control.
Don't we all.
-----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
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
6/25 2:44pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
yuna_kenobi posted:
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.
What is the math you did to get that number?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 3:03pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
yuna_kenobi posted:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
Not only does evolution NOT expect us to believe this -- if this were the case, it would be immensely damning evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution, and particularly against the mechanism of natural selection.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
6/25 3:59pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
Named for the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, Hoyle's fallacy refers to a specific and common misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.
Hoyle's formulation concerns the probability that a protein molecule could achieve a functional sequence of amino acids by chance alone. He calculates this as being of approximately the same order of magnitude as the probability that a hurricane could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a Boeing 747.
Hoyle's Fallacy is a mainstay of creationist, intelligent design, orthogenetic and other anti-Darwinian criticisms of evolution. The reason why it is a fallacy has been explained at length by Richard Dawkins, principally in his two books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.
As Ian Musgrave explains in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
That's from the evil liberal atheist gay conspiracy web site Wikipedia.
-----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
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
6/25 4:06pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
yuna_kenobi posted:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
Actually, that would be called a "miracle", which is more along the lines of christian thought evidencing the existence of a God. You say that as though such a thing is unthinkable. Not very christian of you. 
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/25 5:20pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/25 5:21pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
ShaneP
|
VadersLaMent
That's from the evil liberal atheist gay conspiracy web site Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has some serious issues, but none of those.
-----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
|
DarthKomar
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
6/25 8:58pm
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
DorkmanScott posted:
DarthKomar posted:
They argue that since it can't be complete that it can't be true.
Which is patent nonsense.
At least we agree on something.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yuna_kenobi
Registered:
Aug '06
|
Date Posted:
6/26 7:35am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/26 7:56am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
yuna_kenobi
|
Your arguement is that there is no God, there is only evolution, I merely wished to state the point that if evolution states there is no God nor creation, then its supporters need find a way to prove how life started.
And I have read about Abiogenesis and, frankly, I find it somewhat laughable. To go and put together an experiment and create amino acids and then saying that you have replicated what happened 2-3 billion years ago is somewhat of a stretch. While Quix has several valid points, the very first cell must have been a real wonder. I mean figuring our how to reproduce, grow, maintain homeostasis and eat. All in a day's work of course. No only that, but what reason would there be to try and come up on land?
And also, the only known forms of genetic mutation are known to cause a loss of genetic information, not an advancement. Not to mention 90% of them kill the zygote. Or, in the case of Downs Syndrome, provide no help whatsoever. The ONLY exception is polyploidy in plants.
DorkmanScott posted:
yuna_kenobi posted:
Evolution also expects us to believe that a lizard saw some insects, flapped its arms and sprouted wings?
Not only does evolution NOT expect us to believe this -- if this were the case, it would be immensely damning evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution, and particularly against the mechanism of natural selection.
Sorry, you mistake my meaning. I mean to say that a random mutation that generated birds had to begin in steps. And while in transition between wings and arms, they would logically be a liability since this poor creature can no longer use its arms nor fly for several more generations.
And LostOnHoth I am not in the least remarking that it is unthinkable. I just find it remakable that a mutation happened at just the right time to produce a half-bird half-compsagnathus monstrosity that would survive to become Willy the Sparrow...
And VoijaRisa i have read extensively on these topics before even trying to chose between evolution or creation.
-----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:
6/26 7:59am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
No, the "loss of information" idea is a misnomer. I really don't have the time or energy to go back into this one, so if someone is kind enough to look back in the other threads to discuss it, I'd greatly appreciate it. The jist is that there are loss-of-function, gain-of-function, and neutral mutations. I've never come across the 90% figure, so I suspect it's specious. And the issue of the first cell is also outside the purview of the present discussion. Biologists are still working on that one, with a number of competing, naturalistic experiments. And I'm not sure why you feel justified in pooh-poohing experiments like Miller-Urey. What is your background again?
-----signature-----
Yeah, mind power, Swede; mind power.
You can never have too much precision in your soup.
Exit, pursued by a bear
More Rockets = More Science
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yuna_kenobi
Registered:
Aug '06
|
Date Posted:
6/26 8:14am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
I am not "pooh pooing" a blessed thing. If to opine in public is a cardinal sin already...welcome to Amerika...
As for my background, I am a self-educated 16-year-old. I have never set foot in a school in my life, which I feel is a good thing.
If I am mistaken in my last post, I would appreciate any recomendations of literature on the subject.
I was under the impression that genetic mutations were harmfull more often than not and neutral at best, and I can't remember where I got the 90% figure.
All I intended to state was that, to me, evolution, though an interesting proposition, did not seem plausible. And also, if I am not mistaken, many materials would have oxidized in the open.
-----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:
6/26 8:16am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
|
|
I'm heading out the door at the moment. If no one else addresses these, I'll have time later or tomorrow.
-----signature-----
Yeah, mind power, Swede; mind power.
You can never have too much precision in your soup.
Exit, pursued by a bear
More Rockets = More Science
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vagrant
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
6/26 9:56am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/26 10:04am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vagrant
|
And also, the only known forms of genetic mutation are known to cause a loss of genetic information, not an advancement.
How does one measure the change in information after a mutation? Unless you can answer this, the information objection to evolution is meaningless.
-----signature-----
"Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." -John Marburger, Science adviser for president Bush Join the Emperor's Hammer! http://www.ehtiecorps.org/join.asp
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
6/26 10:59am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/26 11:06am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
VoijaRisa
|
yuna_kenobi posted:
I merely wished to state the point that if evolution states there is no God nor creation....
WRONG!
Stop right there. Evolution says no such thing. Evolution works perfectly well with many faiths. I can think of a few that it doesn't work with but Christianity isn't one of them. In fact, most sects of Christianity made their peace with evolution over a hundred years ago. There are many practicing biologists that were and are devoutly Christian. Ken Miller (the author of the most widely used biology textbook in the nation) and Francis Collins (the leader of the Human Genome Project) are just a few.
Additionally, the two most recent popes have explicitly endorsed evolution with John Paul II calling it, "more than just a theory."
The Bible tells us that God created, but makes no mention about how (unless you wish to take an exceptionally literalistic view which raises all sorts of consistency issues and would be impossible anyway). Again, the majority of the world's Christians moved God out of this gap over 100 years ago. It's only in America that there's a significant number of people that reject it due to the lies and distortions of active Creationists in this nation.
yuna_kenobi posted:
...its supporters need find a way to prove how life started.
Wrong again. Supporters of evolution do not bear this burden. While it would be quite nice for scientists to figure out where life came from, the facts that support evolution are not contingent upon this being discovered any more than the theory of gravity is contingent upon the origin of mass being discovered.
No theory is required to explain things beyond the scope of what it is intended to explain. You requiring evolution to do so is a silly double standard and shows a lack of understanding of how science works.
yuna_kenobi posted:
I have read about Abiogenesis and, frankly, I find it somewhat laughable.
Let's see if you actually understand it, shall we?
yuna_kenobi posted:
the very first cell must have been a real wonder. I mean figuring our how to reproduce, grow, maintain homeostasis and eat. All in a day's work of course.
I guess you didn't. In fact, you managed to skip a very important piece of what Quix so nicely wrote out for you. Let me repost it:
Quixotic-Sith posted:
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.
Catch it that time? It's not "all in a day's work". The first cell, wasn't an overnight process. Even DNA isn't instantaneous. Again, you're creating a straw man of what abiogenesis actually says and disingenuously conflating it with evolution. Whether this is through ignorance or malice remains to be seen. I'll just go ahead and invoke Poe's Law for now though.
yuna_kenobi posted:
what reason would there be to try and come up on land?
You mean aside from the very obvious advantage that you have an entire new space that's free of competitors for other resources? Or perhaps that (plants) would better be able to access sunlight since water quickly diminishes the amount of light received from the sun?
yuna_kenobi posted:
the only known forms of genetic mutation are known to cause a loss of genetic information, not an advancement.
Orly? I can think of a very simple process that can add "information": Gene duplication. From there, the duplicated gene is free to mutate allowing it to become entirely novel information. This has been directly observed in several papers that have been published. Try checking out Pub Med and doing a search for "Gene duplication". It gives over 11 thousand results.
As Quix pointed out, "information" is a rather specious term anyway. There's no quantifiable definition for it in the manner that Creationists use. If you can't even define it, then you can't say it never increases.
Regardless, even without adding "information", you can still get novel features. Take the case of nylonase: A bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon (a material that didn't even exist before 1935).
yuna_kenobi posted:
Not to mention 90% of them kill the zygote. Or, in the case of Downs Syndrome, provide no help whatsoever.
You're right. Some are bad. Most are neutral. But what you're talking about with Downs is not the duplication of a single gene (a rather minor addition), but an entire chromosome. Yeah. That's bound to muck things up. But trying to pretend that an extreme case defines the less involved ones is just stupid.
yuna_kenobi posted:
And while in transition between wings and arms, they would logically be a liability since this poor creature can no longer use its arms nor fly for several more generations.
Ah, the good old "what good is half a wing/eye/flagellum/etc" argument. There's a quote that sums this up quite nicely:
Science of Diskworld III: Darwin's Watch posted:
Yes, the proponents of intelligent design understand the eye . . . but as only one example, not as the basis of a general principle. ‘Oh yes, we know all about the eye,’ they say (we paraphrase). ‘We’re not going to ask you what use half an eye is. That’s simple-minded nonsense.’ So instead, they ask what use half a bacterial flagellum is, and thereby repeat the identical error in a different context.
The fact is that even part of a wing could be far more useful than none at all. Even if that proto-wing is just a bit of extra skin between the fingers, it could allow for better swimming, gliding, or numerous other things. To claim that it would be a liability. Nor would it necessarily negate the use of arms.
Similarly, people with limited sight capacity still function far better than those who are completely blind. A flagellum without numerous parts still acts as a Type Three Secretory System.....
yuna_kenobi posted:
i have read extensively on these topics before even trying to chose between evolution or creation.
Given all the misinformation you've spewed here, showing outright lies, ignorance of basic research, misunderstanding of the scientific method, and more, I have to wonder at the quality of the sources you read or your reading comprehension. Either that or you're lying about how the extent of your reading. I'm going to go ahead and assume it's the former for now.
EDIT:yuna_kenobi posted:
If I am mistaken in my last post, I would appreciate any recomendations of literature on the subject.
Here's a few good books:
Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller: A good book that shows why Creationism is not only bad science, but also bad theology.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins: Definitely Dawkin's best work from what I've read of his so far. A good introduction to evolution and its current scientific understanding.
The Counter Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaac: A flat out refutation to many Creationist claims. Largely culled from Talk Origins.
Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest: Just in case you think that Intelligent Design is anything other than explicit Creationism.
-----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
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
6/26 11:32am
Subject:
RE: Evidence of Evolution
- Date Edited:
6/26 11:37am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
king_alvarez
|
Just briefly trying to catch up as I've been very busy as of late...
yuna_kenobi, if you want the layman's response for a lot of the typical questions that are raised against evolution, you should check out VLM's link in the second post in this thread. Otherwise, yes, you can look at some of the books and more detailed links posted in this thread, but I've found that a lot of people that demand answers about evolution are often unwilling to look at the indepth research that is presented.
Aside, I always find it amusing when creationists try to use statistics against evolution. While usually misrepresenting the math or data, they also ignore the improbability of the existence of an omnipotent entity. Yuna, where is your explanation for why god exists?
-----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
|
