============DISCLAIMER=============
I'd rather have this thread die than descend into an anti-Evolution manifesto, as per the other Evolution thread. If you just want to talk about the number of animals that fit on the ark or how the Bible is the root of all wisdom, PLEASE do so elswhere. I invite all people with rational, intelligent thoughts to participate.

I invite (read: implore) a moderator to remove all terribly disrupting posts into another thread, at their discression.
============DISCLAIMER=============

The disclaimer, of course, won't work. On this I will bet money.

This is the question. If you are of the school of thought that Evolution must be false because we have never synthesized "life" from chemicals in the lab, what level of proof do you require?

The issue at the heart of the matter is the nature of "life". If, for example, you only require life to be "self-replicating", then the debate is over---such chemicals have been produced in the laboratory. For example:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&id=782280
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/20/12733.pdf

If, however, you have some more complex or stringent definition, you should attempt to justify why this definition is better than simply the requirement that a thing be self-replicating. (For example, does "life" need to be carbon based?)

The claim is that the simplest life is only self-replicating, and in this sense Evolution is proven. Conversely, if this does not suffice as proof, then any requirements placed on Evolution are too stringent. For example, if one will only accept the appearance of cellular structures in a lab, which are hypothesized to have formed over millions of years, then Evolution will never be proved, as such levels of proof are a priori are untenable.

I would require the following:

1. a sign of metabolism: i.e. self sustenance
2. reproduction: ie species sustenance
3. adaptation i.e. response to environmental cues that guarantee survival.

also, does that mean mules are not alive?

Simple self-replication fails to distinguish living beings from crystals, clays, etc.

The trouble is that Darwinian evolution can work on things (such as clays) we would not wqnt to call "living". Which is fortunate, in a sense, as it provides a natural bridge between the inanimate and the animate.

But it removes all evolutionary basis and evolutionary system characteristics from an attempted abstact definition of "living" as opposed to "non-living" entities.

I doubt there is such an abstract characterization. We have, on this planet, the great nucleic acid lineage and cellular structure. Other places, other times ?

Ben,

What you are talking about is not evolution. Life is axiomatic to evolution, much as mass is axiomatic to extant theories of gravity.

What you are talking about abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life forms begets new life forms. Evolution, in my mind, is a fact. It has been observed, both in fossils and in the natural world today.

Why the nit-picking? Because people who lump abiogenesis and evolution together also pile modern astronomy and geology into that same lump.

1. a sign of metabolism: i.e. self sustenance
2. reproduction: ie species sustenance
3. adaptation i.e. response to environmental cues that guarantee survival.

also, does that mean mules are not alive?

What does "metabolism" and "self-substanance" mean? I'm certain that some organisms cannot sustain themselves outside of a very sepcifc environment.

The second point has already been argued above:)

Either the third condition is untenable, as per the original post, or it is already proven in the fossil record. If you want to actually "see" evolution in the lab, then it will never be proven---the natural time scale for these things is on the order of millions of years.

On mules---they cannot self replicate, this is true. But the requirement of self-replication is not suitable for all life, rather, it serves as a base definition.

What does "metabolism" and "self-substanance" mean? I'm certain that some organisms cannot sustain themselves outside of a very sepcifc environment.

The second point has already been argued above:)

Either the third condition is untenable, as per the original post, or it is already proven in the fossil record. If you want to actually "see" evolution in the lab, then it will never be proven---the natural time scale for these things is on the order of millions of years.

On mules---they cannot self replicate, this is true. But the requirement of self-replication is not suitable for all life, rather, it serves as a base definition.


Those are the 3 conditions that describe life.

If an organism cannot survive, it is dead, i.e. no longer alive.

And you were the one who stressed the self replicate, not me.

What you are talking about abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life forms begets new life forms. Evolution, in my mind, is a fact. It has been observed, both in fossils and in the natural world today.


Well, fair enough. I agree with everything in this statement.

"Life" has to start somewhere. I am not a fan of God reaching down into the goo and making a bacteria and saying "Go multiply". Most people who object to Evolution cite sciences failure to create something that looks like life in a lab. I want to point out that, at least in some sense, "life" has already been created in labs.

If an organism cannot survive, it is dead, i.e. no longer alive.

Well...yeah. But what does dead mean? Supposedly one could create a molecule which self replicates for an arbitrarily long time.

Well...yeah. But what does dead mean? Supposedly one could create a molecule which self replicates for an arbitrarily long time.

You'd still be left with a mule that was undead.

You'd still be left with a mule that was undead.

The point is that the definition of what makes a mule "alive" is hard to extend to a single celled organism, and vice versa. In this sense there cannot be a single definition that covers both life forms.

Unless you want us to produce mules in test tubes...

What you are talking about is not evolution. Life is axiomatic to evolution,
Darwinian evolution, as the logical structure of a pattern of change, does not require living substrate - anything that self-replicates, varies, and is vulnerable to selection will do.

Examples: clays, crystals, certain behavioral structures in liquids and gasses (whirlpools, thunderclouds), cellular automata in a computer, etc.

The point is that the definition of what makes a mule "alive" is hard to extend to a single celled organism, and vice versa. In this sense there cannot be a single definition that covers both life forms.

Unless you want us to produce mules in test tubes...

My definition works for both. I can indicate reproduction, metabolism and adaptation for a mule as well as a single celled organism.

But I thought mules couldn't reproduce?

Does it have to do all three or just one of three?

But I thought mules couldn't reproduce?

Does it have to do all three or just one of three?

They don't need to self-replicate. One can produce many mules nevertheless.

They don't need to self-replicate. One can produce many mules nevertheless. Now that's an interesting notion.

There are a few beings that don't self-replicate, exactly - viruses the most famous, but some odd parasitic and fungal forms as well, that create some much different form or hijack another being already created to make copies of themselves.

Suppose mules developed the ability to arrange ass-mare matings, even matings between the very same pair that produced them individually.

Now suppose snowflakes did the same - created conditions, such as cool air masses at high altitudes and meltwater pools at low - in which more snowflakes would be formed.

Where's the distinction line?

Now that's an interesting notion.

There are a few beings that don't self-replicate, exactly - viruses the most famous, but some odd parasitic and fungal forms as well, that create some much different form or hijack another being already created to make copies of themselves.

Suppose mules developed the ability to arrange ass-mare matings, even matings between the very same pair that produced them individually.

Now suppose snowflakes did the same - created conditions, such as cool air masses at high altitudes and meltwater pools at low - in which more snowflakes would be formed.

Where's the distinction line?

The metabolism and adaptability?

sounds like your trying to mix biology with philosophy. can't tell what type of answer you're searching for

An interesting tangent: A mule in Morocco was able to successfully reproduce despite its odd number of chromosomes.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2290491.stm

I'm sure there is a more intelligent explanation somewhere, but it seems that species which can interbreed (lion & tiger, horse & ass) descend from a common root species, and have, through natural selection, arrived at their various subspecies.

More on the subject: Natural selection seems to be an obvious means of evolution, however, it only deals with the dominance of existing genetic traits. What is not apparent to me is where and how new and more complex genetic material comes into existence.

The only examples that come to mind of mutation (that introduces new genetic material) causes the organism to become sterile and less capable of survival. This seems problematic to the theory of evolution as I understand it.

This is the question. If you are of the school of thought that Evolution must be false because we have never synthesized "life" from chemicals in the lab, what level of proof do you require?Anyone who demands proof of a scientific theory is not a scientist because he doesn't understand the scientific method. Mathematical theories can be proven true because they involve only logic and abstractions. Scientific theories are about the natural universe and are only predictions of its future behavior derived logically from empirical observations of its past and present behavior. At any time in the future of the natural universe, any scientific theory can be disproved by the emergence of a good counterexample.The issue at the heart of the matter is the nature of "life". If, for example, you only require life to be "self-replicating", then the debate is over---such chemicals have been produced in the laboratory.It sounds like you are committing the most common mistake of the creationists and evolution denialists themselves, which is to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not speak to the origin of the first lifeform, but only to the transformation of one existing lifeform into one or more others. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that living matter arose naturally from non-living matter. The evidence for it does not have the same strength as the voluminous and multifaceted evidence for evolution. Basically all we've got is good but not great evidence that the universe started out as a blob of obviously non-living matter and energy and ended up with at least one planet full of living matter, so the transformation must have occurred at some point but we don't know how. Still this puts abiogenesis in the lead over creationism, because all the creationists can muster as "evidence" of their hypothesis is the relative lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Basically their argument boils down to: "You scientists have not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, so that is proof of the existence of a supernatural universe." This statement violates the scientific method in so many ways that it is hard to take seriously.For example, does "life" need to be carbon based?Anyone who reads sci-fi or watches it on TV is familiar with the hypothesis that life can be based on something other than carbon and DNA. Silicon-based life is a sci-fi cliche since it's so easy to map carbon chemistry one row down on the periodic table, into silicon chemistry. Carbon-based life arose on earth because the conditions are right for it. Life that arises in the conditions of a gas giant or a neutron star would have to be quite different. James P. Hogan and Robert L. Forward are professional scientists who write well-researched sci fi, and they have created some very interesting lifeforms for non-earthlike conditions.The claim is that the simplest life is only self-replicating, and in this sense Evolution is proven.To reiterate, you're talking about abiogenesis rather than evolution. But it also seems that you're talking about proof of concept, which is a business term rather than a scientific one--since scientific theories can never be proven. In business, proof of concept is, "Can we do this with the time and resources available, and if we do it will it more or less satisfy the requirements we've been given?" To make an analogy to science, I suppose it would be something like, "If we can find evidence of [a certain condition or process], will it support our hypothesis and make it difficult to disprove?" In other words, if we achieve the Holy Grail of Abiogenesis and create life from non-life in a laboratory, will this be sufficient support of the theory that life arose that way naturally, so that the creationists will crawl back into their holy books and leave us alone?

Hey, Fraggle Rocker. You seem to know a lot about this. Do you know of any studies (in the wild or in the lab) where scientists have observed a positive mutation? (Meaning, a mutation resulting in the introduction of new genetic material [not natural selection] to a species that was not fatal, deforming, or sterilizing and helped it to survive better in its environment.)

aaronmark:

Various diseases undergo positive mutations quite regularly. It's one of the big worries about avian influenza - that it will mutate so as to be directly transmissible among human beings, or so as to become an airborne illness.

Already, we have a number antibiotic-resistant types of bacteria, and they cause huge problems in hospitals everywhere.

Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?

Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?

I think you should look at some reference material about virus replication, http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa110900a.htm . Viruses can replicate very quickly. Many generations in a short period of time will result in quick genetic divergence. The ability to evade immune systems is the selection pressure. A virus that cannot evade the host cells immune response will not be able to reproduce.

aaronmark:

Various diseases undergo positive mutations quite regularly. It's one of the big worries about avian influenza - that it will mutate so as to be directly transmissible among human beings, or so as to become an airborne illness.

Already, we have a number antibiotic-resistant types of bacteria, and they cause huge problems in hospitals everywhere.

Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken. Surely you realize that this line of reasoning hurts evolution more than it helps because all these mutations retain the same basic biological structure.

Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken. Surely you realize that this line of reasoning hurts evolution more than it helps because all these mutations retain the same basic biological structure.
James R never said Avian flu mutates into a whole chicken. That is a red herring thrown out by creationists. That said, it is conceivable that something like avian flu could evolve into something like a chicken -- given a few billion years.

Great article, Repo Man! That's helpful for jokers like me who dropped out of college before getting to this kind of stuff.

So it does look like the adaptation of viruses is a case of rapid natural selection, and that their "mutation" is not mutation that introduces new genetic material from one generation to the next. It's just viruses being viruses. Very helpful information, though.

I'm hoping to find a study where scientists have been able to identify the "normal" genetic structure of an organism ahead of time, and then observe a mutation that introduces new genetic material of some kind (an extra chromosome, for instance) that is advantageous to the organism.

(And in response to some articles linked to earlier... near duplicate series in DNA do not constitute evidence of extra genetic material... the reuse of the numeral 4 is necessary to create the unique number 49,244. Duplication of certain genetic patterns is inherent in the genetic definition of different organisms.)

James R never said Avian flu mutates into a whole chicken. That is a red herring thrown out by creationists. That said, it is conceivable that something like avian flu could evolve into something like a chicken -- given a few billion years.

I agree that his response was off topic. But it is not clear to me yet that a virus could progress that way via mutation. I have seen countless examples of mutations that augment an organisms genetic material... but all of these result in death (or conditions that prevent reproduction and inhibit survival).

I am still searching for an example of an "augmenting mutation" (not simple natural selection) that does not kill the organism. When I find that, then I will be content to concede that your virus could become a chicken. Though, why it would want to, I do not know. :)

So you want to begin with fully developed complex organisms?

I would require the following:

1. a sign of metabolism: i.e. self sustenance
2. reproduction: ie species sustenance
3. adaptation i.e. response to environmental cues that guarantee survival.

also, does that mean mules are not alive?

What does "metabolism" and "self-substanance" mean? I'm certain that some organisms cannot sustain themselves outside of a very sepcifc environment.

The second point has already been argued above:)

Either the third condition is untenable, as per the original post, or it is already proven in the fossil record. If you want to actually "see" evolution in the lab, then it will never be proven---the natural time scale for these things is on the order of millions of years.

On mules---they cannot self replicate, this is true. But the requirement of self-replication is not suitable for all life, rather, it serves as a base definition.

I believe the question was about evolution, not life.
Mules, not being able to replicate, cannot come to be as a species through evolution.

Enmos, when did the first fully functioning heart appear?

Enmos, when did the first fully functioning heart appear?

I believe it was May 4th 1977..
How should I know ?

Is that what you would say to a student who asked that question?

Is that what you would say to a student who asked that question?

I am not a teacher..

That is not the point.

That is not the point.

What is your point ?

So you want to begin with fully developed complex organisms?

Not sure I understand... Personally, I'm looking for a documented case of an organism with any level of complexity surviving a mutation that causes it to become more genetically complex.

The only cases I've seen where new genetic material is introduced, the organism dies. The more complex the organism, the longer it seems to survive, but they have been invariably unable to reproduce or inhibited in their survival.

What is your point ?

I think you guys are looking for the Bicker Forum.

(And in response to some articles linked to earlier... near duplicate series in DNA do not constitute evidence of extra genetic material... Uh, yes they do. They are the extra genetic material itself. And they provide sites for mutations less likely to prove immediately harmful, and available for future or present benefit - that is just one of several of the "augmenting mechanisms" you claim to seek, that have already been pointed out to you. We find traces of its past operations in every genome we study.

I'm hoping to find a study where scientists have been able to identify the "normal" genetic structure of an organism ahead of time, and then observe a mutation that introduces new genetic material of some kind (an extra chromosome, for instance) that is advantageous to the organism. Again, you seek labarotory events that are almost impossible (and very expensive) to observe in a lab, and almost never sought in controlled circumstances.

We have thousands of events of extra genetic material introduced - by natural, artificial, and chance means - in controlled stiuations, that proved adaptive to those situations; seedless watermelons have spread all over the world, due to their superior adaptation to human consumption, for one example. They are very well adapted to their new environment.

We will almost never observe beneficial adaptation to wild conditions under controlled circumstances because in wild conditions we are not observing in controlled conditions. OK ?
Enmos, when did the first fully functioning heart appear? According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.

What is your point ?

You mean to tell me that if i asked you for an approximation of when the first fully functioning heart (even a primitive version) appeared or the path it took to evolve that you have absolutely no idea?

Yet you are 100% certain of evolution?

You mean to tell me that if i asked you for an approximation of when the first fully functioning heart (even a primitive version) appeared or the path it took to evolve that you have absolutely no idea?

Yet you are 100% certain of evolution?

This is a nonsense argument. But fine, I will amuse you.
The sea squirt was one of the first organisms to have a primitive heart, the mamalian heart evolved from it.
The sea squirt evolved 550 million years ago, so there is your answer.
If you would accept more primitive tissues which were the precurors of the heart that date would be much earlier of course.
Satisfied ?

These are things we need to look into. Assuming you are correct, what did the sea squirt evolve from?

These are things we need to look into. Assuming you are correct, what did the sea squirt evolve from?

I am not playing this game..

Ok enmos, i am only asking questions.

Ok enmos, i am only asking questions.

It's not a quiz. I am not going to sit here and answer question after question.
If you really want to know about evolution there are many sites with good info on that..

According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.

Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today, what you are describing is an evolution from a less complex variant. What would you say it was and do you have any links that explain this? Then we need to consider the complexity, with valves and chambers. Do you believe that by simply by evolving that this was done, but the real question is...WHY?

I am sorry Enmos, this is a discussion forum and the thread is about evolution.

I am sorry Enmos, this is a discussion forum and the thread is about evolution.

Discussion. I don't even know your view..

Speaking as a complete amateur, I would guess that the first heart was formed at least with the first recognizable chordate, a small fishlike creature called Pikaia gracilens, the fossil of which was found in the Burgess Shale. The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on knowing every single detail of the evolution of every animal and plant.

Speaking as a complete amateur, I would guess that the first heart was formed at least with the first recognizable chordate, a small fishlike creature called Pikaia gracilens, the fossil of which was found in the Burgess Shale. The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on knowing every single detail of the evolution of every animal and plant.

Thank you.
Actually, the heart began to take mamalian form with the chordates but they inhereted the primitive heart from the sea squirt.

I guess this is going to eat at me like a bug eats nylon.

The ideas in my head are difficult for me to articulate. The only thing i found in a quick search is this:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

I guess this is going to eat at me like a bug eats nylon.

The ideas in my head are difficult for me to articulate. The only thing i found in a quick search is this:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

You mean you believe in ID ? :eek:

I just go where the data leads.

John, "irreducible complexity" is a pseudoscientific concept. You have to get over your attraction to this stuff. Things only appear "irreducibly complex" because we haven't yet figured them out.

This is exactly like the old smug question, "Okay, you evolutionists, how do you explain the development of small wings with tiny feathers? They're no good for anything! Why did they evolve? Ha! Gotcha!" We finally got around to doing counterintuitive experiments, and watched "flightless" chickens climb up negative-slope embankments using the negative lift of their "useless" wings.

The evolution denialists, like all spiritualists, have an unreasoned faith in the existence of the supernatural, despite the total lack of empirical evidence for it. Scientists have been accused of having faith in science, but at least it's a reasoned faith. Science has consistently been answering questions of greater and greater difficulty for 500 years. It's at least sensible to assume that it will probably continue to do something that it has always done, just as it's sensible to assume that the moon will continue to revolve around the earth or that eggs will hatch into chickens like they've always done.

The hypothesis that the scientific method works has mountains of supporting evidence. It has been exhaustively tested and peer-reviewed for five hundred years, and it has never been falsified. The hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural power directs our universe has never been tested or peer-reviewed, because it is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be tested or peer-reviewed.

It is reasonable to assume that anything that now looks irreducibly complex, and therefore disproves the entire canon of science, will be reduced by science.

Uh, yes they do. They are the extra genetic material itself. And they provide sites for mutations less likely to prove immediately harmful, and available for future or present benefit - that is just one of several of the "augmenting mechanisms" you claim to seek, that have already been pointed out to you. We find traces of its past operations in every genome we study.

Again, you seek labarotory events that are almost impossible (and very expensive) to observe in a lab, and almost never sought in controlled circumstances.

We have thousands of events of extra genetic material introduced - by natural, artificial, and chance means - in controlled stiuations, that proved adaptive to those situations; seedless watermelons have spread all over the world, due to their superior adaptation to human consumption, for one example. They are very well adapted to their new environment.

We will almost never observe beneficial adaptation to wild conditions under controlled circumstances because in wild conditions we are not observing in controlled conditions. OK ?

According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.

I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult. Scientists observe (and cause) augmenting mutations in people and other organisms every day. But all of these are fatal to the individual organism, or prevent them from reproducing... like your example of the seedless watermelon.

That mutation must be artificially created every single time, since the resulting watermelon is sterile. It is the humans that are better adapted to their environment (by creating easier to consume food), not watermelons. And this adaptation is not one of biological evolution.

I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask.

I did not bring up the idea of the first functioning heart, but it is interesting. Did some organisms carry around a useless hunk of muscle for generations with the intention of delivering a heart to their ancestors? I think you have to be comfortable with that idea to interpret the presence of similar or duplicate genetic material as a venue for advantageous mutation developed by an organism within itself.

I'm looking for any study where scientists have observed this happening. I'm not content with a deduction based on an assumption.

aaronmark:

Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?

You seem to be confusing two processes. Natural selection is culling process by which "less fit" genomes are removed from the gene pool as a result of competition for limited resources. The transmission and production of new genetic material is a separate process that occurs during gene copying in the process of cell division.

During copying, "errors" of many kinds can occur. They can result in segments of DNA being replicated, deleted or changed. All of these produce "new genetic material", in that the resulting gene codes for something other than what it originally coded for. (Things are actually a little more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it).

I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult. Scientists observe (and cause) augmenting mutations in people and other organisms every day. But all of these are fatal to the individual organism, or prevent them from reproducing... like your example of the seedless watermelon.

That's not true. Take, for example, the example of people born with six fingers instead of five. That's a mutation that is not fatal. Nor does it prevent the individual from reproducing.

Or consider the example of camoflage in different kinds of animals. Mutations which resulted in animals that had better camoflage were beneficial. They did not result in death or prevent reproduction.

Did some organisms carry around a useless hunk of muscle for generations with the intention of delivering a heart to their ancestors?

Possibly, but maybe not. As an example, you can imagine some kind of muscle originally useful for something else eventually being "co-opted" to a new function. Alternatively, if carrying around a "useless" hunk of muscle was not detrimental to the organism's survival, there is no reason to suppose it would have been "selected out".


John99:

Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken.

Given enough time, it might. It has happened at least once before...

Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today, No, there would not. Darwinian evolution says there was no such thing. I did not bring up the idea of the first functioning heart, but it is interesting. It is not a part of Darwinian theory. In Darwinian theory there is no such thing as the first functioning heart.

You can't ask reasonable questions and you get hung up on non problems because you don't understand the basic theory involved.
I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult. It's almost impossible, as fra as I can tell.
That mutation must be artificially created every single time, since the resulting watermelon is sterile. It is the humans that are better adapted to their environment (by creating easier to consume food), not watermelons. And this adaptation is not one of biological evolution. It can be cloned. And it is exactly biological evolution, exactly what you ask for. You simply have an artificially limited notion of what "favorable adaptation" means.

A seedless watermelon needs certain human interventionist activities to reproduce, except in rare cases. An apple needs certain honeybee interventionist activities to reproduce. They have adapted to their environments through acquisition and mutation of genetic material and its expression.
I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask. And you've been handed antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which has been observed in axenic culture in a test tube no less. End of story.

End of story.Again?

Some people are having trouble with the words here. I mean words like "adapt" and "advantage", and the idea of "new" material.

There's another one, too: "purpose".
Purpose is behaviour; we see behaviour (like, everywhere); we also behave.

If you are having trouble understanding "purpose", try going somewhere where there are wild animals - wolves or bears say, or large predators like the big cats. Hang around long enough, and you will eventually become the object of purposeful behaviour.
Or you could try swimming somewhere there are lots of sharks.

Purposeful behaviour can be easily observed in humans (like, us). Try standing in the middle of a busy road, and you might get the idea.

Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today, what you are describing is an evolution from a less complex variant. What would you say it was and do you have any links that explain this? Then we need to consider the complexity, with valves and chambers. Do you believe that by simply by evolving that this was done, but the real question is...WHY?

I'm not intending to join in, I just wish to say that your question is pointless, not the real question as you state.

Try some easier ones first. Why is grass green and not purple ? Why have I got feet at the end of my legs ? I know they are for walkin BUT WHY ? Get the dea ?

Again?

Some people are having trouble with the words here. I mean words like "adapt" and "advantage", and the idea of "new" material.

There's another one, too: "purpose".
Purpose is behaviour; we see behaviour (like, everywhere); we also behave.

If you are having trouble understanding "purpose", try going somewhere where there are wild animals - wolves or bears say, or large predators like the big cats. Hang around long enough, and you will eventually become the object of purposeful behaviour.
Or you could try swimming somewhere there are lots of sharks.

Purposeful behaviour can be easily observed in humans (like, us). Try standing in the middle of a busy road, and you might get the idea.


You are unbelievably confused. I get the impression you have been given a lot of misleading information and, not knowing any better, have bought it lock, stock and barrel. Purpose is not behaviour. It may be the precursor of behaviour. Now it's your turn to ask what the purpose of behaviour is and so on.
C U around

Hi all,


I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask.

There are plenty of examples, such as :

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm

If you are actually interested in beneficial mutations, you can read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
And many many more locations.

But aaronmark isn't interested in learning about beneficial mutations, he is actually a creationist pretending to be interested.

aaronmark has failed to do any study on mutations, and when examples are presented to him, he dismisses them with unscientific word games.


Iasion

Purpose is not behaviour. then what is behaviour? You don't know do you?
It may be the precursor of behaviour. You mean , like the Sun rising is the precursor of the ground warming up?
Or you mean like the way a predator stalks prey? Which one of these activities is a precursor to behaviour?

You're grabbing at some sort of idea here, but what the hell is it?

then what is behaviour? You don't know do you?
You mean , like the Sun rising is the precursor of the ground warming up?
Or you mean like the way a predator stalks prey? Which one of these activities is a precursor to behaviour?

You're grabbing at some sort of idea here, but what the hell is it?

Behaviour like reading the bible is the precursor of becoming a Creationist or a believer in nonsense like ID because one lacks the intelligence to understand anything which requires a bit of thought. Such people find it easier to learn tracts of the bible by heart because it requires no great intelligence to do so. It's the sort of thing you could teach a parrot.

Hi all,



There are plenty of examples, such as :

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm

If you are actually interested in beneficial mutations, you can read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
And many many more locations.

But aaronmark isn't interested in learning about beneficial mutations, he is actually a creationist pretending to be interested.

aaronmark has failed to do any study on mutations, and when examples are presented to him, he dismisses them with unscientific word games.


Iasion

But I bet he knows all about casting pearls before swine.

Must there not be a connection between abiogenesis and evolution? A transfer if you will from one "process" to the next? If so then would that not imply there is a common engine or drive. If there is no connection then how did it transfer from one to the other? What was the catalyst?

It would seem to me that...If life self replicated, posessed a metabolism and adapts to its enviroment then some of these characteristic would need to be located in non living matter that shares carbon based traits...But I don't believe these traits -replication, metabolism and adaptation adequetly define life...I seems that live is more. Is not animation a requirement?

Must there not be a connection between abiogenesis and evolution? A transfer if you will from one "process" to the next? If so then would that not imply there is a common engine or drive. If there is no connection then how did it transfer from one to the other? What was the catalyst?

It would seem to me that...If life self replicated, posessed a metabolism and adapts to its enviroment then some of these characteristic would need to be located in non living matter that shares carbon based traits...But I don't believe these traits -replication, metabolism and adaptation adequetly define life...I seems that live is more. Is not animation a requirement?

You ask some very difficult questions, so difficult , in fact, that you would not understand the answers. Can I recommend ID ? That is easy to understand. Don't let the fact that it's a lot of nonsense bother you.

You ask some very difficult questions, so difficult , in fact, that you would not understand the answers. Can I recommend ID ? That is easy to understand. Don't let the fact that it's a lot of nonsense bother you.

Does that mean you don't know?
It would explain why you didn't answer.
Why do you believe in evolution when there is no direct or relation between adaptation and macro evolution?

Does that mean you don't know?
It would explain why you didn't answer.
Why do you believe in evolution when there is no direct or relation between adaptation and macro evolution?

Did I say I believe in evolution ?

Did you say you didn't believe in evolution?

Why do you believe in evolution when there is no direct or relation between adaptation and macro evolution? Back on topic!

So, then: what would Saquist accept as the appropriate level of "proof" for Darwinian evolutionary theory ?

Mind: Darwinian theory itself provides the relation - and the discovery of DNA a mechanism - between adaptation and evolution (macro or otherwise). That is a major accomplishment of it. So Saquist's question above makes little sense. But the matter of what "proof" the asker of such a question would find persuasive is still of interest.

Back on topic!

So, then: what would Saquist accept as the appropriate level of "proof" for Darwinian evolutionary theory ?

Mind: Darwinian theory itself provides the relation - and the discovery of DNA a mechanism - between adaptation and evolution (macro or otherwise). That is a major accomplishment of it. So Saquist's question above makes little sense. But the matter of what "proof" the asker of such a question would find persuasive is still of interest.


Theory provides the direct relation?
That's not a real tangible emperical relation...or do you believe it is and that's why my question makes no sense to you?

Back on topic!

So, then: what would Saquist accept as the appropriate level of "proof" for Darwinian evolutionary theory ?

Mind: Darwinian theory itself provides the relation - and the discovery of DNA a mechanism - between adaptation and evolution (macro or otherwise). That is a major accomplishment of it. So Saquist's question above makes little sense. But the matter of what "proof" the asker of such a question would find persuasive is still of interest.

Forgive the role play. I was playing Saquist at his own game. You will find that he never answers a question. He makes statements which he expects others to accept as gospel ( pun intended ) truth without any evidence.

From my previous exposure to him, I believe he has undergone a master's program in door -knocking and bible salesmanship.

Forgive the role play..

Intresting.
So you are admitting you are indeed playing a game and derailing threads on purpose?

Have you made your quota of bible sales this week ? Don't worry about angry householders. Never forget

" Knock and it shall be opened unto thee"

Crustaceans 1.11

As we continue I look forward to fully comprehending your apparent obssesive psychosis, compulsion for conflict, and tourettes like verbal mannerisms, Miles.
It should prove most useful in dealing with your perjorative, unavailing postings you offer as inteligent discourse.

If life self replicated, posessed a metabolism and adapts to its enviroment then some of these characteristic would need to be located in non living matter that shares carbon based traitsYou seem to be hinting at something like: where did life get the ability to replicate, or somesuch; i.e. the other Evolutionary (not Darwinian) problem of the origin of Life.

Current thinking extends from colonisation from space, to abiogenesis - the emergence of living things from a non-living background.
This is still one of the biggest questions about Life - we know a bit about how it works, or what makes it tick, but not about how it got started.

Presumably, because it can adapt and replicate, it must have arrived or emerged with these traits, or it developed them quickly. Otherwise the first 'attempts' would have been mostly failures. Given there was enough time and enough background - the chemicals and interactions, but also compartmentalisation or structure, something "happened".

All the important bits must have been, or must have gotten into place fairly quickly - early lifeforms must have had a reliable way to replicate their "building plans", along with sufficient function to maintain and transcribe it into actual structure.
Compartment "walls", membranes, co-operative and cyclic processes, coenzymes or "channels" that direct energy somewhere (like down a channel).
We know a lot about how a prokaryote is put together - which means we understand how mitochondria are built, and function. There are plenty of gaps in what we know. But do we know enough to explain its genesis? Maybe not.

As we continue I look forward to fully comprehending your apparent obssesive psychosis, compulsion for conflict, and tourettes like verbal mannerisms, Miles.
It should prove most useful in dealing with your perjorative, unavailing postings you offer as inteligent discourse.

What a wonderful vocabulary you have. Now if only those words meant anything. You will never fully " comprehend" ( understand in plain English )
evolutionary theory. Stick to ID and your biblical comfort blanket.

"Go ye forth and smite Darwin and all who hearken unto his unholy words !"

Etruscans 2.14

Here endeth the correspondence on this thread. Thou mayest reply but expect no more from me

Coloninzation? But how does this solve the existence's origin? I believe that is Hoyle and Francis theory?

However, the builiding plans as you put it would seem to be a necessary step. I've seenn many ...pseudo explanatioins but nothing which establishes a predicted path of progression which could be analyzed and tinkered with. What I don't expect is a full explanation I think that's unreasoanble. The DNA code is far to long for man to have any luck with understanding how was assembled but ther has to be some example worth studying closely and getting a clearer understanding.

I have to admit such a outline would be convincing but it's unlikely that such a understand would come in our lifetime.

Thou mayest reply but expect no more from meRight, like we can believe that.

I certainlly do not...However it would be an astonishing feat if Miles was indeed capable of that level of self contol. I officialy offer my assistance of course...as he does seem to have a fondness for our verbal relationship.

Theory provides the direct relation?
- - Yep. Check it out sometime - it's one of the dramatically enlightening advances in human thought, and well worth the effort of comprehension.

Meanwhile, about that "level of proof" question - the thread topic - - - ?

Yep. Check it out sometime - it's one of the dramatically enlightening advances in human thought, and well worth the effort of comprehension.

Wait....so the proof of the direct link for the theory is the theory itself?



Meanwhile, about that "level of proof" question - the thread topic - - - ?




It seems SaQ is forced to repeat himself.

However, the builiding plans as you put it would seem to be a necessary step. I've seenn many ...pseudo explanatioins but nothing which establishes a predicted path of progression which could be analyzed and tinkered with. What I don't expect is a full explanation I think that's unreasoanble. The DNA code is far to long for man to have any luck with understanding how was assembled but ther has to be some example worth studying closely and getting a clearer understanding.

I have to admit such a outline would be convincing but it's unlikely that such a understand would come in our lifetime.

Lifeforms, even the "simple" ones, are complex systems.
To analyse complexity, we take things apart and examine the bits and pieces, see how they fit together, and so on. like a kid taking an alarm clock apart, to see why it "rings" or makes a ticking noise.

We barely understand something like a virus; in non-viral organisms there's a lot of structure and function, and interacting subsystems and cycles and control mechanisms. Ultimately, it's "just" chemistry, but chemistry with structure, and so control.
A reaction in a test-tube is "controlled" - just by having it in some container.

But the question that science has us askiing is how to accurately determine between happenstance and design?

One is obviously more complex than the other, ergo the inference of design on extrememely intricate mechanisms. Infact are they're any examples of complex mechanism whos origin is known which show that mechanisms can be formed from happenstance with at least the same complexity as life.

Wait....so the proof of the direct link for the theory is the theory itself? No. The theory provides the direct link between adaptation and evolution. That's what you wanted, right?
One is obviously more complex than the other, ergo the inference of design on extrememely intricate mechanisms. The obviousness has been shown wrong, and the inference is invalid in any case.

There are at least three choices: happenstance, evolution, and design.

No. The theory provides the direct link between adaptation and evolution. That's what you wanted, right?

You're linking adaptation and evolution with the theory and offering that as emperical proof of theory's validity?

The obviousness has been shown wrong, and the inference is invalid in any case.

I'm sure you believe that's true.



There are at least three choices: happenstance, evolution, and design.

Those are actually two choices.

You're linking adaptation and evolution with the theory and offering that as emperical proof of theory's validity? No, I am informing you of the fact that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution specifically and firmly connects adaptation with evolution. The modern theory includes mechanism, etc.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "empirical proof of the theory's validity". Sounds like creationist gobblespeak.

The obviousness has been shown wrong, and the inference is invalid in any case. ”

I'm sure you believe that's true. The obviousness can be laid off on beholder's eye, but the invalidity of the inference is not a matter of belief: that complexity implies design is perhaps the most thoroughly refuted argument in science since God's perfection implied circular planetary orbits.
There are at least three choices: happenstance, evolution, and design. ”

Those are actually two choices. Those are actually three choices. I observe again that you do not understand evolutionary theory.

No, I am informing you of the fact that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution specifically and firmly connects adaptation with evolution. The modern theory includes mechanism, etc.

Are you sure because you said yes before. You said before that the "theory provides a direct relationship" as if the theory proves the theory....that would be a very well known fallacy called a circular argument.

I already know about the theory why state it as emperical evidence of a direct relation between adaptation and evolution and say the question I asked "made no sense?"

have no idea what you are talking about with "empirical proof of the theory's validity". Sounds like creationist gobblespeak.
Those are actually three choices. I observe again that you do not understand evolutionary theory.

Well I'm in no control of how you interpret what you hear. But it is clear you don't understand what I mean by emperical proof of the theory's validity.

It means observation of the theortical phenomenon in it's total transformation of all forms of life. Or at least the morecomplex forms of life.

I myself...really don't care how you think I understand evolution, Iceaura, but your opinion is so noted. I also acknowledge what evolution is defined as in scientific circles it's still happenstance, coicidence accidental, un purposes. That's mostly because of the factors that you believe drive "evolution" I don't recognize as having the influence evolution requires... which is of course why I don't subscribe to the theory.

Design sure is a tricky one.
If we knew how Life got started, or what specific conditions "happened", to exist, then the happenstance (chance interaction), design, evolution thing might be an easier picture to see.

But there's ~0.5b years of eukaryote evolution, and ~3b years further back, the prokaryotes "arose" from somewhere. It's gotten a big start with complexity and so on, really we can only say we have a rough sketch so far. Some of the processes are well-characterised, and we understand them as "distinct" things; except no process is distinct, it's part of a bigger picture - much bigger.

Life designs itself, in a sense. Or it's complex and advanced enough to adapt readily and develop new methods for old "tools", or combine the toolkit in "new" ways. It keeps trying, you have to give it that.
Genetic modification via human "design" is here, so we're designers too, or tinkerers at least.

I see life as incredibly advance and biomechanical.
Evolution would have to fill in more of the gaps in what's not be observed,(whatever that is) in order for me to lend it credit for life. So far it's like connect the dots but the order of the dots aren't number...and that's assuming that this is a connect the dots puzzle and not pin the tail on the donkey...or some other puzzle.

You said before that the "theory provides a direct relationship" {yes} as if the theory proves the theory.... {no}
I also acknowledge what evolution is defined as in scientific circles it's still happenstance, coicidence accidental, un purposes. If you understood the theory, you would not confuse it with happenstance.
That's mostly because of the factors that you believe drive "evolution" I don't recognize as having the influence evolution requires... You have no idea what factors I think - not "believe" - govern - not "drive" - evolution. Various are possible - the theory does not specify.

Your vocabulary betrays you. It's a very elegant and deeply explanatory theory, Darwinian is - the time you spend acquiring a basic comprehension of it you would not regret.

You only have to look in some medical reference to see Evolution in action. The study of infection and disease is the study of how micro-organisms evolve strategies and humans evolve immune responses.

The antibiotics and the pharmaceuticals are a "testament" of bacterial/human battle-zones (e.g. penicillin and the "streptococcus wars"), the roll-call of an ongoing "war", and an example of good old adaptation (actually quite a few examples).

There are organisms whose defense weapons we've adapted for our own use, is another kind of example, but that's due to our evolved "intelligence", which means our ability to adapt - use things. Our genes didn't evolve the weapons, it evolved the ability to use them (and find them).
Ancestral humans adapted rocks first of all along with fire, something no other species has done (a key adaptation for our genus). They did this to exploit other resources (meat and hides of animals)

I see life as incredibly advance and biomechanical.
Evolution would have to fill in more of the gaps in what's not be observed,(whatever that is) in order for me to lend it credit for life. So far it's like connect the dots but the order of the dots aren't number...and that's assuming that this is a connect the dots puzzle and not pin the tail on the donkey...or some other puzzle.

You clearly have no knowledge of evolutionary theory, hence your ability to dismiss it so lightly.

You are using the so-called argument from design which was first used in Darwin's time , if I remember correctly, bt the Rev. William Paley. He argued that if one found a watch on a desert island, it would make no sense to assume other than it had a designer. Variations on this idea have been put forward from time to time , all of which have been soundly refuted.

Evolutionary theory does not claim that things come into existence ex nihilo; it argues that things develop in stages over time. A favourite of doorknockers is to ask how one can possibly explain the complexity of the eye without recourse to a designer.

Evolutionist do not claim that the eye appeared where there was none before. An animal without what we would call an eye, but with an ability to recognize the difference between light and dark, would have an an advantage. Over a few million years, by natural selection, the eye would develop in stages.

The fact that you regard life as complex is merely stating the obvious. The point is that it did not become so overnight.

If you understood the theory, you would not confuse it with happenstance.
You have no idea what factors I think - not "believe" - govern - not "drive" - evolution. Various are possible - the theory does not specify.

Logic is not determined by confidence statements such as that.
And no...the theory dosen't specify much of anything.

Your vocabulary betrays you. It's a very elegant and deeply explanatory theory, Darwinian is - the time you spend acquiring a basic comprehension of it you would not regret.[/QUOTE]

yes it does, I should have been more clear and precise but what ever drives evolution it is certainly not plainly evident in the motivators that are proposed.

You only have to look in some medical reference to see Evolution in action. The study of infection and disease is the study of how micro-organisms evolve strategies and humans evolve immune responses.

The antibiotics and the pharmaceuticals are a "testament" of bacterial/human battle-zones (e.g. penicillin and the "streptococcus wars"), the roll-call of an ongoing "war", and an example of good old adaptation (actually quite a few examples).

There are organisms whose defense weapons we've adapted for our own use, is another kind of example, but that's due to our evolved "intelligence", which means our ability to adapt - use things. Our genes didn't evolve the weapons, it evolved the ability to use them (and find them).
Ancestral humans adapted rocks first of all along with fire, something no other species has done (a key adaptation for our genus). They did this to exploit other resources (meat and hides of animals)

I'm quite familiar with the adaptive qualities of micro organisms it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. They seem to adapt as a part of a regular progression...rapidly and consistently in large changes.

Evolutionist do not claim that the eye appeared where there was none before. An animal without what we would call an eye, but with an ability to recognize the difference between light and dark, would have an an advantage. Over a few million years, by natural selection, the eye would develop in stages.

The eye, having evolved many times over, has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span from when it first becomes a photo receptor.

Moderator note:

Ad homs will result in this thread being locked.

Thank you.
I'd prefer a discussion than debate, conversation and exchange of thought over personal attacks.
And since as long as I'm part of the discussioin Miles seems likely to continue his perjorative comments I will excercise the better part of valor to allow the thread to remain intact.
Maybe next time Iceaura, I enjoyed the exchange as it was.:wave:

OK, answer this:

Why does sex feel good? How does an evolutionist explain this???

To expand on that: Sex feels good for the simple purpose of reproduction. We should be realistic and acknowledge that nature has little interest in our personal pleasure. So i was just wondering how it worked out so well.

The eye, having evolved many times over, has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span from when it first becomes a photo receptor.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

OK, answer this:

Why does sex feel good? How does an evolutionist explain this???

To expand on that: Sex feels good for the simple purpose of reproduction. We should be realistic and acknowledge that nature has little interest in our personal pleasure. So i was just wondering how it worked out so well.

Are you kidding ? You practically gave the answer yourself..
If it didn't feel good why would we have sex ?

OK, answer this:

Why does sex feel good? How does an evolutionist explain this???

To expand on that: Sex feels good for the simple purpose of reproduction. We should be realistic and acknowledge that nature has little interest in our personal pleasure. So i was just wondering how it worked out so well.

We wouldn't do it if it didn't feel good and we would not be here to talk about it.

The eye, having evolved many times over, has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span from when it first becomes a photo receptor.Whoops, I think you mean 250.000.000 years (about half the zoophyte evolutionary span).

Whoops, I think you mean 250.000.000 years (about half the zoophyte evolutionary span).

No, a quarter of a million years - 250K. That's it. :)

Hmm, ok but that restricts the original evolution of the "eye", to the end of the Pleistocene...?

I guess it depends how far back you can see something you can call an "eye". Considering there were mammals and dinosaurs who had eyes (or sockets for them), I'd go at least as far back as the Cretaceous. Then I guess fish had eyes, that's further back. Didn't it all start back in the Cambrian? When did eukaryotes show up?

No, a quarter of a million years - 250K. That's it. :)On the face of it this seems astounding. Would you care to provide a citation?

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

Neither of those links says anything about 250.000 years for the evolution of any eye, except in a computer model. The model is based on various assumptions about initial conditions and the number of generations (iterations) needed to "evolve a good camera eye" , i.e. with a "lens" of some kind.

Eyes are things in animals, not computer models, or did that detail slip past?

And he didn't say it was 250,000 years ago that the first photo-receptor appeared. He said since the first photo-receptor appeared, it took approximately 250,000 years to evolve into what we would call an eye.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtmlThank you for the references. Unfortunately the full paper costs $30 or more. However, reading around the edges this sounds like a questionable conclusion based upon over simple assumptions. (I kept thinking about the Club of Rome.) It is most certainly not conclusive, though without reading the full paper I won't go so far as to call it flaky.

I don't think the research is flaky or flawed (the model is probably as accurate as they can make it). But the connection to evolution in the actual fossil record is the "flaky" bit, or there's an assumed relevance that isn't really there.

It's interesting, but not bone-rattling. It supports the theory that eyes have evolved multiple times, since it can occur rapidly in the model (0.25m years is rapid), therefore eyes must be multiply advantageous (lots of different genomes have "had a go" at evolving eyes).

The way it was presented was the fuzzy bit - there was certainly an implication that "the eye" is only that old, or something.

Neither of those links says anything about 250.000 years for the evolution of any eye, except in a computer model. The model is based on various assumptions about initial conditions and the number of generations (iterations) needed to "evolve a good camera eye" , i.e. with a "lens" of some kind.

Eyes are things in animals, not computer models, or did that detail slip past?

You are confusing the timespan in which the eye evolved with how long ago it evolved..

Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?

Have you read the post just before your 2c worth? In which the issue is discussed again (the eye and the computer model)?
I'm not confused about the subject. Thanks all the same for the advice.

P.S. Can you elaborate on "the evolution of the eye". Shouldn't that be "evolution of eyes"?
There is no "the eye".

Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?

I knew what he meant.. :shrug:

Actually, I think it's pretty clear he meant that:
has been roughly and conservatively estimated to have evolved over a 250,000 year span

to have evolved over a 250,000 year spanWhich means, over an interval of so many years, the eye evolved?
Or it means it takes so many years for "the eye" to evolve"?
Did this happen so many years ago, or a lot further back?

Clear as. No need to qualify "over a 250,000 year span" at all. It's obvious what is
meant.

Can you, speaking of clarification, qualify what you meant with "the eye"?

Which means, over an interval of so many years, the eye evolved?
Or it means it takes so many years for "the eye" to evolve"?
Did this happen so many years ago, or a lot further back?

Clear as. No need to qualify "over a 250,000 year span" at all. It's obvious what is
meant.

Can you, speaking of clarification, qualify what you meant with "the eye"?

Who me ? I never made the statement..

Yes, as I say, it wasn't made clear what was meant at the outset, regarding this eye subject, though.
And it's a model - an abstraction, not the real thing. He didn't tell us that little detail did he?

Have you read the post just before your 2c worth? In which the issue is discussed again (the eye and the computer model)?
I'm not confused about the subject. Thanks all the same for the advice.

P.S. Can you elaborate on "the evolution of the eye". Shouldn't that be "evolution of eyes"?
There is no "the eye".

How long did it take for nitpicking to evolve ? If you attend a lecture concerning the structure of the eye, do you "correct" the lecturer and tell him that he should be talking about eyes ? Surely everyone knows that "the eye" represents eyes of a particular class ,if so specified, or structures common to all eyes.

I get the impression that you are overly concerned with abstraction as you seem to use that word so often. In real life we do not continually remind ourselves that the apple we are eating is an abstraction, and the eye with which we see it as an abstraction and so on. Such fine dinstinctions are in the province of philosophy; most of us take a break from it now and then. This discussion is about evolution.

Are you kidding ? You practically gave the answer yourself..
If it didn't feel good why would we have sex ?

We wouldn't do it if it didn't feel good and we would not be here to talk about it.

:)- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner?

Well this is an interesting turn of events. If you cannot see the problems with this whole thing then...you just cannot see it. That is called indoctrination, for to not even acknowledge the validity of my queries is frightening.

:)- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner?

Well this is an interesting turn of events. If you cannot see the problems with this whole thing then...you just cannot see it. That is called indoctrination, for to not even acknowledge the validity of my queries is frightening.

Uh... no offense but I suggest you read up on evolution before continuing in this thread..

Oh dont worry i am not offended. If we acknowledge certain things then we can better understand them and make adjustments accordingly. The longer we are here the more we need to adjust.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr/20070425News006.asp

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007/02/brain-surgeon-challenges-darwinism.html

Finally,

http://www.discovery.org/a/2611

Oh dont worry i am not offended. If we acknowledge certain things then we can better understand them and make adjustments accordingly. The longer we are here the more we need to adjust.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr/20070425News006.asp

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007/02/brain-surgeon-challenges-darwinism.html

Finally,

http://www.discovery.org/a/2611

I looked at the first like and found that Marshall is re-cycling old, refuted arguments. He is talking of complexity but without allowing for it to develop over millions of years. This is the type of thing one hears from doorknockers.

Is it a co-incidence that he changed his views three years after converting to Christianity ? I think not.

Isnt it interesting how evolution created its own intelligent designers?

- Just as i expected. Are we to believe that evolution\natural selection would know that we would be somewhat lazy and selfish to reproduce in an intelligent\sustainable manner? No.That would be contrary to Darwinian theory - specifically and explicitly forbidden by it.

All assumptions of advance knowledge and purpose are creationist, design assumptions.

Again: comprehension of Darwinian theory should precede criticism of it.

Isnt it interesting how evolution created its own intelligent designers?

It didn't. Why not read up on it a bit and see what you think. There is an awful lot of confusion about evolution, when the whole thing is based on a few simple, elegant ideas.

Believe me when I say Marshall was saying nothing new. The type of argument he is using, the argument from design, was used in Darwin's time.

Intelligent Design is an expression used by Creationists. You will find no such thing mentioned by evolutionists.

It occurs to me that we could start small: what "level of proof" is necessary for people to believe that oak trees grow from acorns ?

We can devide the question into two parts, if people prefer - the "micro" growth, that can be observed in labs and the like, and the "macro" growth, that takes hundreds of years and has never been "observed", in some senses of that word.

Is it a co-incidence that he changed his views three years after converting to Christianity ? I think not.

Your just limiting the discussion, forget about your us .vs religion fixation. I am really not interested in it and singling out Christianity is ridiculous considering all the Jewish doctors, surgeons and scientists who would not accept evolution as the only answer either.

Your just limiting the discussion, forget about your us .vs religion fixation. I am really not interested in it and singling out Christianity is ridiculous considering all the Jewish doctors, surgeons and scientists who would not accept evolution as the only answer either.

I didn't single him out. You drew my attntion to him. Had he been a Muslim or a Jew or whatever, do you honestly think I would have responded differently ?

The fact you cannot escape is that virtually all scientists worldwide have no problems with evolutionary theory. If a scientist could find a flaw and support his argument in the customary way, he'd be well on the way to a Nobel prize. Can you imaging a scientist failing to do that . He'd be famous overnight .

I honestly feel you should look into evolutionary theory a bit more and, if you have objections, air them here so we can discuss them

We have a sticky for Evolution Denialism, which is generous since it should be in with Religion or Pseudoscience. Why are we allowing this crackpottery to take up more bandwidth than that?

We have a sticky for Evolution Denialism, which is generous since it should be in with Religion or Pseudoscience. Why are we allowing this crackpottery to take up more bandwidth than that?

I missed that. It would make sense to go there, if there is anythging useful left to say. My own feeling is that we have come to a standstill.

I would require the following:

1. a sign of metabolism: i.e. self sustenance
2. reproduction: ie species sustenance
3. adaptation i.e. response to environmental cues that guarantee survival.

also, does that mean mules are not alive?

Have you ever heard of the Tardigrada? It's a bizarre little phylum of creatures that, when their aquatic habitats dry up, package their proteins in carbohydrates, then dessicate to such an extent that all cellular metabolism turns off. They are totally dead. Caused quite a stir when first discovered. The only known living creature to have died and come back was Jesus.

The only known living creature to have died and come back was Jesus.

how about Lazarus ?

how about Lazarus ?

Uhhh.....

ok, ok. The thread title is 'level of proof for evolution' however evoltion is already proven, it is the details that are in dispute.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

:shrug:

Can we at least agree on that?

I never made the statement..No, but you did make this one:
You are confusing the timespan in which the eye evolved with how long ago it evolved..

"the eye" evolved?
Surely everyone knows that "the eye" represents eyes of a particular class ,if so specified, or structures common to all eyes.Do they really? I'd say they don't, really.

No, but you did make this one:


"the eye" evolved?
Do they really? I'd say they don't, really.

Why would you say that ?

ok, ok. The thread title is 'level of proof for evolution' however evoltion is already proven, it is the details that are in dispute.No no no no no. Scientific theories are never proven, only mathematical theories. They're just so well supported, tested and peer-reviewed that their probability of ever being disproved is small enough to work with comfortably. I call these "canonical theories" because they can be safely integrated into the scientific canon, i.e. they are so rarely falsified that the canon does not come tumbling down in chaos. I have not been able to find good scientific terminology for this; you'd almost think scientists don't care about our ability to communicate effectively with laymen. :) In legal terminology, they're "true beyond a reasonable doubt." The closest the scientific method comes to addressing this issue is to imply (only imply!) that a challenge to what I am calling a canonical theory automatically qualifies as an "extraordinary claim," and therefore we are under no obligation to treat it with respect until it is accompanied by "extraordinary evidence."

We all behave this way intuitively. We rudely dismiss every hypothesis of Evolution Denialism as religion, crackpottery, and the stuff of undergraduate papers from third-rate universities, as soon as we are satisfied that it covers no new ground and therefore does not constitute extraordinary evidence. But it would be nice, not just for the Denialists but for ourselves, if we could do it in a more--um--canonical way, actually citing a principle in the scientific method. Just because we are not obligated to treat such a hypothesis with respect does not mean that we are not permitted to at least explain why.

And in order to do that we need a vocabulary.

No, but you did make this one:


"the eye" evolved?
Do they really? I'd say they don't, really.

Hey I am just applying common sense here.. I haven't gone into the 'eye matter' so I won't be answering your question.

OK, but the "common sense" of calling something that has evolved multiple times, in different taxonomic branches of the animal kingdom, "the eye", has to be given context.

It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.

Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.

Fraggle,

I am not here to argue just present a viewpoint and not to deny what is obvious.

Scientific theories are never proven

A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.

Fact in science:

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[20]

That is from Wikipedia, feel free to dispute it but your not going to change it. You post has such an air of condescension that i have to ask what was your profession?

OK, but the "common sense" of calling something that has evolved multiple times, in different taxonomic branches of the animal kingdom, "the eye", has to be given context.

It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.

Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.

No.. i was applying common sense to Q's statement. I just told you what he said, that's all.

A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.
Name one.

OK, but the "common sense" of calling something that has evolved multiple times, in different taxonomic branches of the animal kingdom, "the eye", has to be given context.

It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.

Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.

You are being far too clever. In a forum of this kind where we are talking to people who reject evolution, do you think your form of explanation would be any more convincing?I don't. The detail you are talking about MIGHT be relevant in answering subsequent questions.

Evolutionists talk of "the eye "developing ,in a general sense , and expect to be understood. The do not feel it a requirement to start with the evolutionary advantage of a single light-sensitive cell, talk of genes, gene pools, taxonomy and all the rest.

You know exactly what was meant, as do I. Your suggested approach would simply cause confusion. We have enough of that already.

More sloppiness.

Tsk tsk...

More sloppiness.

Tsk tsk...

Are you still a student seeing things through the prism of what you are learning. What you fail to understand that there is a place for using words which have been carefully defined, and one for everyday usuage.

I bet if you go to the butcher you do not ask for a piece of steak by supplying all the biological data. In fact, I can imagine a Monty -Python sketch in which someone goes to the butcher and quotes at length from a book. The butcher replies, " so you want a piece of steak mate ? Python character " well, if you wish to put it like that, yes."

Cheer up, it may never happen.We've all been there.

I doubt that I've been where you seem to be going, however.

A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.

i can feel a misunderstanding coming up here : theories do never upgrade to facts because they're inherently different things - the implied gradation from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact does not exist

as you said, observations are the coinage of science which most closely approaches what in the vernacular is known as fact

theories, again as in the wikipedia description, are attempts to explain groups of observations and which usually lead to predictions which may throw light on other observations

a theory becomes stronger once it has withstood repeated attempts to refute it and when it is found to have enlarged explanatory power by explaining something that was originally not covered by the theory

i can feel a misunderstanding coming up here : theories do never upgrade to facts because they're inherently different things - the implied gradation from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact does not exist. As you said, observations are the coinage of science which most closely approaches what in the vernacular is known as fact.Unfortunately scientists themselves don't adhere to that rule. If you Google "scientific truth" you'll be dismayed by the volume of papers, articles, course notes, etc., by otherwise respectable scientists. I found an entire university course on scientific truth that didn't even mention a controversy over the terminology.

To be fair, as I've noted before, science is laboring under the handicap of inadequate vocabulary. We don't have the all the terms we need to explain science to laymen.

I guess there is one category of true scientific fact: When there is only one instance of the object or condition being studied. Once people had sailed all around the world, we can say that it is a scientific truth--or fact--that this one planet is round.

I doubt that I've been where you seem to be going, however.

You never know. Never say never

A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.

No John,
you have confused the two different meanings of the word "theory" :

1. theory = speculation
2. theory = explanation

The Theory of Evolution means the explanation for how evolution works.

It does NOT mean speculation about IF evolution is true.

This mis-understanding is extremely common, and causes untold confusion.


Iasion

the following site (http://www.notjustatheory.com/) is worth perusing to clear up some of the murky semantics

I actually do have a problem with the an implication of the theory of evolution by natural selection, from a scientific perspective, in that it seems to imply some innate direction/tendency with the selection process, which is surely dependant on the very specific (both time and space dependant) complexities of one's environmental bubble, and is thus highly random......

We can not in the same breath hold the vast array of exogenous variables we know as nature to do our selective biddings AND suggest that there is some kind of concious decision to promote the best genes (or can we?), surely no such concious decision exists, and as with the dynamically changing environment no attribute can be described as more advantageous than another in a general sense, and thus the only way for species to evolve is to be exposed to conditions that over time in which it is consistently advantageous to have gene characteristics

I'm seeking further understanding, and perhaps my interpretation of the theory of evolution is misguided (perhaps in applying an abstract idea - that best genes are promoted - and a condition that infers it - the natural environment culling off the less well adapted (even this is generalising however, because experiences are unique).

Evolution is yet another scientific thinking breakthrough that has overturned mystery stones left long unexplained by man, except by more supernatural or frivolous ideas..... or should i say creations ;).. much like the crying of the gods that was onced believe to explain rainfall.....

what evidence is there as justification for creationism btw? except criticisms of why other factors could not explain life.... there are bibles and holyscripts yes, but these MAY just be glorified story books.. is there any empirical evidence?? (empirical meaning within the last 2 millenia please :) )

... though it is not the idea of creationism that i object, as i am not so blindly ignorant to dismiss other peoples ideas based on what i have been told

It may be that science and religion are united on some level given enough comprehension of the world around us.. what one sees as an energy the other sees as holy force.. what is the difference really?.. it is the personification of this existent life form and the religious driven wars, rules and power struggles with which i am not comfortable, so I apologise for perhaps seeming to attack the idea in my last post, i was merely seeking to ask, as has been expected to such great detail of the evolutionist theory, what evidence there is to support the idea. The amazing level of intricacy and micro level symmetry present within our universe is not such a bad argument in itself, given that a slight adjustment of conditions would leave us being a lifeless planet, but i would argue is not necessarily pertaining to the idea of a more powerful being meticulously planning everything.. i guess what im getting at is that neither side will ever be satisfied with the others justifications.. ever.. and this could be a loonngggggg thread :)

I don't believe we have observed a single prokaryote evolve into a eukaryote.

Is this true?

I don't believe we have observed a single prokaryote evolve into a eukaryote.

Is this true?

No but we have organisms that are intermediates - dinokaryotes.

Opinion is somewhat divided on whether the arrangement of the nucleus and nucleic proteins are evidence of a primitive intermediate between ekaryotes and prokaryotes, or whether this is evidence of an advanced intermediate between eukaryotes and a next stage of cellular/nuclear arrangement.

I'm in the camp that views them as advanced eukaryotes - either way they are still intermediates

Interesting. Until we see such a big leap, (and in my eyes, any single celled form of life that evolves into a multicelluar organism is certainly a huge leap), i am uncertain what to believe until such a time.

We can not in the same breath hold the vast array of exogenous variables we know as nature to do our selective biddings AND suggest that there is some kind of concious decision to promote the best genes (or can we?), surely no such concious decision exists, and as with the dynamically changing environment no attribute can be described as more advantageous than another in a general sense, and thus the only way for species to evolve is to be exposed to conditions that over time in which it is consistently advantageous to have gene characteristics

There is no conscious decision. Evolution is a statistical statement. Organisms that have beneficial mutations will tend to survive more often. Further, male organisms which are more fit to survive will also be stronger when it comes time to compete for mates. This means that the more fit organisms reproduce more often. And this is (as far as I see it) what evolution IS.

It may be that science and religion are united on some level given enough comprehension of the world around us..

This is a popular argument among people who have trouble rejecting one or the other :)

Interesting. Until we see such a big leap, (and in my eyes, any single celled form of life that evolves into a multicelluar organism is certainly a huge leap), i am uncertain what to believe until such a time.

Dinosaurs -> Birds?

I don't believe we have observed a single prokaryote evolve into a eukaryote.

Is this true?If I see a large truck hurtling down a hill with a white faced driver at the wheel. Then later observe the truck's wreckage scattered on the ground and an ambulance attending the injured driver, it is reasonable to believe even though I have not observed it, that there has been a crash.
This fixation on seeing things is just a nonsense.

Regarding multicellular life, even bacteria (well, very few, but still) have a multicellular stage. Like in the case of fruiting body formation.

If I see a large truck hurtling down a hill with a white faced driver at the wheel. Then later observe the truck's wreckage scattered on the ground and an ambulance attending the injured driver, it is reasonable to believe even though I have not observed it, that there has been a crash.
This fixation on seeing things is just a nonsense.
Maybe, but something as simplistic as a single celled life, that by all experiments have never wittnessed evolved, seems conspicuous.

Better said yet, is that a single celled life is not prone in the long run to do such a thing, for logic would suggest it should happen frequently, because the chances of having only one single-celled life do such a thing, is evidently small, if not vanishing.

Dinosaurs -> Birds?
Not so hard to believe, since we have observed genetic mistakes being again, genetically superimposed into siblings. But a single celled life seems to find it harder to genetically modify.

I also know, that we have experiemented on creating life from a goo of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, by sending strong electrical impulses into its structure, and each experiment has prooved fruitless. What does this say about the theory of evolution?

Maybe, but something as simplistic as a single celled life, that by all experiments have never wittnessed evolved, seems conspicuous.

Better said yet, is that a single celled life is not prone in the long run to do such a thing, for logic would suggest it should happen frequently, because the chances of having only one single-celled life do such a thing, is evidently small, if not vanishing.

It only has to happen once.. and it did.

Incorrect.

Evolution in the Lab (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/936/)

Interesting. Until we see such a big leap, (and in my eyes, any single celled form of life that evolves into a multicelluar organism is certainly a huge leap), i am uncertain what to believe until such a time.

A sponge is a creature that transitions between single celled and multicellular life. You can put a sponge in a blender, and the individual cells will live separately. Then, pour them in a container, and they will reform a living sponge.

I will hold some superintelligence is involved, as Fred Hoyle had, when he calculated the chance that a hydrogen atom could exist at 10^{40,000}, and since this heavily outweighs all the matter in the universe at 10^{80}, something unique happened in nature itself, and even the ''Quantumgenesis,'' as i call it, was so evidently provident over all circumstances of a non-deterministic universe itself.

Everything would need to follow deterministic laws, therego, if anything was to every exist.

A sponge is a creature that transitions between single celled and multicellular life. You can put a sponge in a blender, and the individual cells will live separately. Then, pour them in a container, and they will reform a living sponge.

And the statistics behind such a mediator are? That would mean, by chance, and even by greater chance, that a single celled life required a stranger formation than had ever been contemplated. Not only that, but we are now talking about something (LIKE a eukaryote, which existed at the same time as a prokaryote without evolutionary change) and goes beyond any statistical calculation of reasonable thought.

Reiku those statistics are nonsense.

The probability argument is also mistaken. Life didn't spring fully formed all at once, there was a gradat