Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    there wouldnt have been human mothers in the very beginning. once the transition was made the mothers would have been...forgive me for saying this but for lack of a better word BEASTS.

    it must have happened at the same time whereas a large numbers of beasts ie. predecessor gave birth to humans.

    is that right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Only in the sense that 5 + 2 = 83.7
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Well if you reassigned new values to each of those symbols then that very well might be correct.

    /troll
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Complete and utter rubbish!
    Well, I never....(puts hand to mouth)
    How completely and utterly predictable.

    It's what you call references or verifiable science that is in question here, not my assertions.
    Haven't you figured that out yet?

    Every bone from the twelve foot humans dug from my back yard in Kansas city disappeared as soon as the goons from the Smithsonian confiscated them.

    You can google the old newspaper clippings from the original finds for yourself.
    I'm not here to do all the work for you.
    I'm just throwing a few bread crumbs.

    The same group that's run around the last hundred and fifty years destroying every single bit of evidence that was found, has indoctrinated you so thoroughly that any mention of it puts you in a frenzy demanding to "see the evidence".
    The evidence could be as plain as the nose on your face and you couldn't see it.

    I would challenge you to prove me wrong.
    I'm serious about every claim I've made here.
    How about you show me some evidence to the contrary.

    -Show me the DNA evidence that proves we came from one source not two.
    -Show me DNA evidence that explains how aging works and refute the evidence that shows it's a simple matter of an enzyme that could lengthen our lifespan hundreds of years.
    -Show me irrefutable proof that primitive humans couldn't have possibly understood such things.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2009
  8. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Many old newspapers have not been digitized and I could not find the relevant article, would you be so kind as to provide a link?

    OK, so make it blatantly obvious, point out what you say we are missing.

    Usually you have to present a case before it can be proven wrong.
    You have made your claims, several times, and alluded to the existence of evidence but you haven't yet presented it.

    Sincerity is not usually considered to be a form of proof, we (or at least I) would be very happy to listen to your argument and examine your evidence to support your claim.

    So, if you are indeed sincere (as you seem to be) and if you can indeed support your claims (as you say you can) then do so.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    You are implying what here? A single human origin or a single origin of all life?

    ?? Hundreds of years I don't know about. Much of aging is due to the loss of material at the telomeric ends of chromosomes, as I recall. A gene to mitigate such loss is possible, I suppose. Why is this relevant again, and to what?

    Because many of them don't understand them now.

    There's a hint in that last comment.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    If even the likes of Graham Hancock had to ask for you to be dragged off, you have more serious issues than one can expect to deal with on an internet forum.
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Exactly my point. If John99 wishes to reassign different meanings to the words he used then he would be correct.

    Brilliant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Visitor,
    the Exec. Summary of your last post is: "I dont' have any evidence so I'm going to use the old trick of asking you to prove me wrong, a) because I think it might work, b) because I don't know that that's not how science works. (P.S. Go easy on me, I'm not very bright.)"
     
  12. markl323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
  13. vhawk Registered Member

    Messages:
    101
    let's face it evolutionists and creationists simply adore winding each other up- both are fervent believers and both are outraged by doubt, both are really funny neither will ever persuade the other. I'm neither
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    So what do you find unconvincing about evolutionary theory?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    So, what are you, if neither Creationist nor "evolutionist"?
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    It's incomplete. It answers some questions, but raises other questions that it can't adequately answer. Some animals have changed a little due to the environment (or whatever), adapted to meet the demands of survival - a bird specie grows a longer beak so as to get the food down in holes or something.

    Fine, makes sense. But how did one specie change into completely new and different species?

    A single "fish" crawled out onto the land, then proceeded to evolve into all of the other animals on Earth? Don't sound quite right, ya' know?

    And that's not even mentioning how that one "fish" even came into being in the first place. Where'd he come from?

    The theory of evolution answers some things, but it's incomplete. And to "believe" in something that's incomplete seems more like a religion than a science.

    Baron Max
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    The same can be said about practically every scientific theory.

    Can you explain in evolutionary terms how those birds got their longer beaks? If so, then you'll realise that the same answer applies to evolution at the species level.

    It's not right. You should be thinking in terms of populations of many many fish, not one single fish. And it wasn't as if a regular fish just swam up out of the ocean, spontaneously grew a set of legs and lungs then proceeded to walk up the beach. The whole process was gradual, with the fish (not a good word for them, by the way) inhabiting tidal zones, then developing the ability to breathe air, gradually converting fins to legs, etc. - all over a period of perhaps millions of years.

    Also, it wasn't a single fish that grew a net set of lungs, either. Rather, it was some of that fish's offspring that happened to be a little better at breathing out of water, who then had more offspring themselves, etc.

    Every heard of the "tree of life"? All creatures on Earth are related.

    The theory of quantum physics is incomplete. The theory of gravity is incomplete. The theory of psychological illness is incomplete. The theory of brain chemistry is incomplete. Pick a scientific theory - chances are that it is incomplete.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And yet you "believe" fervently enough to disparage, ridicule, others who don't share your fervor?

    Where did that population of fish come from in the first place? And equally questionable is how one fish specie became antelopes and another specie became dogs and yet another became gorillas and humans.

    All scientific theory is incomplete. Okay, I accept that without problems. But if you actually believe that, then why do you continue to ridicule those who also find it incomplete?

    Baron Max
     
  19. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    The evidence for evolution is not as incomplete as some would have us believe. I post in entirety because I believe it is VITAL to do so when these issues pop up as they inevitably do.

    So. On the importance of scienctific: theory/evidence/testability/cross referenced to other disciplines

    What is Universal Common Descent?
    Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.

    Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
    In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

    Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

    Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

    What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
    Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

    As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

    In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation.

    It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

    Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
    The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

    When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

    Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

    I urge anyone with a genuine interest in the subject to visit this site:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


    Now ... talk nicely or shut ... up!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2009
  20. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    On understanding things:

    "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

    I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

    - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
    from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,070
    Because of why they find it "incomplete", and the manner in which they handle those features which are not "incomplete".

    The people in 1850 who thought iron ships could never cross the Atlantic were wrong, but not all were ridiculous. The ones who thought that it was impossible because the earth was flat, or because iron was heavier than water, or because the Bible said that ships must be made out of wood,

    and refused for years and years to accept clarifications and explanations from the more knowledgeable,

    were ridiculous.
     
  22. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Proper science at work:

    Prediction: The Fundamental Unity of Life

    source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

    According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

    If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

    Confirmation:
    The common polymers of life
    The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.

    Nucleic acids are the genetic material of life
    Ten years after the publication of The Origin of Species, nucleic acids were first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. It took another 75 years after this discovery before DNA was identified as the genetic material of life (Avery et al. 1944). It is quite conceivable that we could have found a different genetic material for each species. In fact, it is still possible that newly identified species might have unknown genetic materials. However, all known life uses the same polymer, polynucleotide (DNA or RNA), for storing species specific information. All known organisms base replication on the duplication of this molecule. The DNA used by living organisms is synthesized using only four nucleosides (deoxyadenosine, deoxythymidine, deoxycytidine, and deoxyguanosine) out of the dozens known (at least 102 occur naturally and many more have been artificially synthesized) (Rozenski et al. 1999; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 969).

    Protein catalysis
    In order to perform the functions necessary for life, organisms must catalyze chemical reactions. In all known organisms, enzymatic catalysis is based on the abilities provided by protein molecules (and in relatively rare, yet important, cases by RNA molecules). There are over 390 naturally occurring amino acids known (Voet and Voet 1995, p. 69; Garavelli et al. 2001); however, the protein molecules used by all known living organisms are constructed with the same subset of 22 amino acids.

    The univeral genetic code
    There must be a mechanism for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material. All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this. The few known exceptions are, nevertheless, simple and minor variations from the "universal" genetic code (see Figure 1.1.1) (Lehman 2001; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 967), exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common descent, years before the genetic code was finally solved (Brenner 1957; Crick et al. 1961; Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963; Judson 1996, p. 280-281).

    The scientists who cracked the genetic code in the 1950's and 1960's worked under the assumption that the code was universal or nearly so (Judson 1996, p. 280-281). These scientists (which included Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow, and several others) all made this assumption and justified it based upon evolutionary reasoning, even in the complete absence of any direct experimental evidence for a universal code.

    In 1961, five years before the code was deciphered, Crick referenced Brenner's work in his landmark report in the journal Nature, "General nature of the genetic code for proteins" (Crick et al. 1961). Although the organism used in the paper was the bacterium E. coli, Crick titled the paper "the genetic code for proteins", not "a genetic code" or "the genetic code of E. coli". In this paper, Crick and others concluded that the code was (1) a triplet code, (2) non-overlapping, and (3) that the code is read from a fixed starting point (i.e. the "start" codon) (Crick et al. 1961). These conclusions were explicitly based on the assumption that the code was essentially the same in tobacco, humans, and bacteria, though there was no direct empirical support for this assumption. These conclusions, when applied to organisms from bacteria to humans, turned out to be correct. Thus, experimental work also assumed a universal code due to common descent.

    In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common descent, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

    "... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)

    Similarly, before alternate codes were found, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel expressed surprise that minor variants of the code had not been observed yet:

    "It is a little surprising that organisms with somewhat different codes do not coexist." (Crick and Orgel 1973, p. 344)

    Crick and Orgel were correct in their surprise, and today we know of about a dozen minor variants of the standard, universal genetic code (see the grey, red, and green codons in Figure 1.1.1). As Hinegardner and Engelberg predicted, the minor variations in the standard genetic code are indeed associated with major taxonomic groups (vertebrates vs. plants vs. single-celled ciliates, etc.).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I sniffy, stirrer of mankind, doth hazard to predict that in a 'few' years time it will be commonly accepted that there are at least two major trunks on the tree of life, each with its own canopy of branches. I may go so far as to say that there might indeed be (horror or horrors) two separate origin trees.

    Hint: Bacteria - 'superbugs' and their potential (evolutionary?) impact on animal biology. Anyone....??

    Tsk tsk. :mufc:

    Evolution as a process, is already a done deal, methinks.

    Hence the ridicule. Rightly or wrongly.

    Those who would do ill by Darwin, his original theory, and subsequent developments, do tend to exploit the lack of common understanding in these matters. The onus, therefore, is on proponents to make it understandable to those who lack a Phd in biochemistry or similar....

    ....and not to get bogged down in arguments regarding ridicule.
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Agreed, but they were proven wrong. Big difference. Once the iron ships began to sail on the oceans, anyone who STILL refused to believe that iron ships could sail on the oceans were, in fact, deserving of ridicule.

    "And God looked on his work, on the land and skies, and thought it was good. Then after sipping His mint julep, He thought about it again and saw that something was missing. So he created life, a few special one-celled animals, and said, "Let there be light ...and let evolution begin." And God was happy. Then He sat back, sipping His mint juleps, and watched the show begin."

    The process of evolution, that of a specie changing slightly in order to better adapt to changes in the environment, is, I think, a relatively proven (almost) theory. But it explains nothing about the complexity of life on the planet. How did one single life-form change into so many different animals? Or further, of course, where did any of those earliest life-forms come from?

    Baron Max
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page