RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[RickD]

Audie,


I like your new haircut btw.

[abelcainsbrother]

I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is.

Well, that's a start. Perhaps you should have admitted earlier that you haven't looked into the evidence for evolution before, and that your airy announcements that there is no evidence were nothing more than wishful thinking, but never mind.

So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it.

Right! It's on its way...

There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolves

But you've just said you've never 'got into' the evidence at all! No wonder you didn't find it convincing. However, you surely admit that lots of people do find it convincing. Has it occurred to you that maybe it's because they have 'got into' the evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand without reading it?

so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it.

No, it hasn't occurred to you.

I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.

OK. From the top then:

1) Every organism is a manifestation of its DNA, that remarkable strand of genetic information that dictates the growth and operation of the organism. And we find that DNA varies between organisms, in such a way that we can use it to discover when two organisms last had common ancestors. My brother and I have DNA so similar that it seems our last common ancestors (our parents) were born only about 80 years ago, whereas my fourth cousins shared common ancestors born about 200 years ago, and so on. This is a matter of historical record, but it is not unreasonable, I hope you’ll agree, within the constraints of our cultural miscegenation, to say that the less similar any two people’s DNA, the further back in time they shared common ancestors.

2) The difference between my and my brother’s DNA takes two forms. One is that although we both have half our mother’s, and half our father’s genes, we differ in exactly which genes occur in each of us. Among a species, it seems as if there is a vast ‘pool’ of genes appropriate to that species, of which any individual has an individual selection, which in turns makes him or her the individuals they are. The other is that even taking those genes we share exactly, slight mistranscriptions and even slighter mutations make them slightly different. So another way of determining how closely related I am to somebody else is to compare the number of tiny - usually insignificant - alterations there are in genes that ought to be identical in both of us.

3) This means that the picture of a vast ‘pool’ of genes particular to any particular species needs to be refined. Over the years some of these genes altered, often more than once, and the point in time when this happened can be calculated according to the observed rate of mutation in living organisms, and extrapolation into the past.

4) Genetic mutations may have no effect at all on the living organism, or be deleterious, such as the gene for cystic fibrosis, or be beneficial, such as the gene for lactose tolerance. Very rarely does the mutation affect reproductive success, but where it does, it prevents organisms with such a mutation from mating successfully with other organisms of the same species, even if they are closely related. Should that happen, then the group of organisms with the mutation must either become extinct, or only interbreed among themselves, in which case, for convenience, we call them a new species.

5) So far, of course, my ‘evidence’ has not delved further back into the past than historical record. However, from the particular - that the genetic differences between two organisms of the same species can be related to the passage of time - it is not unreasonable to speculate that the same might apply to the genetic differences between any two organisms; between me and my brother, me and a chimpanzee, me and a crocodile, or even me and a banana tree, who, by popular report, share up to 50% of our DNA.

6) Such a thing, of course, has never been observed. I cannot observe that I and George Washington ever had a common ancestor, let alone I and a chimpanzee. However, if it is true that any two organisms share a common ancestor, and if it is true that the difference between those two organisms reflects the time since that ancestor lived, then we might hope to support our argument by looking for evidence that, at about the time of the common ancestor, an organism existed that had some resemblance to both current organisms, and also that neither of the current organisms then existed. Furthermore, we might hypothesise that the further back in time the common ancestor existed, the less it would have in common with its descendants.

7) From a zoological and botanical point of view, our only evidence for long-dead organsisms is the fossil record. Fortunately, fossils not only give us some idea of what an organism looked like, but crucially, the time at which they fossilised. So if, for example, differences between my DNA and that of a chimpanzee suggested a common ancestor ten million years ago, then we would hope to find fossils of an animal with some of the characteristics of both, but no fossils of either. Which of course we do. The same applies to any two organisms at all, as far as we can discover. If I really am related to a crocodile, the differences between our DNAs suggest that we shared a common ancestor a hundred million years ago, when organisms existed with some of the charcterisitics of both of us, but neither of us existed. And that’s exactly what we do find.

I think this is enough to be going on with, but I hope it shows you that although none of it ‘proves’ evolution, it is a reasonable scientific train of thought. From observation comes a hypothesis. The hypothesis makes predictions, and the veracity of the predictions strengthens the hypothesis. If any of the predictions is falsified, the hypothesis is weakened, but this does not appear to be the case.

Finally, abelcainsbrother, it is still OK for you to say that you do not find this evidence sufficiently convincing. It is OK for you to present objections to my conclusions. It is OK for you to point out perceived weaknesses in the argument. That’s what scientists do. What it is absolutely not OK for you do is to claim that there isn’t any evidence. That’s very wrong, and the angels will weep for you.

I don't see how you can say I have not examined and went through evidence for evolution when I said I haven't found evidence to believe life evolves. I have considered all creation positions including theistic evolution.It is because of this that I accept the Gap Theory,it is because I have considered the other creation positions and examined the evidence behind them. I do know about evolution and have looked into the evidence for it and the evidence used for evidence life evolves and it is weak and does not demonstrate life evolves,not even close.


I appreciate your reasons for why you accept evolution and if I chose to just believe what you explained I might accept evolution too but the problem is evidence. I'm an evidence based person and it is rare that I cannot back myself up with evidence for what I believe or accept. This is how we determine what is true or not,we examine evidence to see how truthful it is.

I don't see a problem with much of what you wrote concerning DNA,genes,genetic mutations,etc but blending a little truth into the belief life evolves is often how conspiracy theories are started. I think we all know life is related by DNA but the assumption that given enough time an accumulation of genetic mutations leads to one kind of life changing over time into a new and totally different creature is the problem,I see and a lot of other people too. Because the evidence around us and the evidence used in evolution science proves and shows that there are limits to just how much variation there can be with any species and this is a serious problem for evolution.The evidence shows there are limits to how much variation can be had.

According to The Oxford Dictionary of biology present day species evolved from simpler ancestral types by the process of natural selection acting on the variability found in populations. Charles Darwin described it as follows "If,then,animals and plants do vary,let it be ever so slightly,why should not variations or individual differences,which are in any way beneficial,be preserved and accumulated through natural selection.Darwin insisted that the tiny variation,as in a litter of kittens might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to turn a cat into a totally new and different creature".

But after 150 years we still must assume and speculate just like Darwin did based on normal variations in reproduction that plant and animal breeders knew all about thousands of years before Charles Darwin assumed this variation could be accumulated enough to eventually turn one kind of creature into a totally new creature. We are still assuming and speculating if we accept evolution without evidence to demonstrate it,conform it,etc. We need evidence to know and shouldn't have to assume and speculate like Charles Darwin did based on normal variation.It seems to me it is reasonable to you to assume a little change can lead to big changes but we must not assume and this is the big problem with evolution everybody who chooses to accept evolution are assuming and speculating how much change can be had from normal variations in reproduction,such as dogs and roses. We see a variety of dogs but there is a limit to how much variation can be had and it is the same with roses also.

Based on this lack of evidence life evolves I and many others cannot accept it and think scientists need to admit it and drop evolution as an unconfirmed hypothesis.

[hughfarey]

I think we all know life is related by DNA but the assumption that given enough time an accumulation of genetic mutations leads to one kind of life changing over time into a new and totally different creature is the problem,I see and a lot of other people too.

Splendid! At last you have responded to one of my posts reasonably. I do indeed think that given enough time, mutations in DNA can lead to speciation, and I can see that you don't. That's fair enough. Perhaps better evidence will emerge that will lead one of us to change our minds.

Because the evidence around us and the evidence used in evolution science proves and shows that there are limits to just how much variation there can be with any species

But now you've gone and spoilt it. The evidence does not 'prove and show' that there are limits to DNAs capacity to evolve. How could it? This statement is wholly unreasonable.

The evidence shows there are limits to how much variation can be had.

This is, as I said before, quite false.

But after 150 years we still must assume and speculate just like Darwin did based on normal variations in reproduction that plant and animal breeders knew all about thousands of years before Charles Darwin assumed this variation could be accumulated enough to eventually turn one kind of creature into a totally new creature.

Although this farrago of unpunctuated, grammarless verbiage is difficult to understand, I think in principle I agree. I think that given time DNA can vary to the point of speciation, but that 150 years is insufficient time to demonstrate it to your satisfaction. You think you can arbitrarily decide that 150 years should be long enough, so that if it hasn't been demonstrated by now, it can't happen. But on what basis do you, who know virtually nothing of genetic variation, decide that 150 years is a long enough trial? What an unreasonable assumption!

It seems to me it is reasonable to you to assume a little change can lead to big changes

No. Not at all. I think that a long succession of little changes is a big change overall.

but we must not assume [this]

We don't assume it, we infer it. There is a difference. Why 'must' we not infer it? By what authority do you deny me the right to make inferences? You obviously do not make the same inference, but there's no reason why I shouldn't.

and this is the big problem with evolution

Not at all. It is not a problem for evolution at all. Indeed, the inference leads to a very successful series of predictions exactly as I outlined in my previous post, all of which have to some extent been verified.

We see a variety of dogs but there is a limit to how much variation can be had and it is the same with roses also.

So you say. But this is arbitrary dogma, not evidence based.

Based on this lack of evidence life evolves I and many others cannot accept it

Fine by me.

and think scientists need to admit it and drop evolution as an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Not fine by me, nor by the vast majority of biologists for 150 years.

But at least we've cleared up one thing. Surely we both agree that there is evidence to support the hypothesis that life evolves - it's just that you think it insufficient to confirm the hypothesis, while I think it sufficient. That's probably OK. Perhaps the angels can dry their tears...

[Audie]

Wait, a ice cube in a cup is evidence enough for a world wide flood, former world and all that
but there isnt enuf evidence fof evolution?? Splutter gasp, what??

[abelcainsbrother]

Wait, a ice cube in a cup is evidence enough for a world wide flood, former world and all that
but there isnt enuf evidence fof evolution?? Splutter gasp, what??

No fossils that show different kinds of life than the life in this world is evidence of the former world that perished and it is exactly what we should find in the earth if there was indeed a former world that perished,like a prediction and it confirms this interpretation is right,which confirms the bible true. The ice experiment only has to do with Noah's flood,plus the dust too that shows a drought happened at the time of Noah's flood showing that the ice survived the flood. Now where is your evidence life evolves? Come on and admit it,the Gap Theory is a much better theory based on the evidence than the ToE. Why wouldn't you want to know about this lost world?

[neo-x]

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

[Kurieuo]

QM matter pops out of literally, nothing.

That's not actually true.

[hughfarey]

No fossils that show different kinds of life than the life in this world is evidence of the former world that perished and it is exactly what we should find in the earth if there was indeed a former world that perished,like a prediction and it confirms this interpretation is right,which confirms the bible true.

I do wish you'ld make some attempt to make your syntax more conventional. Sentences like this really are quite difficult to get to the bottom of. I'll have a go, but sorry if I misrepresent you.

1) Ancient fossils do not resemble living organisms. By and large this is true. As species come and go continuously, lasting only a few million years, the geological column shows continuous change.

2) This is evidence that all ancient organisms perished in a sudden cataclysm. Well, of course it isn't. It is very good evidence that species appear and disappear on and off continuously throughout the history of organic life.

3) This shows that the global flood hypothesis is correct. No it doesn't. It shows a gradual change in the variety of organisms over millions of years.

4) This confirms the bible is true. No it doesn't do that either. At least, I should say that it doesn't confirm your own rather idiosyncratic version of the meaning of the bible. Fortunately, the truth of the bible does not depend on the literal occurrence or not of many of the events described in it, nor on anyone's individual interpretation of it.

The ice experiment only has to do with Noah's flood,plus the dust too that shows a drought happened at the time of Noah's flood showing that the ice survived the flood.

No it doesn't. Floods are wet. Droughts are dry. Your drought could only have occurred before or after the flood, not at the same time. Please specify, as whenever it occurred, it is strong evidence that the biblical flood didn't.

Now where is your evidence life evolves?

As above, in some detail.

Come on and admit it,the Gap Theory is a much better theory based on the evidence than the ToE.

The evidence? What evidence? The fact that ice can remain stuck to the bottom of a glass? Is that evidence of a global flood? The claim that although there is no evidence whatever for global inundation, layers of drought dust here and there around the world shows it must have happened? You are joking, surely?

Why wouldn't you want to know about this lost world?

I do want to know about the lost world. I've been asking you about it for months. Sadly you don't seem to know anything about it. No evidence for it. No evidence for its catastrophic end. Nix. What a pity.

[neo-x]

QM matter pops out of literally, nothing.

That's not actually true.

Could you list your objection in a little more detail, K. thanks.

[Audie]

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

Even a hundred years ago science was in a very primitive stage compared to today.

Nobody suspected that 85% of the matter and energy was in an undetected state, we thought our 15% was all there was.

Not much earlier than that, the "flood" explained physical geography.

In George Washington's time, it was still believed that there was a huge undiscovered southern continent, and that Hyperborea* was there to be discovered, if one could but bust thru the arctic pack ice and get to it.

Another hundred years, ten thousand years, if people are still doing research,
a lot of things will have come clearer.

I dont know what is wrong with people's thinking when they believe they can with a bit of "logical" sleight of hand determine what "must" be, about the nature of reality. Maybe it is some need for certainty, however illusory.
Or maybe it is just plain ol' confirmation bias. What do you think?

*for those like ardy who dont know what that is, the dictionary is available online.

[Audie]

I do want to know about the lost world. I've been asking you about it for months. Sadly you don't seem to know anything about it. No evidence for it. No evidence for its catastrophic end. Nix. What a pity.

It is a shame really that ab has so little interest in actually finding out anything about the past.

Back in U. days when I took some geology courses, I stood on the prairie next to the footprints of a rhinoceros, now showing in high relief like tracks in powder snow after a wind. The 'lost world" it lived in was much like Africa of today, with crocodiles and numerous species of large mammals.

We visited a nearby oil drilling rig, where bits of cretaceous marine fossils are coming up from thousands of feet below the wheatfields.

Earth history is far far more complex and interesting than the facile, or really cartoon like ideas of any of the creationists.

Not that you dont know that. For those who dont, study more, talk less would be a good plan.

[Stu]

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

[hughfarey]

QM = Quantum mechanics. See Stephen Hawking's lecture on the origin of the universe at his website hawking.co.uk. However, we need a careful definition of 'nothing' here. Although there could be literally no space or time 'before' the Big Bang, a QM explanation demands that 'nothing' had the characteristic that spontaneous 'something' was generated from it. And since 'nothing' can be so characterised, then it isn't really nothing at all.

[Stu]

Aah thought so, something from nothing is ridiculous. Never watch too much Lawrence Krauss, it's not good for you.

[neo-x]

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the dynamics of sub-atomic particles. At that scale our normal rules of physics don't apply.
Even in complete nothingness/Vaccum, sub-atomic virtual particles pop up and then disappear. what originates them is not fully understood or known but it does amount to real quantum energy so this isn't purely a theoretical thought or a mathematical construct which is abstract. Thus, real.