Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:31 pm
Audie,
I like your new haircut btw.
I like your new haircut btw.
hughfarey wrote: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.abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is.Right! It's on its way...So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it.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?There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolvesNo, it hasn't occurred to you.so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it.OK. From the top then:I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.
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.