Evidence for God from Science

thereal wrote:Luckily, the burden of proof for abiogenesis does not lie with the theory of evolution.

Who would you say it lies with? Doesn't evolution require abiogenesis?

Luckily, the burden of proof for abiogenesis does not lie with the theory of evolution.

Why not? I'm curious why a theory that tries to explain how all forms of life came about naturally conveniently doesn't have to explain how the first life actually came about. And if this is indeed true, then why is it that Dawkins felt like begging the question in Climbing Mt Improbability, if, as you say, evolution does not need the first life explained naturally?

Who would you say it lies with? Doesn't evolution require abiogenesis?

I don't consider myself up to date on the literature concerning abiogenesis, but it seems this issue is addressed primarily by chemists as opposed to biologists. You may consider the theory of evolution as reliant on abiogenesis because it requires that life exists in the first place, but the theory of evolution makes no claim as to how life originated. You may consider it splitting hairs, but ToE implies no direct connection with abiogenesis. It's similar to many other fields; principles of nuclear physics don't first assume that at some point protons, electrons, etc. arose from somewhere...the principles are based upon the observeable and do not predict what happened before the observeable (unless you get into theoretical fields).

Abstract

The many difficulties with the natural selection hypothesis are reviewed, including the problem of extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution. Using evolutionary criteria, the hierarchy found is the reverse of that expected by evolution theory; animals lower on the evolutionary scale were found to reproduce in greater numbers, and were as a whole more resistant to variations in the environment. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed. Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degree and types of changes. The natural selection hypothesis also involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived. The commonality of overdesign, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

http://www.rae.org/natsel.html

thereal wrote:

Who would you say it lies with? Doesn't evolution require abiogenesis?

I don't consider myself up to date on the literature concerning abiogenesis, but it seems this issue is addressed primarily by chemists as opposed to biologists. You may consider the theory of evolution as reliant on abiogenesis because it requires that life exists in the first place, but the theory of evolution makes no claim as to how life originated. You may consider it splitting hairs, but ToE implies no direct connection with abiogenesis. It's similar to many other fields; principles of nuclear physics don't first assume that at some point protons, electrons, etc. arose from somewhere...the principles are based upon the observeable and do not predict what happened before the observeable (unless you get into theoretical fields).

Can you tell us what "life" constitutes in the ToE? In other words, what did the common ancestor look like that requires the ToE to work?

I was reading through this article and it struck me as funny that Darwin received some inspiration for his theory of evolution from animal husbandry.

Does nayone think it odd that if evolution does "what feeble man can do" why would these animal keepers engage in selective breeding at all. If natural selection is so great, why not let the herd run wild and breed as they will.

Was Darwin a moron that he couldn't see that animal husbandry exists because natural selection doesn't provide the "meatier cow, better wool, or fatter chicken". The very fact that natural selection is a myth is what requires animals to be selectively bred.

Can you tell us what "life" constitutes in the ToE? In other words, what did the common ancestor look like that requires the ToE to work?

A reproducing organism...

I was reading through this article and it struck me as funny that Darwin received some inspiration for his theory of evolution from animal husbandry.

Does nayone think it odd that if evolution does "what feeble man can do" why would these animal keepers engage in selective breeding at all. If natural selection is so great, why not let the herd run wild and breed as they will.

Was Darwin a moron that he couldn't see that animal husbandry exists because natural selection doesn't provide the "meatier cow, better wool, or fatter chicken". The very fact that natural selection is a myth is what requires animals to be selectively bred.

As I was reading through this article, I was also struck by the references to selective breeding, thinking "this guy has no understanding of natural selection"...for example, he wrote:

"The two major problems with this analogy between artificial and natural selection include:

1) Almost all the traits that breeders breed for have nothing to do with survival, and thus nature would not select for them; we breed dogs for certain appearance traits, horses for speed traits, cows for milk traits, and chickens for egg traits.

2) Animal breeders have found that select traits are often lost if random breeding again occurs, or if breeding for other traits is done. Few if any permanent changes in the animal usually occur, only the probability of certain traits appearing is altered."

Since when do appearance traits, speed, milk and egg composition have nothing to do with survival!!! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard...however, I guess I shouldn't be too shocked. Out of the authors 9 or so degrees, it seems that exactly zero of those degrees are from the fields of ecology, zoology, evolutionary science, etc. His explanation of selected traits being lost through random breeding further goes to show that he doesn't even recognize that a selective force does not typically appear for only a single generation. I hate to continue poo-pooing people's sources, but this is yet another hearty helping of misinformation. This is not even going as far as discrediting his conclusions, as the "basic observational information" he provides is observeably untrue! And as far as his statement of "Few if any permanent changes in the animal usually occur, only the probability of certain traits appearing is altered" is baffling. That is more or less the definition of evolution! It's about frequencies of characterisitcs changing within a population over time!

The traits that we as humans identify as the "best" are not the same as would be formed without our influence. The "fatter" chicken would be slower and more easily captured, the meatier cow would also be slower and less mobile, and the "woolier" sheep may be expending energy to grow wool that they don't need.

thereal wrote:

Can you tell us what "life" constitutes in the ToE? In other words, what did the common ancestor look like that requires the ToE to work?

A reproducing organism...

Does RNA then qualify? Before there were cells or proteins, populations of polynucleotides replicated. And when resources became limited, those that were better replicators became dominant. Before that, there was apparently some organic mechanism that somehow led to random sequence after random sequence, which supposedly accounts for sequences capable of ligating nucleotides, then polymerizing them, etc., until the first pair of RNA replicases were chanced upon. Then the genetic code, transcription, and translation all had to evolve before the first cells could arise.

I guess the question is how you define organism?

thereal wrote: Since when do appearance traits, speed, milk and egg composition have nothing to do with survival!!! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard...however, I guess I shouldn't be too shocked. Out of the authors 9 or so degrees, it seems that exactly zero of those degrees are from the fields of ecology, zoology, evolutionary science, etc.

First since you demonstrated how the traits I listed were not beneficial, it is only fair I do the same for yours. You said cows with lots of muscle and chieckens with lots of muscle were maladaptive, so here goes with yours.

The fast horse will have more red muscle fiber, and less white decreasing his endurance.

The purebred dogs bred for appearance are more prone to problems than run of the mill muts.

Cows that are bred to produce more milk than what is acutally needed by their offspring will need to find more feed to produce the extra milk.

And the Cylindrical eggs were a hypothetical demonstrating that chicken breeders haven't been able to do that.

I guess with your statement about his degrees you are pointing out that since he hasn't been brainwashed by evolution in those fields he doesn't believe it? He does have a PhD in biology.

Mendelian genetics tells us that bred traits are not permanent.

IT is no suprise that you believe evoltuion since you seem to find anything contrary to it to be misinformation.

"Few if any permanent changes in the animal usually occur, only the probability of certain traits appearing is altered"

I will explain it as I understand it. I believe he was saying that if, for example, one is breeding chieckens to get long hackle feathers for tying fishing flies, that one would breed long hackled chickens together to increase the cahnce of getting that trait in the offspring. Metz, one of the leaders in this field, has a strict documented breeding program to ensure their is a high chance of getting the desirable feathers. If the chicken with desirable feathers is turned out into a flock of barnyard chickens, their offspring will demonstrate that no premanent change took place, and there will be less and less of a chance of desirable feathers as generations pass.

So if you put one chicken with a "beneficial" adaptation into a flock the adaptation will disappear.

I guess the question is how you define organism?

Very touchy subject indeed. The easiest definition a la Webster's is simply "a living body" or "plants, animals, and bacteria", which would then lead to the question of "what is living"? if you choose the first definition. Based on Campbell's Biology 4th ed., life requires order, reproduction, growth and development, energy utilization, response to the environment, homeostasis, and evolutionary adaptation, among other things. RNA does not fit all these criteria, as there is development but not growth, and, depending on how you want to look at it, you could consider it as not utilizing energy or responding to the environment. There also appears to be no homeostatic responses in RNA.

First since you demonstrated how the traits I listed were not beneficial

If you go back and read my statement again, I did not say these traits had anything to do with being beneficial. I insinuated that these traits affect survival (positively or negatively) which is contrary to what the author in your link suggested. Given that you provided instances of how those traits could be negative (thus affecting survival), I take it you agree with me and disagree with your source's statement of these factors not affecting survival.

So if you put one chicken with a "beneficial" adaptation into a flock the adaptation will disappear.

You are mixing selection strategies. You create a situation in which a certain trait is beneficial, then take the selective pressure away and say "Wow, the trait didn't stay in the population". Plus, this design does the exact opposite of natural selection. If you wanted to see the long-hackled individuals propogating, wouldn't you want to eliminate those individuals with short hackles (as you kill the individuals with long-hackles to use them...I'm a fly-tier, so I know this)? Furthermore, when you released those long-hackled individuals into a barnyard, is the selective pressure of having long hackles still there...of course not. By the way, nowhere in ToE does anyone suppose that any trait is ever permanent...I don't know where you're getting that from.

thereal wrote
If you go back and read my statement again, I did not say these traits had anything to do with being beneficial. I insinuated that these traits affect survival (positively or negatively) which is contrary to what the author in your link suggested. Given that you provided instances of how those traits could be negative (thus affecting survival), I take it you agree with me and disagree with your source's statement of these factors not affecting survival.


I'm not to sure if the traits matter it is about the ability to reproduce. Skinny Chickens and fat chickens can reproduce, all variety of chickens can.
--
thereal wrote
You are mixing selection strategies. You create a situation in which a certain trait is beneficial, then take the selective pressure away and say "Wow, the trait didn't stay in the population". Plus, this design does the exact opposite of natural selection. If you wanted to see the long-hackled individuals propogating, wouldn't you want to eliminate those individuals with short hackles (as you kill the individuals with long-hackles to use them...I'm a fly-tier, so I know this)? Furthermore, when you released those long-hackled individuals into a barnyard, is the selective pressure of having long hackles still there...of course not. By the way, nowhere in ToE does anyone suppose that any trait is ever permanent...I don't know where you're getting that from.


Well this seems odd. If traits don't become permanent then you do not have speciation. The good genetic flocks of chickens do not have short hackled chicks. In fact if you get a hold of some chicks and pay close attention you can raise your own hackle roosters. What happens is with a good program from generation to generation you get better and better hackle. Is the long narrow dry fly feather a mutation? The point is that in the real world if an animal does have a mutation it is going to be bred back out of existence. The mutations are not going to build up until the rooster becomes another animal.

I just don't see any evidence for evolution, or natural selection. I mean if a chicken is in heat the male rooster is gonna breed it. Probably the meatiest rooster is gonna be able to fight off the other roosters, but while he is fighting with another ****, in a barnyard flock a small less desirable Chicken may run in and mate the hen. That is why you have to create the flock by intelligence. Random breeding will never result in good quality dry fly hackle.

Jbuza wrote: I just don't see any evidence for evolution, or natural selection. I mean if a chicken is in heat the male rooster is gonna breed it. Probably the meatiest rooster is gonna be able to fight off the other roosters, but while he is fighting with another ****, in a barnyard flock a small less desirable Chicken may run in and mate the hen. That is why you have to create the flock by intelligence. Random breeding will never result in good quality dry fly hackle.

You let them breed and the selective pressures revert back to those of nature. And of course nature prefers different traits than man.

Isolation of such a flock however will keep certain traits from reentering the population. Isolation is the key here.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: I just don't see any evidence for evolution, or natural selection. I mean if a chicken is in heat the male rooster is gonna breed it. Probably the meatiest rooster is gonna be able to fight off the other roosters, but while he is fighting with another ****, in a barnyard flock a small less desirable Chicken may run in and mate the hen. That is why you have to create the flock by intelligence. Random breeding will never result in good quality dry fly hackle.

You let them breed and the selective pressures revert back to those of nature. And of course nature prefers different traits than man.

Isolation of such a flock however will keep certain traits from reentering the population. Isolation is the key here.

Really I'm not sure nature cares what traits the chicken has. Certianly the male rooster is only interested in one trait. A hen in heat. The point is that the mutation doesn't remain permanent. The rooster with the mutation doesn't change the whole flock the whole flock changes the rooster with the mutation.