Evolution answers

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't see how this is a valid objection to his post. You won't find many organisms with significant adaptive failures because those organisms tend to go extinct, and you can't reasonably fit more than a small number of examples in a post.

They tend to ignore that the mutation doesn't have a mission, there is no goal to evolution.

 

[John Jones]

I hope you are aware you are not only up against creationists. You also have to deal with Theistic evolution and modern aspects of Intelligent design. A new generation of Christian scientists taking Darwin to the task with scientific evidence unparallelled in all of Darwinism.

So we've finally got your Confession of Woo?

There are no modern aspects of Intelligent Design. Christian scientists are taking straw man arguments to task, and it's all been done before.

HTH!

 

[crhkrebs]

Wowbagger, I disagree completely with your arguments. The reason to accept evolution is because IT'S TRUE.

I think you are both right, you're both just arguing the flipside of the argument. Dinwar is correct, evolution should be accepted since the evidence shows it to be correct. Wowbagger is also correct in showing how creationism is not falsifiable and cannot make predictions.

 

[crhkrebs]

Evolution is true but not as it is taught or believed by evolutionists.

Here is a link to my Unified Theory of Evolution.....

Oh dear.......

 

[abaddon]

So we've finally got your Confession of Woo?

There are no modern aspects of Intelligent Design. Christian scientists are taking straw man arguments to task, and it's all been done before.

HTH!

Look it up. It's on page 78.

 

[Wowbagger]

1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics. (snip)

It does not matter how good or bad the 'original' theory was. Our modern understanding is an improvement over it. In order to debunk evolution, you must address its current form, not its older roots.

It is the nature of science that we discover new things along the way. Theories that help us do that stick around, and adapt as we do so.

Newton did not know about Relativity. Does that mean Gravity is a fallacy?!

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species. (snip)

Usage of the term 'missing link', here, shows a profound misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

There really is no concern about 'missing links' at all, any more. The term came about because of early concerns in finding fossils to show a lineage between humans and apes. However, we have since collected enough to fill in the pathways. And, genetics fills in the rest.

Science has moved on from worrying about 'missing links', to deducing predictions from the many links we have discovered. If, for example, we track what we know about tooth evolution, we might be able to understand why wisdom teeth get impacted more often in modern humans, than they had in the past.

That is exactly the sort of insight we can gain with the links we have. Those creationist types to claim we still have a 'missing link' problem are not going to be productive in the realm of science.

3) Natural Selection. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution usually mistake natural selection as a process of evolution. This is patently FALSE as natural selection EXCLUDES genetic material,m it does NOT introduce unique genetic material. Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Natural selection CULLS genes, evolution would require NOVEL genes.

There are two parts to the evolutionary process: Reproduction with variation (which I will get to in #4), and selection of the ones fit enough to survive and reproduce in the current landscape. We need both.

Does this statement make sense to you: "Wings are not airplanes. Since they lack engines, they are the opposite of airplanes!"? If it doesn't, perhaps you'll understand why this Argument #4 doesn't make sense to me.

4) So far the only way, other than in comic books, we know of mutations is through accidents resulting in inferior gens. (Which are then REMOVED by natural selection.) Exposure to harmful environmental events - radiation, poisons, toxins, create mutation. And these mutations are HARMFUL and often leave the recipient unable to survive or reproduce, or less able to do either. So mutation is, again, contrary to evolution, NOT a contributor to it.

This is flatly not true. There are a whole number of different ways variation can occur within the genome.

Mutation is only one of them. There is also transposons or 'jumping genes', recombination (which I guarantee happened to you!), duplications, insertions, deletions, polyploidism, etc. etc. etc.

There are many different ways to add variety to the gene pool. Each one can be observed by scientists studying such things. And, each one gives us insight into some of the quirks in life forms. For example, understanding how polyploidy plants become stronger than homoploid plants can give us innovative insights into exploiting those traits for food or medicine growth, and perhaps forewarn us of potential dangers to look out for, while doing so.

Any theory that insists that there is only one single manner of gene variation, such as mutations, is not going to be quite as productive as it could be.

5) Species. Another aspect of distinct species, which being distinct already tend to disprove evolution, is that species generally are incompatible with each other. You cannot mate distinct species with each other. In the very few cases you can, the offspring is usually STERILE. So you cannot get evolution by reproduction between species.

That incompatibility level increases as you look at more distant relatives, and decreases (sometimes to the point where you CAN have viable offspring) as you get closer. And, these patterns exist in a distinct nested-tree pattern. Like evolution predicts.

This knowledge is of use to professional breeders, such as dog breeders, who have to deal with exactly these sorts of issues.

See also ring species, as others point out.

 

[justintime]

There are stumbling blocks to evolution and after 150 years the same questions are raised because they have not been adequately answered. Science has a way to silence the absurd but this absurdity called evolution is not going away because it is now the corner stone of science. "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

There was a time when the general public knew too little to challenge scientists over their theories. But today the public know too much to accept every ridiculous theory proposed and many have proven to be fraudulent.

There is a need for balance. But you cannot balance a 150 year of theory based on oversimplified concepts of slow progressive change sprinkled with moments of spontaneous rapid development.

It is like the traffic rules designed to organize the flow of traffic akin to the natural laws governing the universe and then you have unusual disruptions, accidents and violations of these rules by Asian drivers. You can explain the accidents, mutations and sudden peaks in violations of the rules but you cannot accepts is as the norm because that would invalidate the rules.

One possible solution would be to have the Asians/violators write the rules because they know best why the existing rules are hard to follow or unnatural to their basic instincts. I have made reference to such possibilities in my Unified Theory of Evolution.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evolution is true but not as it is taught or believed by evolutionists.

I think the word you're looking for "evolutionistas".

 

[phunk]

There are stumbling blocks to evolution and after 150 years the same questions are raised because they have not been adequately answered.

For example?

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

I thought this was already settled like 10 years ago

Darwin's original Theory of Evolution has been dis-proven. AKA it is not a valid scientific theory.

Why

1. because the evolution of organisms is not spread out evenly over time. It is very punctuated.

2. random processes have not been shown to produce even the simplest structures like a flagella. Statistical attempts to estimate the time for changes to occur are beyond the time span evolution has occured.

3. Since Evolutionists cannot produce any method or theory behind the actual process they in effect have no Scientific theory.

Just like Global warming we have a cult of Evolutionists with no science backing their theory.

And again just like Global warming they like to create a straw man of the Creationist who thinks the world is 5000 years old.

The earth isn't 5000 years old and Darwin's theory of Evolution has been completely dis-proven. Scientists unfortunately don't have a valid theory that is testable to prove a method of why organisms evolved.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bold assertions or do you have evidence?

 

[justintime]

I think the word you're looking for "evolutionistas".

I do not control the range of reactions reported from readers of my Unified Theory of Evolution. Most have been positive and some even bordering on sublime. Some have even found it enlightening both spiritually and intellectually. I also have my share of detractors which is expected considering the breath and scope of my work.

As they say. One can only get out of something equal to or more than what effort they put into it and then there are those who always end up with less no matter what. I encourage you to benefit from my insights and be in the majority.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The most important thing you can tell your friend is that it is not required for him to loose his religious faith in order to understand evolution. Until you have that conversation, there is no hope in trying to give him ANY arguments, no matter how true, logical and evidence based.
As long as those two separate issues are linked in his mind (and maybe yours too), there is no possibility of having an honest conversation with him.

 

[justintime]

The most important thing you can tell your friend is that it is not required for him to loose his religious faith in order to understand evolution. Until you have that conversation, there is no hope in trying to give him ANY arguments, no matter how true, logical and evidence based.
As long as those two separate issues are linked in his mind (and maybe yours too), there is no possibility of having an honest conversation with him.

Or you can introduce him to a Unified Theory of Evolution that is inclusive of all faiths and prejudices. You cannot change bigots but you can help them by exposing them to bigots on the other side as well.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Bold assertions or do you have evidence?

Google punctuated evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

This is not random change.

Now try finding scientific evidence or a theory that can explain how something like a flagella evolved.

You can't all there is that it just happened randomly. But since there is no theory or hypothesis for how it happened randomly and since the actual fossil records demonstrate that it is punctuated.

Therefore it is not random and is happening by a non random process.

Therefore evolution is not a theory.

Scientist should come up with some theory any theory that demonstrates how it is non random. They haven't except to say that it is randomness happening in a non random way.

This explanation is too vague to be considered a scientific theory it isn't science.

 

[justintime]

For example?

The OP introduction is a good starting point. Then you can advance to my Unified Theory of Evolution.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html

 

[Brian-M]

There are stumbling blocks to evolution and after 150 years the same questions are raised because they have not been adequately answered.

Can you describe a few of them? I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to.

1. because the evolution of organisms is not spread out evenly over time. It is very punctuated.

In what way does this invalidate Darwin's theory rather than Darwin's conception of how the theory would manifest in the real-world?

It's not like he had computer modelling available to him so he could see for himself the fine detail of exactly what kind of behavior should be expected from evolutionary processes.

2. random processes have not been shown to produce even the simplest structures like a flagella.

Nobody's claiming that structures like flagella were produced from random processes. They're claiming that these things evolved.

Evolution is directed by selective pressures, and these selective pressures are not random.

Statistical attempts to estimate the time for changes to occur are beyond the time span evolution has occured.

Statistical attempts by whom?

3. Since Evolutionists cannot produce any method or theory behind the actual process they in effect have no Scientific theory.

They do have a scientific theory. It's called the Theory of Evolution. I'm pretty sure you've heard of it, given that it's the subject under discussion.

Just like Global warming we have a cult of Evolutionists with no science backing their theory.

Both global warming and evolution have vast mountains of scientific research backing up their claims.

The earth isn't 5000 years old

At least that's something we can both agree on.

and Darwin's theory of Evolution has been completely dis-proven.

How? What's wrong with his theory?

Scientists unfortunately don't have a valid theory that is testable to prove a method of why organisms evolved.

Why are you using the past-tense? Organisms are still evolving, and scientists can even observe them evolving and study the processes that cause them to evolve in laboratory conditions.

(This is usually done with organisms that produce new generations in very short periods of time, like mayflies and bacteria, because most researchers want to be able to see the results of their research in their own lifetime.)

 

[phunk]

The OP introduction is a good starting point. Then you can advance to my Unified Theory of Evolution.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ory-of-evolution-work-in-progress-t29769.html

A link to your site isn't an answer to my question, and the OP has been answered several times. Pick one objection you have to the modern theory of evolution.

 

[Wowbagger]

There are stumbling blocks to evolution and after 150 years the same questions are raised because they have not been adequately answered.

Can you give us some examples?

In my experience, almost everyone who says such things misunderstood the theory in some way. I would like to see if that applies to you.

There is a need for balance. But you cannot balance a 150 year of theory based on oversimplified concepts of slow progressive change sprinkled with moments of spontaneous rapid development.

The theory requires ONLY two things: Reproduction with variation and then selection against a 'fitness landscape'. And, these two things must repeat iteratively.

Are any of those in doubt, for you?

Because punctuated equilibrium, which is what I think you are referring to, is just one possible pattern of those two things. It does not debunk any of them.

1. because the evolution of organisms is not spread out evenly over time. It is very punctuated.

Darwin might not have known that. But, punctuated equilibrium does NOT debunk the core Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It is just one possible pattern for it to take place.

2. random processes have not been shown to produce even the simplest structures like a flagella.

No one claims it was a random process!

Natural Selection is an algorithm: An iterative repeating of variation followed by selection. Selection is NOT random, it works against the 'fitness landscape' of reality.

Evolution is NEITHER random chance NOR design. It is a natural algorithmic process.

Statistical attempts to estimate the time for changes to occur are beyond the time span evolution has occured.

I do not know what you are referring to, here. But, there have been studies showing how structures like the flagella could evolve from much simpler gullets, in a manner of a couple of hundred generations.

We can witness such evolution occurring, every now and then, today, as different species of single-celled organisms and such adapt to different circumstances we place them in.

3. Since Evolutionists cannot produce any method or theory behind the actual process they in effect have no Scientific theory.

The theory only requires two things: Reproduction with variation and then selection against a 'fitness landscape'. And, these two things must repeat iteratively.

Are any of those in doubt, for you?

There are many methods of bringing variation into the genome: mutations, recombination, transposons, insertions, deletions, duplications, etc. etc. etc. All of which have been observed.

And, the selection process is death, itself, of members of species that do not reproduce. Would you have any doubts that that happens?

THAT is the basis of the theory. If you want to debunk Evolution, you need to attack those primary ingredients.

Just like Global warming we have a cult of Evolutionists with no science backing their theory.

This will be a topic for another thread, I suppose. Would you happen to have one about global warming I can respond to?

Look, the Theory of Evolution is non-intuitive. It is NOT easy for most people to "get it" right away. Especially since the topic is clouded with so much contradictory information on the Internet, from various parties intent on ridiculing each other.

But, once we can establish the more basic level stuff, I hope everyone, here, can recognize just how fascinatingly factual the Theory of Evolution really is!

 

[jimbob]

Worth posting a link to this thread, which is mostly pretty good.

Here is the OP

Evolution: the Facts.

PLEASE: Read the OP first.

It occurs to me, seeing yet more fundies explaining why evolution is bunkum, that they come from the same pod as "No plane" CTists - lacking facts, behaving irrationally and refusing to accept evidence.

Now, there are lots of places where scientific evolutionary theory is available on the net, but I wondered if maybe a few of the excellent scientists involved in JREF could make up a thread containing factual analysis of evolution from several different angles - much as Gravy has with his outstanding series on 9/11 and WTC.

If there's support for the idea, let's kick it off and have the thread as a lasting monument to science's triumph over BS/ID and any other stupid acronym you like. If good enough, we could get it put in spotlight so it doesn't get lost in the dross. I won't be posting any data since I'm not a scientist, but I envisage lots of data such as the stuff dr Adequate and others were recently posting in one troll or another's thread. I'll just keep things on topic, then take all the credit for everyone else's brains! (In business, we call that management.)

These are the type of issues:

Age of the earth - how can we be sure it's not 6011 years old?

How did life arise? What were conditions really like at the dawn of life?

How do species evolve? When does one species "break away" from the other?

What are some examples of intermediate species?

Any algorithms and their connection to methods of proof.

Debunking popular ID myths. Questions to ask IDiots.

I find the best place to start is at the start, so let's have the data about age of the earth. Just copy it from elsewhere if it's handy already as i know lots of age-related posts were made in rittjc's thread.

Any takers? If there's support, I'll see if we can get it stickied.