[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Adam]

The theory of gravity can be directly observed. We can see something drop. However, there are theories as to why gravity exists, thus the theory of gravity. The fact is that when you drop something, it falls. The theory is why.

The fact is that when a species is given enough time, its genes and gene expression changes to the point that reproduction between the two forms is incompatible.

We observe this, as well.

 

[Adam]

Evolution states that we were once these tube like sea creatures, then fish like creatures as we lived in the sea. Through the billions of years, we have evolved into what we are today.

.

No, it doesn't.

"We", I assume means the human species. Evolution never describes "us" as worms or fish.

As we go back in time we become closer related to such creatures, but they were never in our direct lineage.


You are making the same categorical error as those who think evolution states that we "came from monkeys."


I don't think there is a point to continue until you understand the distinction between "coming from"/"we once were" and "more closely related to as we go back in time."

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I am hoping mid to end of this week to respond as time allows.

 

[Barbarian]

The theory of gravity can be directly observed. We can see something drop. However, there are theories as to why gravity exists, thus the theory of gravity. The fact is that when you drop something, it falls. The theory is why.

Pretty much the way evolution is what we observe, and evolutionary theory is why. The main difference is that we know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works. Evolutionary theory is more firmly established than the theory of gravitation.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Meh, these evolution debates become tiresome really quickly. The entire concept of evolution is mostly a cluster of several topics that get lumped all together and it becomes really confusing to those who are new to the whole subject. Here is a run down of the common areas of this dissucison.

The theory of Evolution - the theory published/ introduced by Charles Darwin in the book, The Origin of Species which gives the theory an explanation of how new species formed and gives us the starting point in the research of where current species came from. The Book introduced the natural mechanic of natural selection that explains how species adapt to their current surroundings.

The Theory of Genetics - the theory of genetics was penned and discovered by Gregor Mendel and created another field of biological study in the field of genetics. Gregor discovered through caring for pea plants that variant aspectics and characteristics of pea plants could be determined through specific breading. His theory explain how certain traits in populations where passed on. Something Darwin couldn't figure out. With Mendel's work and Darwin's work combined, the field of Evolutionary Biology expanded was able to create another field of of Phylogenetic ( the classifying of organisms by genetics and physical features).

With modern discoveries and technology, Biologists have figured out the Genetics of multiple organisms, Phylogenetics is now used to show the decent of species over time and shows how new species have emerged out of decent from other groups.

Linnaeus started the catalouge of organisms, but with modern Genetics, classifications are more accurate through identifying genetic markers instead of just physical appearance.

The Theory of Evolution is widely and almost unanimously accepted in the Field of Biology because it unites Biology. The theory is very useful in fields of genetics, medicine, anthropology, Ecology, etc..

I think most who don't accept the theory of Evolution have problems with it because of the concept of Common decent. Genetically Humans belong to the Ape family and phylogeneticly humans are linked to Chimpanzees as our closest relative. This conflicts with the Garden of Eden Story in Genesis where Man was made individually and separate from the rest of the animals and there was no ancestral link between Chimps and Humans. Also the model of the theory of evolution and genetics shows that there were billions of years of adaptation that conflicts with the doctrine of many branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. So many reject the theory because it conflicts with scripture.

If the concept of an Older Earth and common decent dosen't bother your faith, then accepting the theory of evolution isn't a problem.

The Theory of Evolution is its own theory and accepted as fact in the field of Biology. It doesn't matter if you accept or not, and it really isn't all that important that you accept it or not, just like it really doesn't matter if you accept Quantum or string theory. These are just areas of study that are used by scientist to discover new things and to adapt modern technology and medicine for us. If these fields don't impact your day to day life, it really isn't that important. that is why I think people spend way to much time bickering about this when its just a field of study. ;)

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Meh, these evolution debates become tiresome really quickly. The entire concept of evolution is mostly a cluster of several topics that get lumped all together and it becomes really confusing to those who are new to the whole subject. Here is a run down of the common areas of this dissucison.

The theory of Evolution - the theory published/ introduced by Charles Darwin in the book, The Origin of Species which gives the theory an explanation of how new species formed and gives us the starting point in the research of where current species came from. The Book introduced the natural mechanic of natural selection that explains how species adapt to their current surroundings.

The Theory of Genetics - the theory of genetics was penned and discovered by Gregor Mendel and created another field of biological study in the field of genetics. Gregor discovered through caring for pea plants that variant aspectics and characteristics of pea plants could be determined through specific breading. His theory explain how certain traits in populations where passed on. Something Darwin couldn't figure out. With Mendel's work and Darwin's work combined, the field of Evolutionary Biology expanded was able to create another field of of Phylogenetic ( the classifying of organisms by genetics and physical features).

With modern discoveries and technology, Biologists have figured out the Genetics of multiple organisms, Phylogenetics is now used to show the decent of species over time and shows how new species have emerged out of decent from other groups.

Linnaeus started the catalouge of organisms, but with modern Genetics, classifications are more accurate through identifying genetic markers instead of just physical appearance.

The Theory of Evolution is widely and almost unanimously accepted in the Field of Biology because it unites Biology. The theory is very useful in fields of genetics, medicine, anthropology, Ecology, etc..

I think most who don't accept the theory of Evolution have problems with it because of the concept of Common decent. Genetically Humans belong to the Ape family and phylogeneticly humans are linked to Chimpanzees as our closest relative. This conflicts with the Garden of Eden Story in Genesis where Man was made individually and separate from the rest of the animals and there was no ancestral link between Chimps and Humans. Also the model of the theory of evolution and genetics shows that there were billions of years of adaptation that conflicts with the doctrine of many branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. So many reject the theory because it conflicts with scripture.

If the concept of an Older Earth and common decent dosen't bother your faith, then accepting the theory of evolution isn't a problem.

The Theory of Evolution is its own theory and accepted as fact in the field of Biology. It doesn't matter if you accept or not, and it really isn't all that important that you accept it or not, just like it really doesn't matter if you accept Quantum or string theory. These are just areas of study that are used by scientist to discover new things and to adapt modern technology and medicine for us. If these fields don't impact your day to day life, it really isn't that important. that is why I think people spend way to much time bickering about this when its just a field of study. ;)

To Adam, Barbarian, and last but not least, Meatballsub:

Thanks guys, for all your polite, well-thought-out posts. They have really provoked some thought. I think I get it now.

 

[Adam]

That's nice to hear. Don't hesitate to ask questions.

 

[felix]

Why should people not believe in Darwinian Evolution?

Because, there is no evidence. Show me a single evidence for it. I am not speaking about adaptability or micro-evolution but to be specific a macro-evolution.

Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If you can't experiment and observe, then it is not science. So, next time, if you say anything about fossil evidence for evolution, you are wrong because it doesn't say that it is being evolved. So, once again, where is the evidence which can be observed and experimented.

Just because there is a fossil doesn't make it an evidence for evolution. E.g., how did scientists construct a skull and give a face with just a tooth fossil or just a thigh bone ? Good for an artist... but not true science.

Regarding dating methods, except radio carbon dating (which is also proven to be very inaccurate for distant past), all methods cannot be used for humans or living creatures, simply because, no new element is created inside the body. All radio metrics except radio carbon can be used for rocks and not living things. With this fundamental flaw and all the untold assumptions with it, I can't imagine that this is even considered to be a tool for science to prove and disprove theories.

 

[lordkalvan]

Because, there is no evidence. Show me a single evidence for it. I am not speaking about adaptability or micro-evolution but to be specific a macro-evolution.

DNA genetic sequences, homologies, morphology, developmental embryology, biogeography and the fossil record. There is no meaningful, that is systemic, difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is just evolution. If you beleve otherwise, can you explain what biological mechanism exists to prevent a lot of microevolution 'adding up' to macroevolution, how this biological mechanism operates and how it can be identified?

Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If you can't experiment and observe, then it is not science. So, next time, if you say anything about fossil evidence for evolution, you are wrong because it doesn't say that it is being evolved. So, once again, where is the evidence which can be observed and experimented.

Perhaps you can tell us what the fossil record does 'say', then, given that we see organisms changing over time, species disappearing and new species appearing?

Just because there is a fossil doesn't make it an evidence for evolution. E.g., how did scientists construct a skull and give a face with just a tooth fossil or just a thigh bone ? Good for an artist... but not true science.

And you have examples of such reconstructions?

Regarding dating methods, except radio carbon dating (which is also proven to be very inaccurate for distant past)...

Only if you try to date something outside the range if its limitations, rather if you tried to weigh an elephant on bathroom scales.

...all methods cannot be used for humans or living creatures, simply because, no new element is created inside the body. All radio metrics except radio carbon can be used for rocks and not living things. With this fundamental flaw and all the untold assumptions with it, I can't imagine that this is even considered to be a tool for science to prove and disprove theories.

I am not altogether sure what you mean. Are you arguing that RM dating methodologies other than radiocarbon dating are unreliable? If so, you are wrong:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[felix]

DNA genetic sequences, homologies, morphology, developmental embryology, biogeography and the fossil record. There is no meaningful, that is systemic, difference between microevolution and macroevolution. There is just evolution. If you beleve otherwise, can you explain what biological mechanism exists to prevent a lot of microevolution 'adding up' to macroevolution, how this biological mechanism operates and how it can be identified?

Evolution can be tested and even proved to be false.

According to evolutionary theory, the genus Homo appeared since 2.5 million years ago and anatomically modern humans evolved from 200000 years ago. Assuming the average generational time for genus homo to homo-sapiens is 30 yrs, there are 83333 generations. Now, a Escherichia coli (Bacteria) has a generational time of just 17 minutes. 83333 generations of this bacteria takes just less than 3 years and yet a bacteria remains a bacteria and no evolution is found.

Why is that a complex human can evolve into something else in 83333 generations and yet a single cell remains the same when the same generational timeline is applied?

Perhaps you can tell us what the fossil record does 'say', then, given that we see organisms changing over time, species disappearing and new species appearing?

Species appearing and disappearing is no evidence of evolution. Dodo and several species disappeared in the past centuries and yet new species are identified every year. If this is the case for the present time, you are taking the only few identified fossils into account. Even today, only 3% of oceanic species are identified and yet 97% are unknown species in deep oceans.

And you have examples of such reconstructions?

Here is the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Go through the list and look into what they found and what is reconstructed, and then ask the question what made them to decide such a reconstruction when the bone itself isn't available.

Only if you try to date something outside the range if its limitations, rather if you tried to weigh an elephant on bathroom scales.

I am not altogether sure what you mean. Are you arguing that RM dating methodologies other than radiocarbon dating are unreliable? If so, you are wrong:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Humans and all living creatures in this world are Carbon-based life. Hence, when any living creature dies, the decay of radio carbon starts and from the concept of half life, date can be approx arrived. This is not true for other elements inside human body. So, using radio-metric dating method for any living organism by itself is flawed.

 

[Grazer]

How is it flawed? If we know the elements and we can measure decay rates, why isn't it useful?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[felix]

How is it flawed? If we know the elements and we can measure decay rates, why isn't it useful?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

The ratio of C14 present in atmosphere is fixed when a living organism dies and there after the decay starts. This is not true for other elements because, no other isotopes can be found in bones to begin with, so they date the nearby rocks.

Also, the fixed ratio by itself is dependent on the atmosphere. For example, C14 is produced only on the upper layers of the troposphere. If we take the Biblical account into consideration of having water canopy over the atmosphere before Noah, protecting men from harmful rays, the C14 amount in ante-antediluvian era is produced extremely little and the ratio will be extra-ordinarily less. This is true for most of the other isotopes as well depending on how it is produced. Since one of the fundamental assumption in radiometric dating is that their ratio is always constant (which of course is not true), then having an extremely less C14 will lead to an extra-ordinarily distant time in the past like millions of years when in fact it is just a 100 to 1000 yrs in antediluvian era.

There is no proof, what so ever, that the radioactive isotope production is constant throughout the ages.

 

[lordkalvan]

Evolution can be tested and even proved to be false.

According to evolutionary theory, the genus Homo appeared since 2.5 million years ago and anatomically modern humans evolved from 200000 years ago. Assuming the average generational time for genus homo to homo-sapiens is 30 yrs, there are 83333 generations. Now, a Escherichia coli (Bacteria) has a generational time of just 17 minutes. 83333 generations of this bacteria takes just less than 3 years and yet a bacteria remains a bacteria and no evolution is found.

Why is that a complex human can evolve into something else in 83333 generations and yet a single cell remains the same when the same generational timeline is applied?

Well, by the criteria you are putting forward to validate your analogy, this supposed 'test' is risible and the 'falsification' meaningless:

Taxonomically, bacteria are a Domain.

Taxonomically, Homo are a Genus.

Your argument, such as it is, amounts to pointing out that the evolutionary development within the Genus Homo is the equivalent of asserting that because all species within that genus remain Eukarya, that is organisms with eukaryotic cells (cells with membranous organelles), evolution is falsified (the Eukarya also include fungi and plants, so by your criteria human beings, daffodils and porcini mushrooms are all still eukaryotes).

ETA Also, bacteria reproduce asexually while primates reproduce bisexually, an important difference when determining the rate at which genetic variation is introduced into an organism.

Species appearing and disappearing is no evidence of evolution. Dodo and several species disappeared in the past centuries and yet new species are identified every year. If this is the case for the present time, you are taking the only few identified fossils into account. Even today, only 3% of oceanic species are identified and yet 97% are unknown species in deep oceans.

Really? So the fact that we see the fossil record showing us different species of dinosaurs appearing and disappearing in a way that evolutionary theory would predict, and that dinosaurs have disappeared from their ecological niches to be replaced by organisms that did not co-exist with them (for example, the African gazelle occupies much the same ecological niche as the African Lesothosaurus) should be simply discounted as telling us anything at all about the evolutionary history of life on Earth?

Here is the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Go through the list and look into what they found and what is reconstructed, and then ask the question what made them to decide such a reconstruction when the bone itself isn't available.

So you deny the validity of forensic palaeontology? So you think that nothing can be inferred from, say, finding a primate femur other than that it is a femur? For example, the first example in the list you linked to is of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Fossils of this species 'include a relatively small cranium..., five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ in volume, is similar to that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm³.'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus#Fossils

So what, exactly, are you accusing scientists of imaginatively 'reconstructing' in this case that isn't supported by the available fossil evidence?

Humans and all living creatures in this world are Carbon-based life. Hence, when any living creature dies, the decay of radio carbon starts and from the concept of half life, date can be approx arrived. This is not true for other elements inside human body. So, using radio-metric dating method for any living organism by itself is flawed.

So if a fossil is found in particular strata and the fossil shows no sign of being included in the strata by later geological processes, on what grounds would you dismiss radiometric dating of the strata as insufficient to date the fossil?

 

[lordkalvan]

The ratio of C14 present in atmosphere is fixed when a living organism dies and there after the decay starts. This is not true for other elements because, no other isotopes can be found in bones to begin with, so they date the nearby rocks.

Also, the fixed ratio by itself is dependent on the atmosphere. For example, C14 is produced only on the upper layers of the troposphere. If we take the Biblical account into consideration of having water canopy over the atmosphere before Noah, protecting men from harmful rays, the C14 amount in ante-antediluvian era is produced extremely little and the ratio will be extra-ordinarily less. This is true for most of the other isotopes as well depending on how it is produced. Since one of the fundamental assumption in radiometric dating is that their ratio is always constant (which of course is not true), then having an extremely less C14 will lead to an extra-ordinarily distant time in the past like millions of years when in fact it is just a 100 to 1000 yrs in antediluvian era.

There is no proof, what so ever, that the radioactive isotope production is constant throughout the ages.

Actually we can measure the amounts of atmospheric C14 into a past well predating any proposed date for legendary global floods. None of the data supports any of what you are proposing;

'Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).'

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Also, C14 dating cannot measure 'millions of years'; it's practical limit at the moment is something less than 100,000 years.

 

[felix]

Well, by the criteria you are putting forward to validate your analogy, this supposed 'test' is risible and the 'falsification' meaningless:

Taxonomically, bacteria are a Domain.

Taxonomically, Homo are a Genus.

Your argument, such as it is, amounts to pointing out that the evolutionary development within the Genus Homo is the equivalent of asserting that because all species within that genus remain Eukarya, that is organisms with eukaryotic cells (cells with membranous organelles), evolution is falsified (the Eukarya also include fungi and plants).

The point being, after several generations equal from the genus Homo started to appear according to the evolutionary theory, the single celled organism does not evolve into anything else - nor does it DNA change.

Really? So the fact that we see the fossil record showing us different species of dinosaurs appearing and disappearing in a way that evolutionary theory would predict, and that dinosaurs have disappeared from their ecological niches to be replaced by organisms that did not co-exist with them (for example, the African gazelle occupies much the same ecological niche as the African Lesothosaurus) should be simply discounted as telling us anything at all about the evolutionary history of life on Earth?

So you deny the validity of forensic palaeontology? So you think that nothing can be inferred from, say, finding a primate femur other than that it is a femur? For example, the first example in the list you linked to is of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Fossils of this species 'include a relatively small cranium..., five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ in volume, is similar to that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm³.'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus#Fossils

Dinosaurs were destroyed/died suddenly, often attributed to a meteor crash. It didn't evolve into anything else.

Forensic paleontology is valid only if it does not try to fit things. When a skull or a bone is found, it is either a human or a monkey/ape and nothing in between. Different Cultures have different skeletal structures based on interbreeding. Bible also supports a race of Nephilim who are not humans but inter breeding with humans and I believe the different varieties apart from humans are because of this interbreeding before the antediluvian era. The word Nephilim is not actually giant but not known to anyone and the actual meaning is lost.

So what, exactly, are you accusing scientists of imaginatively 'reconstructing' in this case that isn't supported by the available fossil evidence?

So if a fossil is found in particular strata and the fossil shows no sign of being included in the strata by later geological processes, on what grounds would you dismiss radiometric dating of the strata as insufficient to date the fossil?

In several cases, only a thigh bone or a small finger bone is found and yet a whole skeleton is reconstructed, based on the assumption that such an old fossil person will look like this and must be this particular species.

Radiometric dating has a fundamental problem of assuming a constant ratio throughout ages which is not according to the Bible based on the radiation-less perfect antediluvian era protected by a water canopy over the atmosphere which makes the occurance of several isotopes extremely less. Based on the Bible, there wasn't any rain ever occurred which shows a very different terrain and if that is true, then it is very much plausible that the occurance of very few radio isotopes in fossils and the sudden increase on that ratio in atmosphere will lead the scientists today to believe that they had been there for millions of years.

 

[felix]

Actually we can measure the amounts of atmospheric C14 into a past well predating any proposed date for legendary global floods. None of the data supports any of what you are proposing;

'Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).'

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Also, C14 dating cannot measure 'millions of years'; it's practical limit at the moment is something less than 100,000 years.

So, how does the "using ages of lake sediments" determined?

 

[Adam]

The point being, after several generations equal from the genus Homo started to appear according to the evolutionary theory, the single celled organism does not evolve into anything else - nor does it DNA change.



.

You might try doing the slightest bit of research before you start asserting claims that you have no justifiable reason to make.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[felix]

You might try doing the slightest bit of research before you start asserting claims that you have no justifiable reason to make.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Those are just adaptations and E-coli is still E-coli. Those adaptations are classic examples of people in equator having more melanin compared to the people near the poles.

 

[Adam]

Yes, e coli are still bacteria, and the modern man is still a primate.

How is that a refutation of evolutionary theory?

 

[felix]

Yes, e coli are still bacteria, and the modern man is still a primate.

How is that a refutation of evolutionary theory?

E.Coli is a species but Primate is an order.

If E.Coil, even after several thousand generations haven't changed from one species to another, how is it possible to even think that evolution had even occurred.
Btw, we are not speaking at the "Order" level. Not even at the Family level or Genus level. Just species level.

Since nothing is happening even at species level, there is no point in even discussing at order level.