Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

[aychamo]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.

No, it is still a poor argument. You are saying that since a few people (who stand to gain $$ by publishing books, etc) doubt evolution, that we should all doubt it and question it.

If you want us to doubt/question evolution, you need to provide reasons for doing so, such as huge flaws in it that would make it seem doubtable. Stating the beliefs of a few individuals is not an argument that will convince one of its conclusion.

 

[Nereid]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.

You're joking, right?

Assuming you're not, would you be so kind as to expand on your comment? What 'suspicion about Modern Man's evolution' did that book raise for you?

 

[Nereid]

No, it is still a poor argument. You are saying that since a few people (who stand to gain $$ by publishing books, etc) doubt evolution, that we should all doubt it and question it.

If you want us to doubt/question evolution, you need to provide reasons for doing so, such as huge flaws in it that would make it seem doubtable. Stating the beliefs of a few individuals is not an argument that will convince one of its conclusion.

aychamo, have you read the Sykes book? It's about showing that 'local' British women apparently have a common European 'mother', who had seven 'daughters'. I.e. analysis of some mitochondrial genes, and constructing a phylogenetic tree, from a sample of women living in Britain today. AFAICS, a thoroughly modern evolutionary approach, with completely mainstream results (which is why I'm surprised that Thallium thinks it raises suspicions).

 

[Phobos]

A missing link is far from outdated.

The term is outdated in the sense that it is based on an outdated notion...the "march of progress". Evolution does not proceed in a simple, linear, ladder-like fashion. It involves a lot of complex branching, interactions, and variations.

 

[Phobos]

Ok. If you re-read my post you will see I did not define argument. I defined a sound argument.

Your post first said "There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument" and then went on about the soundness of it. But this is beside the point. My concern was simply that you were simply being insulting of others ("faith based bull****") without discussing the scientific merits of the arguments (sound or not) they care to put forth. Just trying to keep this a discussion rather than a fight.

Perhaps you are upset with my "Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?" reply to you. Phobos, you stated "If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith." That just doesn't make sense. You are saying "Truth = Blind Faith" (Or perhaps "Truth is found in Blind Faith"). Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Truth is "a statement proven to be or accepted as true." Your statement just doesn't make sense.

To clarify, I just meant that science does not offer absolute certainty, the meaning of life, etc. Science offers explanations of physical phenomena which are called theories out of respect for the uncertainties. Only in religion will you find claims of having Universal Truth.

And regarding my "lol. No we aren't." statement, I stand by that.

You later went on to explain that reply which is all I was asking for. Again, just trying to promote quality discussions...

 

[kirkmcloren]

I suppose the duck bill platypus is proof beaver evolved from ducks.
Evolution is a religion too.

 

[Nereid]

I suppose the duck bill platypus is proof beaver evolved from ducks.
Evolution is a religion too.

Would you mind expanding a bit on that last statement please?

To set the context, think of the term 'gravity' - what it describes is pretty uncontrovertable, or do you have a different opinion?

'Evolution' is equivalent to 'gravity' - a word to describe something which just *is*. A theory of evolution - such as Darwin's now quite quaint one - seeks to account for what is, just as Newton's did for gravity.

So if 'evolution is a religion', then so too must 'gravity' be.

But I somehow doubt that you would claim 'gravity is a religion' (or maybe you would?)

 

[kirkmcloren]

Nope. Gravity is verifiable.
You have never seen a transitional specie and natural selection involves reduction of diversity from the parent--not evolution. Tumblers can be bred from park pigeons but not the other way round.

Can you prove life on Earth wasn't put here by the mother ship? No more ridiculous than your god, evolution.

 

[Nereid]

First, deliberate conflation: evolution (the observable fact) is quite different from the origin of life on Earth (that's abiogenesis). AFAIK, this is a standard, cynical tactic used by 'creationists' (i.e. they are perfectly well aware that evolution has nothing to do with how life on Earth began, but nonetheless deliberately conflate the two, to confuse those who aren't aware of their tactics).

Second, next time you get a bacterial infection that is not treatable with the traditional anti-biotics, do you a) sue the doctor (she should have prescribed you the precious anti-biotics for which resistance hasn't yet set in), b) sue the pharmaceutical company (how dare they market an anti-biotic, knowing full well that there are resistant strains), c) sue god (she should not have created, in the last ten years, a strain of that bacterium that previously didn't exist), d) creationists (they have mislead you), e) something else?

Third, if we're going to discuss a *theory* of evolution, no I can't prove anything ... because that's not science (it's mathematics). If you would like to believe something, without the benefit of testing the belief using the scientific method, OK, go ahead. However, I do have to ask you - how can you use a computer, the internet, etc without being deeply hypocritical? After all, it's exactly the same process and principles that lead to you being able to post your nonsense on PF as lead to theories of evolution I'll be charitable; perhaps you are merely ignorant, not cynically hypocritical.

 

[loseyourname]

He talked about beavers evolving from ducks. Other than the fact that they are both mascots of major Oregon universities, these animals have no relationship. Heck, one's a mammal and one's a bird. I'd say he's pretty ignorant.

 

[kirkmcloren]

He talked about beavers evolving from ducks. Other than the fact that they are both mascots of major Oregon universities, these animals have no relationship. Heck, one's a mammal and one's a bird. I'd say he's pretty ignorant.

Don't even recognise sarcasm.
Sigh
Evolutionists claim you can trace ancestorship through attributes. I gave you an example showing how absurd the theory is.

The only thing you know for sure is you don't know. But most people can't live with that.

 

[loseyourname]

Evolutionists claim you can trace ancestorship through attributes. I gave you an example showing how absurd the theory is.

I take it you don't know the difference between a homology and an analogy. Have you never heard of molecular systematics? I figured you're joking, but you're also badly displaying a lack of basic knowledge, and no desire whatsoever to learn. You also jumped into the middle of a fairly decent discussion with an extremely stupid statement and got what you deserved.

 

[kirkmcloren]

First, deliberate conflation: evolution (the observable fact) is quite different from the origin of life on Earth (that's abiogenesis). AFAIK, this is a standard, cynical tactic used by 'creationists' (i.e. they are perfectly well aware that evolution has nothing to do with how life on Earth began, but nonetheless deliberately conflate the two, to confuse those who aren't aware of their tactics).

I think your position is evolution made everything from the 1st spark of life. I say you have no proof. In fact the mother ship is a less fantastic theory.

Second, next time you get a bacterial infection that is not treatable with the traditional anti-biotics, do you a) sue the doctor (she should have prescribed you the precious anti-biotics for which resistance hasn't yet set in), b) sue the pharmaceutical company (how dare they market an anti-biotic, knowing full well that there are resistant strains), c) sue god (she should not have created, in the last ten years, a strain of that bacterium that previously didn't exist), d) creationists (they have mislead you), e) something else?

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

Third, if we're going to discuss a *theory* of evolution, no I can't prove anything ... because that's not science (it's mathematics). If you would like to believe something, without the benefit of testing the belief using the scientific method, OK, go ahead. However, I do have to ask you - how can you use a computer, the internet, etc without being deeply hypocritical? After all, it's exactly the same process and principles that lead to you being able to post your nonsense on PF as lead to theories of evolution I'll be charitable; perhaps you are merely ignorant, not cynically hypocritical.

You? Charitable? You are indulging in obfuscation and diversion. Course when you have no argument then sophistry is the only way left. You will not possesses truth until you desire it above all else. The mind works that way.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

 

[kirkmcloren]

I take it you don't know the difference between a homology and an analogy. Have you never heard of molecular systematics? I figured you're joking, but you're also badly displaying a lack of basic knowledge, and no desire whatsoever to learn. You also jumped into the middle of a fairly decent discussion with an extremely stupid statement and got what you deserved.

A legend in your own mind and a bag of chips. Modest too.
So you have proof of evolution? Why didn't you post that?
That would be pretty basic to the discussion. Course that doesn't fit your style of diversion from the topic. A little argumentum ad hominum is usually a good tactic, right. Works for you, huh?

 

[iansmith]

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

In bacteria there is no recessive genes. Bacteria only have one copy of a gene with some exceptions. Antibiotics are occurs naturally and some species of bacteria naturally evolved genes involved in the resistance. These genes can be exchanged from species to species, can be pick up from DNA being in the environment, exchanged by transposon or carried by viruses. The other way antibitotic resistance can arise is by spontaneous mutation of the targeted molecules. The use of antibiotic will selected the resistant strains. The latter can be done in the lab by growing bacteria in the presence of antibiotic and selecting the resitant colonies. It was also obseved in nature.

All the above is natural selection and evolution working. Occam's razor is not always the best explanation in biology.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

I worked in lab and i have seen evolution in the lab and I tested evolution. I will state this again, evolution is the change of genotype over time, speciation is the result of evolution and other factors, and abiogenesis is the biological explantion for the origin of life. Evolution, speciation and abiogensis are three distinct events and cannot be group and define as evolution. Evolution is a fact, speciation and abiogenesis are hypothesis and are debatle. However, speciation is closer to becoming a theory than abiogenesis will ever be.

 

[aychamo]

Occam's razor says otherwise.

Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."

 

[aychamo]

I think iansmith (who is the god of my religion, btw) just decimaed kirckmcloren :)

 

[Nereid]

I think your position is evolution made everything from the 1st spark of life. I say you have no proof. In fact the mother ship is a less fantastic theory.

I'm not aware that I said anything of the sort ... perhaps you could point a statement of mine that is consistent with your thought?

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

I see that iansmith has addressed this.

You? Charitable? You are indulging in obfuscation and diversion. Course when you have no argument then sophistry is the only way left. You will not possesses truth until you desire it above all else. The mind works that way.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

Au contraire, my post goes right to the heart of the matter.

It would seem that loseyourname is right, you are ignorant, not deeply cynical, so let's take this step by step.

Science is all about the application of the scientific method. In a few words, observations and experiments produce data. Through an iterative process, theories are developed which 'explain' the data. What does 'explain' mean? First ... contrary to what you have said twice now ... it does NOT mean 'prove'; no scientific theory can ever be proven - not quantum mechanics, not General Relativity, nothing. Second, 'explain' means something like this: 'there are no observations or experimental results which are inconsistent with the theory, within its domain of applicabilty'. It will come as no surprise to you that there's considerably more to science than just my few sentences (e.g. the role of models, the treatment of 'error' (a term which differs considerably from its everyday meaning), quantitative vs qualitative, 'falsifiability'), but this is sufficient for me to show you why a rejection of modern, successful theories of evolution is tantamount to denying that your PC works.

So, 'evolution'. As used by those who study it, it's a shorthand for the millions of observations; or, in iansmith's words "evolution is the change of genotype over time". This is quite incontrovertable, just as 'gravity' is.

Then there are 'theories of evolution', which seek to explain the observed facts. Darwin's was the first, but it's long since been shown to be inadequate - several other mechanisms are required to explain the observations, beyond the 'natural selection' of Darwin's theory.

So, how do we measure the success of a theory? One very powerful way is to list observations and experimental results which are inconsistent with it within its domain of applicability. So, for example, General Relativity is hugely successful - it is consistent with *all* observations and experimental results. Further, the consistency has been tested quantitatively, in some cases to 1 part in 100,000.

Using this yardstick to measure the success of theories of evolution, how do they stack up? Answer: there are no observations or experimental results which are inconsistent with the theories.

Finally to clarify the abiogenesis and evolution confusion: no theory of evolution can 'explain' the origin of life on Earth. Is that a fatal blow to those theories? No. Why not? Because the origin of life on Earth is not within the stated domain of applicability of those theories. So, to claim (as you do) that theories of evolution fail because they cannot explain the origin of life is a bit like saying that theories of economics fail because they cannot explain how the Sun generates heat and light.

What's all this have to do with PCs, the internet, the car you may drive, etc? Simple; a claim that theories of evolution are failures - without evidence to substantiate those claims within the framework of science - is equivalent to a denial of science. Yet your very use of a PC and the internet is a powerful demonstration that science 'works'; there is no difference between the success of science in producing solid-state electronics (for your PC) and the success of theories of evolution.

Finally, that 'Sir' bit; Nereid. Or, if you prefer, http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

 

[kirkmcloren]

Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

 

[aychamo]

I know it's outside the realm of evolution, but for however life actually started on earth, any theory I read, to me, is infinitely more plausible than the idea of a god creating it.

 

[kirkmcloren]

Finally, that 'Sir' bit; Nereid. Or, if you prefer, http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

My apologies milady.

 

[kirkmcloren]

I know it's outside the realm of evolution, but for however life actually started on earth, any theory I read, to me, is infinitely more plausible than the idea of a god creating it.

All the stories, GOD or godless are fantastic.
But then, life is fantastic, isn't it?

 

[aychamo]

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

Why don't you address the problems in your argument that iansmith decimated instead of constantly inappropriately referring to science and evolution as a religion and church.

I don't dare chime in with scientific input when we have the knowledge of some of the others on the board. I just took a microbiology class last semester and several times I was confused in what we were learning and I posted threads here and had many people here instruct me on what was and wasn't correct. With their help I acheived greater understanding in micro than anyone else who took it that semester (I know because I got the highest grade in all the classes on each exam and the final.)

 

[loseyourname]

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.

 

[kirkmcloren]

That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.

You believe even though it is not proveable. That's religion -- and like most true believers you lack perspective. Self doubt is alien to you. Too bad.

 

[loseyourname]

So are you going to continue your "political sophistry" or are you going to answer any of the evidence and/or arguments presented here and elsewhere?

 

[kirkmcloren]

It is pointless to attempt a discussion with you. I answered the "contact" (1)and you responded (2) totally ignoring the troll comment in 1. You don't debate to resolve the truth, you instead argue to dominate an argument. You are inappropriately aggressive. Too bad. But like all true believers you have an emotional investment in your religion and you cannot conduct yourself otherwise. That's the bottom line. So troll away. Have the last word. I'm sure you always do.
==========================
1
Quote:
Originally Posted by aychamo
Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."


So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot
==========================
2
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkmcloren
So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.


That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.
=========================================

 

[aychamo]

Guys, this guy is obviously just trolling. He has already demonstrated that he has no knowledge of basically anything related to biology or evolution.

It's pointless to argue with him, he hasn't presented a single argument in his past dozen posts.

 

[Monique]

Keep the discussion to the topic please.

People who don't believe in evolution: do you believe in micro-evolution? Surely there is a lot of evidence in our genome that this is taking place. There are many duplicated genes that mutate and gain new characteristics. There are whole families of genes that look very much alike but do slightly different things.

There are virusses that are able to insert novel pieces of DNA, there are transposons that hop through the genome taking pieces of DNA and inserting them into genes.

This would all facilitate micro-evolution.

 

[russ_watters]

kirkmcloren, did you read Nereid's post from yesterday? Would you like to address it?