Evidence of Evolution

[-Demosthenes-]

Not quite' date=' demosthenes. It is possible that there was an infinite regress of life (alien scientists) or that there was an immaterial creator.

Not saying that I believe this, but it is possible.

-Uncool-[/quote']

Infinite regress of life is where life neer really began it just always existed? If I'm right I can see how it's possible... it's definitely hard to wrap my head around it. Scientifically an "immaterial creator" is generally thrown out because there is no evidence, although it is said that Einstien started to believe that there was something near the end of his life, although I think most people would when near the end of their lives.

[Ophiolite]

...amino acids began to chain because of radiation from the new sun, forming proteins. The proteins went further on, chaining themselves in order to create the bare minimum of genetic material, which led to reproduction, which lead to mutations, which lead to evolution when it was coupled with the harsh factors of the then noxious atmosphere of the earth....

As a simplification of an enormously complex and poorly understood suite of processes I think you may have gone to far:

Solar radiation, especially UV, would tend to disociate proteins, not promote their formation.

A chained suite of amino acids, polypeptide or protein, is not genetic material.

We have to look to nucleotides (RNA and DNA) to provide that. And those may be the primary producer of subsequent proteins, not the consequence of abiotic proteins.

The early atmosphere was not noxious to the organisms that evolved in it.

[Chatha]

The evolution 'story' dramatizes the 'natural' transfiguration of mankind through a linear procession of metamorphoses that eventually separate him from the animals of his ancestry. Evolution is Western man's totem.

- Joan d'Arc, Space Travelers and the Genesis of the Human Form

[blike]

Just in case everyone forgot, the OP asked,

 

"I would like to invite others to post on this thread other evidence or insights that I have missed (I hope to just cover the basics with this first post) and we could possibly use this as a reference in the future."

[metatron]

What is known about evolution, is that life changes over time.

 

What is not thoroughly understood is how life accumulates this information.

 

We can see by the fossil record that their is not only a pattern of change but also a morphological mean or stasis over long periods.

 

We have stated that the controlling factor in this pattern can be traced to random mutation and natural selection.

 

However current models do not reflect the fossil record.

 

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium }

 

Some in the scientific community have acknowledged this gradual process of natural selection and mutation, may not account for the stability and sudden change in morphology,

 

Also there exist a major disparity in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans.

 

According to the fossil record, they have no record to the past, and intermediary’s between each other.

 

Simply put we understand evolution about as well as gravity, electromagnetism or quantum mechanics.

 

No matter what anyone says, their still exist in science today a major disparity between our map of the evolution and the actual territory of the fossil record.

[Mokele]

If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps.

 

Because of stable environments. If the environment remains stable, then organisms will tend to arrive at a local optimum, a peak in the fitness landscape. It may not be the *true* optimum (and I'd argue never is), but organism evolution is constrained by numerous factors, and once at a peak, an organism will remain in "stasis" until either a) a mutation occurs that allows the organism to reach a different, higher peak in one big jump (very rare to nigh impossible) or b) the fitness landscape changes due to alterations in the environment (either biotic or abiotic).

 

Take crocodilians. For the most part, they've been very evolutionarily stable over time, and have retained the same basic form. However, when environmental change altered the fitness landscape, they've evolved into unusual forms quite rapidly (including splay-toothed vegetarians and what can only be described as like the bastard child of a croc and a pelican). So long as their environment remains more or less the same, they'll retian their overall form.

 

Also there exist a major disparity in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans.

 

Actually, the appearance of the major phyla in the Burgess Shale has been linked to the one or possibly several gene-duplication events of developmental genes. As usual, duplicated genes can evolve to suit new purposes, and in this case, those new purposes were often developmental, leading to an increase in the possible complexity of body plans. As organism body plans diverged, we saw the origins of modern phyla.

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Because of stable environments. If the environment remains stable' date=' then organisms will tend to arrive at a local optimum, a peak in the fitness landscape. It may not be the *true* optimum (and I'd argue never is), but organism evolution is constrained by numerous factors, and once at a peak, an organism will remain in "stasis" until either a) a mutation occurs that allows the organism to reach a different, higher peak in one big jump (very rare to nigh impossible) or b) the fitness landscape changes due to alterations in the environment (either biotic or abiotic).

 

Take crocodilians. For the most part, they've been very evolutionarily stable over time, and have retained the same basic form. However, when environmental change altered the fitness landscape, they've evolved into unusual forms quite rapidly (including splay-toothed vegetarians and what can only be described as like the bastard child of a croc and a pelican). So long as their environment remains more or less the same, they'll retian their overall form.

 

 

 

Actually, the appearance of the major phyla in the Burgess Shale has been linked to the one or possibly several gene-duplication events of developmental genes. As usual, duplicated genes can evolve to suit new purposes, and in this case, those new purposes were often developmental, leading to an increase in the possible complexity of body plans. As organism body plans diverged, we saw the origins of modern phyla.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

These are all ideas and observations like many others. I believe they represent causal effects in a whole hierarchy of concentric layers, some more prominent than others, depended on what kind of lens you are looking though, This is the safe one though if you are busy checking your periphery gauging the consensus.

[sabbath]

I think there are creationists who believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Isn't it a mistake to paint all creationists with the same brush?

 

Yes, that is true.

[bascule]

Yes, that is true.

 

 

Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

[bjaminwood]

I know christians have an urge to use the "where did it come from" paradox to prove god. Answer me this' date=' where did your god come from?

 

Advice:

Pick the lesser of two ignorances[/quote']

 

God always existed as the Bible clearly states God is the great "I am" suggesting that God always existed.

[ydoaPs]

God always existed as the Bible clearly states God is the great "I am" suggesting that God always existed.

if god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

[abskebabs]

Perhaps he/she(it's irrelevant anyway) is outside the realm of cause and effect, and so cannot be conceptualised accurately with this kind of analogy. I don't know... perhaps we just believe in God because it helps us get through our lives. There are plenty of ppl who don't start believing in God, or seek God until bad things start happening in their life(or if they experienced a miracle). For example I was reading a letter writte by a muslim girl in Iraq who said if it wasn't for her faith, she couldn't have coped with life.

 

I guess this could also explain why atheism is generally more prevalent in developed/westernized nations(excluding the US).

[bjaminwood]

if god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

 

I believe in an almighty creator God as described in the Bible who created the universe and I guess you can continue to believe whatever it is that you believe. We both have faith in something but I'm not quite sure what it is that you have faith in.

[ydoaPs]

I believe in an almighty creator God as described in the Bible who created the universe and I guess you can continue to believe whatever it is that you believe. We both have faith in something but I'm not quite sure what it is that you have faith in.

and that answers the question how?

 

edit: btw, my "faith" is supported by facts and evidence. yours is based on an ancient collection of writings that is inconsistant both internally and externally.

[SkepticLance]

I believe in an almighty creator God as described in the Bible who created the universe and I guess you can continue to believe whatever it is that you believe. We both have faith in something but I'm not quite sure what it is that you have faith in.

 

I have no faith in ANYTHING. Something I am very proud of. Instead I follow the rational approach and judge everything on the basis of the objective, empirical evidence that supports it. Faith means simply believing what you are told. People loved by P.T. Barnum, who said : "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

If your belief system is based on faith, instead of evidence, you fit Barnum's ideal.

[Dr. Dalek]

I have no faith in ANYTHING. Something I am very proud of. Instead I follow the rational approach and judge everything on the basis of the objective' date=' empirical evidence that supports it. Faith means simply believing what you are told. People loved by P.T. Barnum, who said : "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

If your belief system is based on faith, instead of evidence, you fit Barnum's ideal.[/quote']

 

There are people who are rational and faithful at the same time, I've met at least two.

[bjaminwood]

I have no faith in ANYTHING. Something I am very proud of. Instead I follow the rational approach and judge everything on the basis of the objective' date=' empirical evidence that supports it. Faith means simply believing what you are told. People loved by P.T. Barnum, who said : "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

If your belief system is based on faith, instead of evidence, you fit Barnum's ideal.[/quote']

 

So you are telling me that everything that you believe in is based on things that you personally have tested. That every scientific "fact" that you believe in is something that you have actually proved scientifically to yourself. Or is it as I suspect that some of what you believe is based on things that you have read by people that are now dead?

 

My faith and belief system both agree with the scientific facts that have been proven. I have not found 1 piece of evidence that has shaken my faith. Science just helps to prove my faith in the creator GOD.

[JustStuit]

You haven't found evidense against god because it is not science and cannot be tested, proved, or disproved. This doesn't say its wrong/right just that it is religion and not science.

[ydoaPs]

My faith and belief system both agree with the scientific facts that have been proven. I have not found 1 piece of evidence that has shaken my faith. Science just helps to prove my faith in the creator GOD.

if you mean creator in the literal biblical sense, you haven't looked very hard.

[SkepticLance]

bjaminwood.

I have been strongly criticised in the global warming posts because I am skeptical of conclusions that come purely from computer models, and am looking for strong objective, empirical evidence before accepting their conclusions. I am very skeptical of anything for which there is not good, solid, objective and empirically derived evidence.

 

Obviously, there are things for which I and others like me, have to accept because the source is reputable. If a reputable scientific journal publishes a peer reviewed paper based on good research, we tentatively accept it as 'true' until demonstrated otherwise. This does happen, as witness Korean stem cell research.

 

Once the level of evidence rises above a certain level, then we consider it to be effectively 'proven' and accept it as such. The scientific principle of biological evolution is one such, since the sum total of all evidence for this process would now fill several encyclopaedias. Denial of such is not skepticism. It is insanity.

 

On the other hand, Genesis is mostly myth and legend. The objective evidence suggests that the stories in Genesis were handed down by word of mouth for generations. And we all know what happens to messages like that. They end up grossly distorted.

 

You will undoubtedly argue that it is 'divinely inspired.' However, the bible contains too many contradictions. The Old Testament especially. Indeed, Old Testament teachings are not even compatible with Christ's teachings.

[Sayonara]

God has no place in this discussion.

 

Bjaminwood: if you continue to insist on dragging god into our scientific discussions, you will receive an IWOP (Inconsistent With Our Purpose) warning which will result in an automatic and permanent ban.

 

I would urge all users to use the "report post" feature to highlight such off-topic posts.

 

I have been strongly criticised in the global warming posts because I am skeptical of conclusions that come purely from computer models, and am looking for strong objective, empirical evidence before accepting their conclusions.

You will receive less fervent criticism if you simply describe yourself as "remaining unconvinced" instead of "sceptical", without having to sacrifice any convictions. Everyone loves to bash sceptics, even if they are rationally correct.

[bjaminwood]

bjaminwood.

I have been strongly criticised in the global warming posts because I am skeptical of conclusions that come purely from computer models' date=' and am looking for strong objective, empirical evidence before accepting their conclusions. I am very skeptical of anything for which there is not good, solid, objective and empirically derived evidence.

 

Obviously, there are things for which I and others like me, have to accept because the source is reputable. If a reputable scientific journal publishes a peer reviewed paper based on good research, we tentatively accept it as 'true' until demonstrated otherwise. This does happen, as witness Korean stem cell research.

 

Once the level of evidence rises above a certain level, then we consider it to be effectively 'proven' and accept it as such. The scientific principle of biological evolution is one such, since the sum total of all evidence for this process would now fill several encyclopaedias. Denial of such is not skepticism. It is insanity.

 

On the other hand, Genesis is mostly myth and legend. The objective evidence suggests that the stories in Genesis were handed down by word of mouth for generations. And we all know what happens to messages like that. They end up grossly distorted.

 

You will undoubtedly argue that it is 'divinely inspired.' However, the bible contains too many contradictions. The Old Testament especially. Indeed, Old Testament teachings are not even compatible with Christ's teachings.[/quote']

 

Firstly, why say that Genesis is "mostly myth and Legend" when you can't prove that. I will continue to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis until it has been proven beyond all doubt to be a myth.

 

Secondly, with all due respect you do not understand the Bible. The Old Testament was all about the Jews not being able to keep the Law of God and constantly needing to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. The New Testament is all about God sending his son into the world to be the perfect final sacrifice for sin. So that everyone Jew or Gentile (Non Jew), if they put their trust/faith in him they would be seen by God as if they had never sinned. Jesus paid the price of the sins of all those who put their faith in him. That is what a true Christian is. Christianity came out of Judaism - they are the old and New Testaments.

[Dr. Dalek]

Firstly' date=' why say that Genesis is "mostly myth and Legend" when you can't prove that. I will continue to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis until it has been proven beyond all doubt to be a myth.

 

Secondly, with all due respect you do not understand the Bible. The Old Testament was all about the Jews not being able to keep the Law of God and constantly needing to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. The New Testament is all about God sending his son into the world to be the perfect final sacrifice for

sin. So that everyone Jew or Gentile (Non Jew), if they put their trust/faith in him they would be seen by God as if they had never sinned. Jesus paid the price of the sins of all those who put their faith in him. That is what a true Christian is. Christianity came out of Judaism - they are the old and New Testaments.[/quote']

 

I think the main problem with the debate on life is arrogance.

 

For many people' date=' especially christians, they cannot grasp the concept that saying "only humans have a soul" is a very arrogant, very stupid thing to say considering there is nothing that seperates us from other life forms.

Another problem is that we place life on a giant pedestal. Life is just a term referring to specific proceses that occur in the body, nothing to do with a spirit or soul or anything that we can't create.[/quote']

 

I do not object to the beliefs of any of you as of right now. However this is a serious divergence from the point! Please, continue this debate about faith in the Religion section, or the debate section. I have made my comments in regards to faith . . .

There are people who are rational and faithful at the same time, I've met at least two.

But please will someone get back to evolution?!

Here let me try.. . .

Imagine this scenario; an insect is moved out of its environment into an alien one and becomes an invasive species. In ten thousand years a descendant of the insect is moved back into it's ancestors original breeding population and native environment. How would it fare?

[Edtharan]

Imagine this scenario; an insect is moved out of its environment into an alien one and becomes an invasive species. In ten thousand years a descendant of the insect is moved back into it's ancestors original breeding population and native environment. How would it fare?

This is a very had question to answer because the evolution of this insect is not directed. It would depend on chance (mutation), the environemnt it had to adapt to, its initial genotype and even what happens in the orriginal enviroment and ecosystem.

 

All in all it is imposable to even guess.

 

But a good question none the less.

[bjaminwood]

I do not object to the beliefs of any of you as of right now. However this is a serious divergence from the point! Please' date=' continue this debate about faith in the Religion section, or the debate section. I have made my comments in regards to faith . . .

 

But please will someone get back to evolution?!

Here let me try.. . .

Imagine this scenario; an insect is moved out of its environment into an alien one and becomes an invasive species. In ten thousand years a descendant of the insect is moved back into it's ancestors original breeding population and native environment. How would it fare?[/quote']

 

The reason that I go on about my faith in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is that it does not allow for the theory of evolution as an explanation for the state of the universe today. So my comments are linked to the topic. In my view the universe has not yet experienced millions of years only thousands. At the very most 10,000 years. If you have not already seen it there is an excellent video which demstrates this point. It has been mentioned in a previous thread. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html