Is Evolution Universal?

[lucaspa]

Is Evolution is universal? Since evolution occured on earth it doesn't mean that on a different alien planet evolution should occur. There can be different designs to create life from not life.

 

Evolution is NOT creating life from non-life. Evolution happens after life exists.

 

But yes, evolution by natural selection is probably universal. I can't see any reason why living organisms would limit the number of offspring to only what the environment can support. Also, since it is impossible to completely faithfully reproduce any genetic material (second law of thermodynamics forbids it), there is going to be variation among individuals.

 

So, with variation and competition for scarce resources, natural selection is inevitable.

[lucaspa]

All the organisms on earth have the same genetic code and if life evolved simultaneosly at different places then their should be different genetic codes.

 

That does not follow. As it turns out, the genetic code is superior in minimizing errors. Thus, the present code would have been selected for among all the codes that might have been in use at one time. There is one code now because all life is descended from a common ancestor that had this code.

 

My second point is the triplet codon UAG as we all know is a terminator but in some methanogenic bacterias it codes for the amino acid pyrrolysine.

 

You do realize that you just negated your argument for panspermia, don't you? First you argue that all organisms have the same genetic code, but then list one that doesn't.

[bombus]

minor point: evolution, as we currently understand it, does not explain the emergence of life from non-life.

 

Oh yes it does...

[CDarwin]

Also, since it is impossible to completely faithfully reproduce any genetic material (second law of thermodynamics forbids it), there is going to be variation among individuals.

 

If you had an organism that was rendered sterile by any functional change in its genetic code relative to the population's progenitor, then you would have a population for which evolution was impossible.

 

Imagine a coral or bryozoan colony where all the zooids are clones of the original ancestrula and any that derivate functionally from the ancestrula's genetic code cannot bud. It might be difficult to conceive and probably wouldn't last very long as species but it does seem possible, and would be an instance in which evolution was impossible. It might be more likely with a life-form for which the method of inheritance was different than it is on earth, perhaps more holistic.

[the tree]

minor point: evolution, as we currently understand it, does not explain the emergence of life from non-life.

Oh yes it does...

It really, really, really does not.

Biological Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits[/b'] from generation to generation.

Sorry about that, but it just doesn't, nor is it really concerned with it.

[Ophiolite]

You do realize that you just negated your argument for panspermia, don't you? First you argue that all organisms have the same genetic code, but then list one that doesn't.

On the contrary, a primitive difference in genetic character would lean one to consider multiple ancestors, which would be favoured by pan spermia.

[aTruthSeeker]

Sisyphus I would love to have a discussion with you about this. I promise to keep an open mind. So, lets do our best to lay aside all presuppositions (knowing that it is impossible for either of us to entirely eliminate them) and begin. We can begin anywhere you like, but lets tackle one issue at a time.

is the falsehood of evolution an article of faith for you, or would you consider it if your objections were answered?

I don't want to believe in anything but the truth, even if it is painful. I am no troll, so throw me a bone. What do you consider to be the most convincing evidence of evolution?

 

 

 

Phi for All Interesting site... I will be reading it as often as possible. It seems to be well organized. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

[CDarwin]

*coughs*

 

What do you consider to be the most convincing evidence of evolution?

 

It's the way myriad evidence from all over nature comes together to lead one to believe that all life shares a common ancestor and has changed through time. You have the fossil record; you have comparative anatomy; you have genetics; you have all that geology can tell us about the earth's past; and finally you can observe evolution occurring in real time on earth today. Rosemary and Peter Grant did with Galapagos finches. Countless microbiologists and entomologists can similarly attest to observing selection molding gene frequencies in populations. This is evolution.

[foodchain]

*coughs*

 

 

 

It's the way myriad evidence from all over nature comes together to lead one to believe that all life shares a common ancestor and has changed through time. You have the fossil record; you have comparative anatomy; you have genetics; you have all that geology can tell us about the earth's past; and finally you can observe evolution occurring in real time on earth today. Rosemary and Peter Grant did with Galapagos finches. Countless microbiologists and entomologists can similarly attest to observing selection molding gene frequencies in populations. This is evolution.

 

*I would just like to add to support your words.

 

Its not only this, but looking at ecology you can find life adapted to almost every niche on the planet currently. I would suspect or even go as far to predict that introduction of life to a alien ecology would have something to do with making evolution more visible in shorter spans of time, which is something that occurs. For the most part though life has occupied just about every place you can go as a human being. Evolution is not a rapid process, more so if you compare it to say a human lifetime. Billions of years, or even a hundred thousand years, is simply hard to envision. Fast forwarding this time amount would allow you to view the formations of mountains to many things a human being or even a collective few thousands years of time will be hard pressed to really have occur for the most part.

 

Lastly, studies on microbes to gauge evolution as in species basically attempting to adapt to overcome has shown that for a population of such as a constant, the amount of mutants you will get and the amount of mutants that will persist, or even populations for that matter will vary every cycle, so its not an exact rigid or perfect algorithm really, evolution can fail to achieve fitness.

 

Lastly, evolution is a word that refers to a whole lot. you can study such from a molecular level up to a population level, ecology level, and everything in-between that is present in living systems. All of these angles have been and are continually studied and for what’s its worth all they do is lend evidence to support organic evolution, biopoiesis is its own entity, which is studied and so far ground is being made in that arena, but the simple reality is the formation of rock even in the planets geology currently escapes the human ability to recreate it currently. Its just like the past though and that at one point western culture thought of the world flat and the center of the universe, so its something we kind of have to learn by using a rigorous methodology of science.

[aTruthSeeker]

CDarwin,

 

Please do not take offense to what I write. I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending, and I know that you were trying to be concise. What I would like to do is examine in detail the the evidence for evolution one piece at a time. Lets break it down into small pieces and verify the integrity of each to make sure that we have facts before us, rather than speculation. We can start with whatever piece of evidence you wish. I will also briefly address the hypotheses you included in your reply. I do not intend to be comprehensive either, I simply want to give an alternative interpretation to the evidence that these hypotheses are based on.

 

It's the way myriad evidence from all over nature comes together to lead one to believe that all life shares a common ancestor

Or a common Creator/Designer... If you look at the work of an artist, you can see commonalities from piece to piece. Sometimes you can look at a piece of art and say " that looks like the work of..." only to later find out it was created by that artist.

 

You have the fossil record;

The fact that we have fossils does nothing if we misinterpret them. I believe that the evidence for the flood of Noah's day is very persuasive. We have fossils of animals buried in very close proximity that are not good roomates. Carnivorous animals found with the prey that they would eat, probably were buried instantly. Otherwise, they would not be found together unless they were in the stomach of the predator.

 

you have comparative anatomy;

If you look at the parts of a microwave and at the parts of a car, you will find commonalities. It does not prove that the car evolved from the microwave or vice versa. It simply proves that they have similar parts.

We have created many devices with different purposes that are sometimes designed for a certain environment (ie. underwater). The environment that they will be in necessitates certain characteristics (ie. waterproofing). If a creature is to live on earth it is necessary for it to be compatible with its environment, regardless as to whether it came to be by evolution or intelligent design.

 

you have genetics; you have all that geology can tell us about the earth's past;

There is a very interesting article about DNA here http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070.

It is a bit of a read, but very informative.

 

There are many ways to interpret what we see. I think that it is interesting that the "geologic column" has only found in the "correct order" (as far as rock types and index fossils are concerned) in 7 +/- places in the world. Many times there are petrified trees standing vertically, through many of the layers. We know the trees did not take millions of years to grow through the layers. Also, some of the trees are found upside down! I feel that this is evidence for a very large flood. If you take a large jar and put different types of soil and different types of bugs and animals... then fill it with water and give it a shake... you will see an interesting thing happen in just a few moments. Layers will form and the bugs and animals will be sorted according to density in the various layers. If you did the same thing on a much larger scale, say the whole planet, you would also want to take into consideration the natural location of certain species (fish and other aquatic life at the lower places, land dwelling animals in the middle, and birds at the top) and the mobility and intelligence of each creature. These factors could greatly contribute to the order that is found in the fossil record.

 

and finally you can observe evolution occurring in real time on earth today. Rosemary and Peter Grant did with Galapagos finches.

Countless microbiologists and entomologists can similarly attest to observing selection molding gene frequencies in populations. This is evolution.

A great article concerning this is found at:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3017

Again it is a bit of a read, but also quite informative. Please notice that the finches never became another species. They are still finches and so are their offspring. Heredity should not be classified as evolution in my humble opinion. I feel this is misleading. If you must call this evolution, be sure to put "micro" in front of it. It does nothing to prove macro evolution which is a change in species.

[foodchain]

CDarwin,

 

Please do not take offense to what I write. I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending, and I know that you were trying to be concise. What I would like to do is examine in detail the the evidence for evolution one piece at a time. Lets break it down into small pieces and verify the integrity of each to make sure that we have facts before us, rather than speculation. We can start with whatever piece of evidence you wish. I will also briefly address the hypotheses you included in your reply. I do not intend to be comprehensive either, I simply want to give an alternative interpretation to the evidence that these hypotheses are based on.

 

 

Or a common Creator/Designer... If you look at the work of an artist, you can see commonalities from piece to piece. Sometimes you can look at a piece of art and say " that looks like the work of..." only to later find out it was created by that artist.

 

 

The fact that we have fossils does nothing if we misinterpret them. I believe that the evidence for the flood of Noah's day is very persuasive. We have fossils of animals buried in very close proximity that are not good roomates. Carnivorous animals found with the prey that they would eat, probably were buried instantly. Otherwise, they would not be found together unless they were in the stomach of the predator.

 

 

If you look at the parts of a microwave and at the parts of a car, you will find commonalities. It does not prove that the car evolved from the microwave or vice versa. It simply proves that they have similar parts.

We have created many devices with different purposes that are sometimes designed for a certain environment (ie. underwater). The environment that they will be in necessitates certain characteristics (ie. waterproofing). If a creature is to live on earth it is necessary for it to be compatible with its environment, regardless as to whether it came to be by evolution or intelligent design.

 

 

There is a very interesting article about DNA here http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070.

It is a bit of a read, but very informative.

 

There are many ways to interpret what we see. I think that it is interesting that the "geologic column" has only found in the "correct order" (as far as rock types and index fossils are concerned) in 7 +/- places in the world. Many times there are petrified trees standing vertically, through many of the layers. We know the trees did not take millions of years to grow through the layers. Also, some of the trees are found upside down! I feel that this is evidence for a very large flood. If you take a large jar and put different types of soil and different types of bugs and animals... then fill it with water and give it a shake... you will see an interesting thing happen in just a few moments. Layers will form and the bugs and animals will be sorted according to density in the various layers. If you did the same thing on a much larger scale, say the whole planet, you would also want to take into consideration the natural location of certain species (fish and other aquatic life at the lower places, land dwelling animals in the middle, and birds at the top) and the mobility and intelligence of each creature. These factors could greatly contribute to the order that is found in the fossil record.

 

 

A great article concerning this is found at:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3017

Again it is a bit of a read, but also quite informative. Please notice that the finches never became another species. They are still finches and so are their offspring. Heredity should not be classified as evolution in my humble opinion. I feel this is misleading. If you must call this evolution, be sure to put "micro" in front of it. It does nothing to prove macro evolution which is a change in species.

 

You can have your talk with the person you would like to talk with but I would just like to point some things out. First of all, if you are going to attempt to undermine the current understanding of natural history using the bible, well that’s little more then a losing proposition. This is the problem as I see it with such an argument. You cant find a natural science that will support anything the bible has to say in regards to the bibles interpretation of natural history, take any field you would like and it contradicts the bible.

 

Second, evolution is not a misinterpretation, and anyone selling you that is on some really powerful drugs. You would basically at that point state that everything in biology and its impacts on science in general in regards to other fields that come into contact with evolution like medical science for example is doing little more then perpetuating a farce based on a misinterpretation. That’s quite a stance to take and I don’t know how you could support it, or really even support the notion of looking at life specie by specie to disprove evolution in any regard of the word, its that same process basically from a molecular to ecological scale that proves evolution from untold amounts or really mountains of data that support evolution.

 

Lastly think about what you are saying, if for instance that you accept evolution, and accept from the stance of a creator what does that say, semi-intelligent design? Design by boredom? Lastly what is the grounds for the reason to want to disprove evolution, is it to support your religion, your faith, or is it because you cant understand evolution, or does evolution seem to complex to be something that came about naturally, though of course on that last one you wont see some giant debate to disprove the naturally occurring rock, like its really any less complex in all reality. Personally most the time I think it comes from the idea that people don’t want to think of themselves as living like other living things, but something far above that, because you know our world is so drastically different then anything else alive if you get right down to it!

 

So what is it really, why do you need to disprove evolution really? That’s what I would like to know very much.

[JohnF]

The problem some people have with evolution is that it takes so long to see a change so they assume it isn't happening. They also think of evolution as a one way street to a 'better' version. Evolution is just the change that occurs in a species to allow it to do better in it's current environment. One of the best examples of evolution is humans. Humans were originally dark skinned. Humans that migrated slowly changed to suit their new environments so we now have a variety of skin colours. If the bible is accurate and we all originated from Adam and Eve then we must have evolved; we can't all be the same skin colour as they were; whatever that happened to be. If all humans were to slowly move back to the equatorial zone they would evolve to a primarily dark skinned species.

[bombus]

It really, really, really does not.Sorry about that, but it just doesn't, nor is it really concerned with it.

 

Evolution by natural selection applies to species really, but the principle is applicable to the formation of life itself. It just depends what you consider life to be - at what point do chemicals become alive. Are prions alive? What about viruses? Life began when certain chemicals began to self replicate. That's all life is really.

[CDarwin]

Please do not take offense to what I write. I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending, and I know that you were trying to be concise.

 

Likewise, I should think. If I sound a little offensive, its just how I sound when I get into it.

 

Or a common Creator/Designer...

 

Which one? Active Creator or passive Designer? There is a difference. This is something Creationists can get away with but evolutionists can't. You can be vague about your actual positions because most of Creationism is simply negative arguments concerning evolution.

 

If you look at the work of an artist, you can see commonalities from piece to piece. Sometimes you can look at a piece of art and say " that looks like the work of..." only to later find out it was created by that artist.

 

I'd just like to nip this argument and ones that stem from it in the bud here. When you look at a painting, you know it was made by an artist because you've seen artists make paintings before and you know what to look for. No one has seen God make a frog, so we couldn't know what to look for to identify divine creations. We tend to look at things that seem complicated and designed to us, but all that can possibly suggest is that those things were made by humans. We have no idea what God would be like, or what evidence of his creation would look like. It could be all around us or not present at all; we couldn't know. We do however know how nature works, and we can see evidence of its actions all over the earth.

 

Parsimony holds that we make the fewest assumptions, and it is therefore more parsimonious to assume that nature (which we can know the mechanisms of) shaped earth rather than a Creator (who from a scientific perspective we can only make up the mechanisms of) who acts exactly like nature. We may well be wrong, but science can't deal in certainties.

 

 

I believe that the evidence for the flood of Noah's day is very persuasive.

 

This a fairly comprehensive rebuttal to Noah's Flood.

 

I would add another argument that I don't believe was covered in there (it has been a while since I read it). Noah and company would have had to done a good deal of scuba diving in addition to gathering two of every terrestrial animal on earth. We tend to think of only land animals being affected by sea levels, but most marine organisms are pretty locked into specific depths and temperatures. Raising the sea level enough to cover Mt Sinai would substantially mess with that. Corals and shallow water creatures are a perfect example. Most of the world's marine life lives in shallow waters on the continental shelf, many in coral reefs. Reef-building corals can't live below 600 m because of the needs of their symbiotic algae for sunlight. If all the continents were deluged there wouldn't be any coral left.

 

We have fossils of animals buried in very close proximity that are not good roomates. Carnivorous animals found with the prey that they would eat, probably were buried instantly. Otherwise, they would not be found together unless they were in the stomach of the predator.

 

Most animals don't just fossilize where they drop dead. They'll usually get washed in a gully or body of water and fossilize there. That mixes all sorts of creatures. Paleontologists don't deny the existence of floods, either. There have been plenty of them. They just don't hold to a global flood for the reasons laid out in that link.

 

If you look at the parts of a microwave and at the parts of a car, you will find commonalities. It does not prove that the car evolved from the microwave or vice versa. It simply proves that they have similar parts.

 

It's not the commonalities per se that are telling, but how they are distributed. Everything doesn't have exactly the same parts developed in exactly the same way from the embryo, as you might expect if organisms were factory produced. Parts converge and radiate and show a whole range of specialization from common patterns, and we can see this happening with a temporal dimension by looking at the fossil record. There are some major differences between many groups, but there are also underlying similarities that become more and more basic in more distantly related organisms. Mammals and earth worms share a body cavity but are different in almost every other way, for example. Ameobas and mammals share even fewer similarities, but are linked by there common possession of a nucleus and organelles.

 

We have created many devices with different purposes that are sometimes designed for a certain environment (ie. underwater). The environment that they will be in necessitates certain characteristics (ie. waterproofing). If a creature is to live on earth it is necessary for it to be compatible with its environment, regardless as to whether it came to be by evolution or intelligent design.

 

But evolution is the only mechanisms that allows the environment to change, as environments are absolutely want to do. If organisms were immutable, or simply fixed to a certain 'kind' (cats can't become dogs, to quote a common Creationist axiom), then wouldn't you expect to see a winnowing of diversity through time as environments change and organisms are magically unable to adapt? You do not however. There are more families of animals alive today than there ever have been in the entire fossil record.

 

There are many ways to interpret what we see. I think that it is interesting that the "geologic column" has only found in the "correct order" (as far as rock types and index fossils are concerned) in 7 +/- places in the world.

 

And those places are telling. Geologists know how to spot uplift and erosion and things that muck about with the order of strata, and they also realize that in most places all the strata won't be there (in East Tennessee, for example, most of the surface rocks are Cambrian-Ordovician if not older). This doesn't mean the rocks can't be recognized, however. Correlating rocks from the same relative age is actually rather easy, even if just looking at the rocks themselves. Limestone, for example, has only been layed down extensively in North America a few times, the last the in the Permian. A good geologist can spot Permian limestone and correlate it in one area to Permian limestone in another.

 

Many times there are petrified trees standing vertically, through many of the layers. We know the trees did not take millions of years to grow through the layers.

 

Polystrate Trees

 

These are the result of strata being rapidly laid down by local floods. Again, no one says floods can't happen.

 

Also, some of the trees are found upside down! I feel that this is evidence for a very large flood.

 

Yes, but not necessarily a global flood. They could also be the result of geologic action after the tree was fossilized.

 

If you take a large jar and put different types of soil and different types of bugs and animals... then fill it with water and give it a shake... you will see an interesting thing happen in just a few moments. Layers will form and the bugs and animals will be sorted according to density in the various layers. If you did the same thing on a much larger scale, say the whole planet, you would also want to take into consideration the natural location of certain species (fish and other aquatic life at the lower places, land dwelling animals in the middle, and birds at the top) and the mobility and intelligence of each creature. These factors could greatly contribute to the order that is found in the fossil record.

 

Not really. As I said, things don't usually fossilize where they fall. They are washed somewhere else. And fossils aren't organized in the fossil record by their 'natural location.' There are plenty of fish in Cenozoic strata and plenty of Pterodactyls in Mesozoic strata. And the fish in the higher Cenozoic strata look more modern than the fish in the lower Mesozoic strata. Funny coincidence, eh?

 

A great article concerning this is found at:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3017

Again it is a bit of a read, but also quite informative. Please notice that the finches never became another species. They are still finches and so are their offspring.

 

I'll get to those articles eventually. Sorry, I'm kind of busy right now, or at least should be.

 

As for the finches, whether or not they stayed finches is irrelevant. The Grants observed the mechanism of evolution in action. Unless you seek to propose some sort of magical line between what we have arbitrarily decided is a 'finch' and what we have decided isn't a 'finch', then there is no reason why this mechanism couldn't produce new 'non finches' if it continued to act long enough and was accompanies by some sort of reproductive isolation.

 

Heredity should not be classified as evolution in my humble opinion. I feel this is misleading.

 

I concur, they are completely different things. Evolution occurs because of the imperfect nature of heredity. Mutations slip though and change the genetic makeup of populations.

 

If you must call this evolution, be sure to put "micro" in front of it. It does nothing to prove macro evolution which is a change in species.

 

But observing changes in species does, and this has been done. Instances of observed speciation.

[immortal]

Evolution is NOT creating life from non-life. Evolution happens after life exists.

 

But yes, evolution by natural selection is probably universal. I can't see any reason why living organisms would limit the number of offspring to only what the environment can support. Also, since it is impossible to completely faithfully reproduce any genetic material (second law of thermodynamics forbids it), there is going to be variation among individuals.

 

So, with variation and competition for scarce resources, natural selection is inevitable.

 

I think I am too young to argue with you but, evolution kicks in when something replicates. On earth the replicator is a gene (lot depends on whether you accept this gene has living or non living) evolution does'nt start after the over production of the genes. It does not matter whether it is surrounded by many other genes or it is alone it has to adapt itself to the environment to survive however the competition will be huge if it is surrounded by other genes. This selfish behavior of the gene created the things which we see around us. Its difficult to define life without evolution.

If you say that living organisms will not limit the number of offsprings they produce then why do humans limit it. If a human produces a single offspring and if the child dies out without spreading his genes then this would be disaster. Don't you think cultural evolution has diverted the path of biological evolution and I am afraid that one day memes might take over the genes

[insane_alien]

memes will take over genes if memes develop biological functionality. as far as i am aware there is not molecule for a meme. so there would be no hereditary effect of a concept. memes would need to be taught.

[lucaspa]

Better question is this... is evolution real and scientifically observable?

 

Yes.

 

If we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes... and why aren't they turning human?

 

Sigh. I can see that you are going to repeat a lot of creationist fallacies.

 

How do we know if the earth is really billions of years old? Have we concluded that by presupposing that life MUST have come from evolution?

 

To answer your second question: NO! That the earth is young was falsified by 1831, 27 years BEFORE Darwin published Origin of Species. The people who showed the earth was old were all creationists.

 

If we date the layers of the "geologic column" by "index fossils" and date the "index fossils" by the layer that we find them in the "geologic column", isn't that circular reasoning?

 

It would be IF that had been what was done. But it didn't happen that way. Long before evolution was an accepted theory geologists noted empirically that fossils appeared in unalterable order in strata. Pure empiricism. It was then noted that some fossils were only associated with particular strata. Usually these were small animals -- such as foraminifera. In conjunction with other means of identifying the strata, this allowed for relative dating and comparing strata from different parts of the world. It helped identify when some strata were missing from the column at particular locations (due to erosion).

 

Why are we still missing the "missing link"? Since we have so many species of animals and plants on earth, shouldn't there be a fossil record of transitional species... even a few examples would be nice.

 

There are thousands of examples of transitional species. Archeopteryx is a famous one. So is Acanthostega. There are also examples of sequences of transitional individuals linking species and from species to species linking higher taxa. The creationists, quite simply, lie about the lack of transitional fossils.

 

Why would we give unintelligent forces credit for creating life, when we as intelligent beings can not create life without borrowing it from something living? We know all of the chemicals that make up a living creature, but why can't we assemble them into a living being?

 

As I noted, we have seen the chemical reactions that form life. Been done.

 

What about irreducible complexity? If a creature can not live without certain parts, what did it do before it evolved to have those parts? And what on earth would the first living being eat anyway?

 

Here is a paper showing that any "irreducibly complex" system can be made by Darwinian evolution: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

The first cell ate the amino acids and sugars made by the Miller-Urey (and other) reactions.

 

Why is spontaneous generation of life still being taught in our schools when Louis Pasteur disproved it back in 1859?

 

Because abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation! Once again the creationists have committed false witness. Spontaneous generation was the theory that multicellular, complex life arose from decaying living matter. Mice from grain, maggots from rotting meat, etc.

 

Abiogenesis is the idea that life can arise from non-living chemicals.

 

I don't know of a kinder way to tell you this, but you have been conned by the professional creationists. For people who profess to be Judeo-Christians, they violate the 9th Commandment on a regular basis. Stick around here, ask questions, and we will provide you with the correct information.

 

Just remember: evolution is NOT atheism

[lucaspa]

If you had an organism that was rendered sterile by any functional change in its genetic code relative to the population's progenitor, then you would have a population for which evolution was impossible.

 

You wouldn't have a population! If all the members of the population are sterile, then they die and there is no population.

 

In order to have a population -- as opposed to a single generation (which is what you are proposing) -- then you have to have reproduction.

 

In fact, since the definition of "life" mandates the ability to reproduce, you could argue that your coral or bryozoan colony has ceased to be "alive".

[lucaspa]

Oh yes it does...

 

Strictly speaking, evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution assumes the existence of living organisms and doesn't care how they got here. Once here, life evolves.

 

Abiogenesis is the area that attempts to explain the origin of life. I call it an "area" or "discipline" because abiogenesis is not A theory, but instead there are several theories of abiogenesis. The RNA World is one theory within abiogenesis. Fox's protocells are another. Hypercycles is a third.

[lucaspa]

I would love to have a discussion with you about this. I promise to keep an open mind. So, lets do our best to lay aside all presuppositions (knowing that it is impossible for either of us to entirely eliminate them) and begin. We can begin anywhere you like, but lets tackle one issue at a time. I don't want to believe in anything but the truth, even if it is painful. I am no troll, so throw me a bone. What do you consider to be the most convincing evidence of evolution?

 

Please remember that the scientific community started with young earth creationism as THE accepted theory. What happened was that the data convinced them that young earth creationism -- including Noah's Flood -- was wrong. Even then, many scientists did not give up all of creationism immediately. Instead, they waited until the data also showed that special creation was wrong.

 

For instance, Rev. Adam Sedgwick was professor of Geology at Cambridge in the first half of the 1800s. He was also President of the Royal Geological Society for over a decade. He started out as a Flood Geologist and creationist. By 1831 the data had convinced him that Noah's Flood never happened, and he publicly announced this as he finally retired as President of the Royal Geological Society. IOW, he admitted that his "bias" had been wrong. However, he remained a special creationist in that he thought that God had specially created each species and that they did not change.

 

The same can be said of Charles Lyell. Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-1832, did much to put the final nails in the coffin for Flood Geology. Yet in that book Lyell still affirmed special creation. However, 20 years later the data Darwin and others had gathered convinced him that special creation was wrong and that species had evolved.

 

There is no ONE piece of evidence. Instead, there are literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence.

 

One area that is often convincing is phylogenetic analysis. IF creationism is true and there are separate "kinds", then the sequences of bases in DNA should be independent observations. That is, since one "kind" cannot transform to another "kind", there should be barriers to changes in DNA sequences for inheritance. OTOH, evolution says "descent with modification", which means DNA sequences should be related by historical connection.

 

During the 1980s technology provided the means to cheaply and easily sequence DNA. The sequences from hundreds of species from widely different taxa were sequenced and compared. Were the sequences independent observations as would be true if creationism were true? NO! Instead, the sequences are related by historical connections -- which is what evolution predicts. DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

 

(Science is in any public library, so you can look up the articles for yourself)

 

Another study which encapsulates evolution is 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

 

This one is more difficult to find and you'll need a university library. We can discuss the paper in detail if you want. But to summarize, the researchers took "fruit flies" from the wild and then divided them into different populations in the lab. Drosophila has a generation time of 1 week and the experiment ran for 5 years or 2500 generations. They put the flies in temperature colder than the wild and on different diets. After 5 years they compared the lab populations to each other and to fresh-caught wild flies. They were testing both 1) the formation of new species and 2) natural selection.

 

They found that the control flies in the lab (same environment as the wild) and fresh caught wild flies freely interbred to produce fertile offspring. IOW, they were still the same species. But the flies in different environments in the lab did not breed with either the control population or wild flies or, if they did breed, the offspring were not fertile. IOW, they were now different species.

 

The researchers then looked at about a dozen common proteins to get an idea of the genetic difference between the new species and the old. They found a 3% genetic difference between species. When looking at comparable proteins in chimps and humans, the difference is less than 1%. So, evolution by natural selection had produced not only new species, but had produced a greater genetic difference than we find between chimps and humans!

 

Some other websites for you to look at:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/evoops.htm

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

[lucaspa]

Or a common Creator/Designer... If you look at the work of an artist, you can see commonalities from piece to piece. Sometimes you can look at a piece of art and say " that looks like the work of..." only to later find out it was created by that artist.

 

People tried that. Unfortunately, there are species that simply won't fit that.

 

What you have to understand is that "evidence for" is not what you want to look at. So when you say

I believe that the evidence for the flood of Noah's day is very persuasive.

doesn't work. What really counts is evidence against. True statements cannot have false consequences. There is simply too much evidence present that simply cannot be there if a global flood happened.

 

There are many ways to interpret what we see. I think that it is interesting that the "geologic column" has only found in the "correct order" (as far as rock types and index fossils are concerned) in 7 +/- places in the world. Many times there are petrified trees standing vertically, through many of the layers.

 

What is your source for this? I will tell you right now that you have been lied to. I know from my reading that parts of the geologic column were correlated at hundreds of sites in Europe and America in the early 1800s. That is hnow Sedgwick, Buckland, and others formulated the geological maps of Europe and the eastern US.

 

And no, petrified trees are fallen and lay horizontally.

 

Also, some of the trees are found upside down! I feel that this is evidence for a very large flood.

 

And if you look, the hypothesis is for a very violent LOCAL flood. But because of geological evidence that could NOT be formed by a flood, we know that a universal flood is wrong.

 

Layers will form and the bugs and animals will be sorted according to density in the various layers. If you did the same thing on a much larger scale, say the whole planet, you would also want to take into consideration the natural location of certain species (fish and other aquatic life at the lower places, land dwelling animals in the middle, and birds at the top)

 

But that isn't what we see. For instance, cartilaginous and bony fishes are the same size and density. Therefore they SHOULD be sorted the same if your theory is correct. BUT, we find cartilaginous fishes always BELOW the bony fishes of the same size and density. That is an example of evidence that refutes or falsifies a theory. And it is why such evidence is the really important evidence.

[Sayonara]

This is not the "argue against evolution" thread. The topic is the discussion is evolution universal?, which tends to pre-assume evolution. If you don't believe evolution occurs, fine; you're wrong, but take it as being a hypothetical discussion simply for the sake of argument.

 

I expect Lucaspa's posts to be the last word on the matter.

[Realitycheck]

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples' faith in peoples' inspiration can blind people so much to be so ignorant of such indisputable facts. Surely, it must be due to childhood experiences.

[lucaspa]

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples' faith in peoples' inspiration can blind people so much to be so ignorant of such indisputable facts. Surely, it must be due to childhood experiences.

 

No. Scientists can also be blind to indisputable facts. Anyone can get so emotionally attached to a theory/idea that they can't give it up. There were phlogiston chemists who went to their graves rather than admit that phlogiston was wrong.

 

Einstein made himself a laughingstock within the physics community and failed to make any substantive contribution to physics after 1930 because of his refusal to give up pure determinism and admit the indisputable facts of quantum mechanics -- despite the fact that his Nobel Prize was awarded for helping to found QM!

 

On the side of science in the science vs creationism exchange, we can see the emotional involvement of scientists when creationists attack the reliability of science as a means of knowing. See the attached file -- which is part of an academic article analyzing the emotional issues in the creationism/evolution exchange.

 

It requires uncommon mental discipline to ALWAYS maintain the ideal attitude expressed by Milgrom:

 

"As its inventor, I would like it [MOND] to be a revolution, but I look at it coolly," says Milgrom. "I will be very sad, but not shocked if turns out to be dark matter." C Seife, Radical gravity theory hits large scale snag. Science 292: 1629, June1, 2001

 

Also, I would ask you to cut the rank and file creationsts some slack and compassion. They have been lied to by people they trust. Just like the person who buys a lemon from an unscrupulous used car salesman, they are victims. The people who deserve your disgust and contempt are the professional creationists who take advantage of this trust and put out misinformation that they know is wrong. aTruthSeeker is getting conned.

Berry-threat to science.txt

[lucaspa]

Evolution by natural selection applies to species really, but the principle is applicable to the formation of life itself.

 

Sorry, but evolution does NOT apply to the formation of life itself. That is chemistry. Once you get life, then you can look to see IF that life is such as to be able to evolve and be the object of natural selection.

 

As an example, look at this discussion of protocells:

 

"The ease with which such protocell units arise under possible primitive Earth conditions has been abundantly documented, especially in the elegant experiments of Sidney Fox and his collaborators on the proteinoid microspheres. .. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that preformed primitive polypeptides (proteinoids) have properties enabling them to aggregate spontaneously to form remarkably uniform spherical units of bacterial dimensions which contain complex internal morphology including a double wall, exchange materials with the ambient medium, grow, cleave in two, fuse, exhibit weak catalytic activiity, and move when ATP is added to the medium. Protocells containing both proteinoid and polynucleotide have been shown to carry on a primitive kind of protocoding activity (27,29) The proteinoid microsphere is a compelling model for the high-probability prebiotic origin of discrete individual units of evolving organic mattter which could conceivably compete with one another and thus provide the basis for a primitive selection process." Dean H. Kenyon, Prefigured ordering and protoselection in the origin of life. In The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, ed. Dose, Fox, Deborin, and Pavlovskaya, 1974, pg 211.

 

In the RNA world, you could envision a self-replicating molecule but it could not evolve. This ribozyme would be such that one and ONLY one base sequence could synthesize an identical base sequence. Any variation would destroy the ability to self-replicate. In that situation, you would have a self-replicating molecule (what you call "life"), but it could not evolve by natural selection because there could be no competition.

 

For natural selection you need:

1. Functional variations among individuals.

2. Selection by a competition for scarce resources.

3. Inheritance.

 

Now, once you get a living organism, the rate of reproduction is geometric but the rate of increasing resources is arithmetic. Therefore, eventually there will be competition for scarce resources and, thus, selection.