Evolution has been observed... right?

[tas8831]

What's with this creationist obsession with Darwin?

Darwinism [I know Wiki is frowned on, but this gives a nice summary]is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860...

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[27] For example, in 1993, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson made this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's 1874 book What Is Darwinism?.[28] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[29][30]

Creationists use pejoratively the term Darwinism to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[31] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says "The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas... Yet the choice of terminology isn't random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism."[32]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is sometimes called "neo-Darwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought—particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies.[33] "It's a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like 'Maoism,'" says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'."[34]

_____

 

[tas8831]

To suggest that shows you don't understand the new genetic code introductions that are needed to go from a single cell into mankind.

The fact that you keep using the phrase "new genetic code" shows you understand neither basic genetics nor evolutionary biology. (not ad hominem because my observation of your error is not an argument, my argument follows):

The genetic code is pretty well understood and established - it is the observed interaction between DNA, RNA, and amino acids. I should think that someone that repeatedly pontificates on the matter should at least understand something so basic:

THAT is the 'genetic code.' There is nothing new to be made from it.

New code which adaptation alone as a mechanism can't account for because adaptation functions based on toggling the expression of options which the existing code already has provisions for.

Argument by assertion, Citation please.

 

[tas8831]

No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.

So is the sentence you just wrote. HINT: genetics is NOT exactly like computer code or English.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As I've already pointed out (#332) there are multiple examples where this is not the case.

The fruit flies? “many genes influence a trait” I'm not seeing any new information.

Interesting, since the smallest scale of macroevolution is speciation.

The lesson of Genesis is that living things were created as is and stayed that way.

You really need to read the Bible. How could they stay that way if they were originally made vegetarians and started being meat eaters?

 

[Wildswanderer]

6-aminohexanoic acid did not exist in nature prior to 1935. So bacteria that evolve new enzymes to digest this compound have not added new information? Can you explain this to me?

6-aminohexanoic acid

Not off hand, but mutations often eliminate or reduce cellular systems and actions. Called antagonistic pleiotropy... a trade-off where a temporary benefit for surviving is given at the expense of systems used for other environments.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Good to know. With this topic, it can difficult to see the line between a genuine inquiry and insult.


Well, kind of. That's a good way of summing up HOW evolution occurs, but in a purely semantic (arguably pendantic) way, it isn't quite scientifically accurate.

Evolution is the name we give to the phenomenon of change in allele frequency in populations over time. In other words, the way in which living populations change and diversify over successive generations. To define evolution as simply "many small changes that occur over a long time" is not entirely wrong, because changes on this scale are generally slow and generally the result of minor mutations adding up. However, evolution can also be a result of sudden, explosive mutations and environmental shifts (see punctuated equilibrium) which can happen in relatively short (by comparison to slow accumulation of minor mutations) periods of time. So, evolution is not merely the result of small changes over long periods of time - it can also be the result of big changes in relatively little time. The important thing is that the change alters the allele frequency of a population (i.e, that the mutations proliferate over multiple generations until either the mutation is carried by the majority - or the entirety - of a population, or results in a seperate population branching off of the first).


This is kind of like asking for a record of when, where and what letter Shakespeare wrote down every time he put his pen to paper when writing all of his plays. We don't have a complete enough picture in order to know exactly what mutations arose, but we know the broad picture.


The same kinda of small changes that can take place with any kind of reproduction. Nothing ever reproduces an EXACT copy of itself - everything that reproduces (asexually or sexually) does so with variation. In the case of cells, these changes can be just as numerous as with anything else. They could absorb nutrients in a very slightly different way. They could develop a tougher membrane. They could develop resistance to certain bacteria.

A famous example would be the experiments conducted on e coli bacteria over a decade ago. In around 20 years, several populations of bacteria were observed to develop greater size, higher metabolism, etc. One population, however, acquired the ability to absorb citrate - something e coli bacteria previously couldn't do.

These are just the kinds of things we can OBSERVE bacteria acquiring over a span of less than two decades.


No, probably not.

What is more likely is that certain cells evolved an improved ability to kind of "stick together", and reproduced other cells with this similar feature, but that's just one idea. However, the potetial for this kind of mutation has been observed to occur in laboratory testing.


That depends whether the two heads were a result of a mutation in the genes or some other defect.


See above.


No worries! I hope my answer is, at the very least, interesting to you.

Yes, interesting and very different from the people on here who just say that those who do not understand evolution are stupid. Perhaps th most interesting thing was where you said maybe cells developed an ability to kind of stick together better. Very interesting. A group of cells could very possibly have a better chance to survive than a single cell alone. Makes a lot of sense. But let's go to the next step. They would still be a group of single cell animals sticking together. Each cell is the same. At some point at least one of those cells has to become different. For example one might start to form a foot or an eye or a heart. We have a group of very similar cells. A few may be larger or shaped a little different but they are complete one cell animals in each and every cell. What small change might cause one of them to be completely different to the point that it is now part of a multi cell animal where different cells perform different functions. This does not seem like a small change so there must be a series of small changes that lead to this. What might they be? Surely one cell did not decide it would be happier as a foot and another cell an eye. These are major changes and I have trouble seeing how small changes could cause this.You must admit there is a very big difference between a group of similar single cell animals sticking together and a worm. Can you suggest anything that would make this easier to see? Thanks for some interesting information so far and I hope you can supply more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Education....or indoctrination? That word doesn’t just apply to religion you know....


The Bible explains that quite well IMO. Since I do not hold to YEC beliefs, I see creation more as a process over very long creative periods. There is no way that the creative “days” were 24 hour periods. The Bible allows for this.

If each creative period allotted in a progressive process of creation, was hundreds of thousands or even millions of years long, that allows God to be a “Creator” rather than a “magician”.

If all lifeforms were individually created, observed and tweaked over the time he allotted to accomplish the finished product, this is mirrored by how humans (reflecting their Maker) accomplish their own creativity. Some things make the final cut and some don’t. Some may have accomplished a purpose for a specific time and were allowed to die out. We have as many valid suggestions as science does. There are no restrictions about this in the biblical account. How could Moses know that the earth itself was originally a “formless and waste” planet, completely covered with water.....and uninhabitable until the Creator chose to prepare it, and to plant the first living things here. How could he know that life began in the oceans?...and that creation follows the order that science basically supports?


Don’t turn blue on my account EH.....you are free to believe whatever you wish, just as am I. There are valid reasons for my skepticism regarding evolution, just as you believe you have valid reasons for yours with regard to religion. We are all shaped by something or someone.

I believe that it will all come out in the wash.......we will all know one day, as the world is under unprecedented assault, why we are here and who is responsible for the existence of life and why we ourselves are being tweaked in the midst of all this chaos, for our future role here. The Bible explains it all for me....science science explains nothing.

I can't help but notice that you begin most of your expositions with "if..." and then blithely go on to assume that truly hypothetical "if" were true.

Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and if the moon were made of blue cheese, provisioning for a lunar colony would be simpler, and if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The way I reason it I my mind is like this. Humans used to have longer lifespans, right? Then God capped it at 120 years, according to the Bible. I believe this is an example of negative evolution happening and being documented

No, actually -- humans never had longer lifespans than they do today. In fact, in pre-history the human lifespan, on average, probably never got much past 40.

 

[tas8831]

6-aminohexanoic acid

Not off hand, but mutations often eliminate or reduce cellular systems and actions. Called antagonistic pleiotropy... a trade-off where a temporary benefit for surviving is given at the expense of systems used for other environments.

How often?

 

[tas8831]

. A group of cells could very possibly have a better chance to survive than a single cell alone. Makes a lot of sense. But let's go to the next step. They would still be a group of single cell animals sticking together. Each cell is the same. At some point at least one of those cells has to become different. For example one might start to form a foot or an eye or a heart.

Why would a cell grow a foot?

That sort of absurdity is why some "just say that those who do not understand evolution are stupid."

 

[an anarchist]

No, actually -- humans never had longer lifespans than they do today. In fact, in pre-history the human lifespan, on average, probably never got much past 40.

Well I’m a YEC, so the narrative I believe is different, as well as I have different reasons for believing what I believe.
I understand what you mean though, that that’s what scientific theory says is the most plausible theory, as well as an old earth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, actually -- humans never had longer lifespans than they do today. In fact, in pre-history the human lifespan, on average, probably never got much past 40.

Proof?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well I’m a YEC, so the narrative I believe is different, as well as I have different reasons for believing what I believe.
I understand what you mean though, that that’s what scientific theory says is the most plausible theory, as well as an old earth.

Well, what can I say -- you recognize that what you believe contradicts what can be reliably (scientifically) observed and tested. That is, of course, your privilege. Hope it works for you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Proof?

Life expectancy - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

I can't help but notice that you begin most of your expositions with "if..." and then blithely go on to assume that truly hypothetical "if" were true.

That works both ways EH. Science has just as many “if’s” in its explanation about how life evolved on this planet. But regardless of its claims, there are no certainties about any of it. I simply see two “belief systems”....we choose which one appeals to us, for our own reasons.

Evolutionists don’t really have a clue how life began, and will completely divorce themselves from the question as if it has nothing to do with how life “evolved”....but IF life was created instead of suddenly and inexplicably popping into existence for no apparent reason way back in the dim dark past, then it changes everything....no wonder evolutionary science doesn’t want to associate itself with abiogenesis. They are inextricably related.

Imagine the day IF the Creator calls all the unbelievers to account, saying......”I gave you so much evidence for my existence, how could you believe that all life on this carefully prepared planet was just a series of fortunate, unguided accidents?.....such blindness was something I predicted because you humans wanted to abuse the free will I gave you, so......because this was a test....you failed.....”

I could see many unbelievers going down cursing and shaking their fists. How would you respond?

Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and if the moon were made of blue cheese, provisioning for a lunar colony would be simpler, and if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

This also applies equally to your own beliefs. Funny how you don’t see it. Science cannot prove anything it believes about macro-evolution......is that a good enough foundation to believe all of what it suggests? Can you bet your life on it? Seems as if a great many people have been convinced (largely by science) that there is no God.....but what IF there is? And what IF our future life is on the line here? I have a feeling that many would prefer no life to one that meant submission to a higher power, who required obedience......but again, what IF that higher power was offering something more wonderful in the future than any of us could imagine, in return for that obedience? I would rather entertain that thought, than to put my future in the hands of science, which can guarantee no future at all.....and which in fact, is itself largely responsible for threatening all life on this planet right now.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would rather entertain that thought, than to put my future in the hands of science, which can guarantee no future at all.....and which in fact, is itself largely responsible for threatening all life on this planet right now.

I'm not going to bother responding to most of your post. It's based on unsupported (in any way whatever ever except hear-say) beliefs. Science may infer a lot, but it does so with enormous chains of evidence -- absolutely enormous. And it's all based on observing what CAN BE observed -- not on highly imaginative apologetics based primarily on sophistry.

But your last statement requires a response -- and that response is TOTAL RUBBISH. Science (and technology) provide tools. The use made of those tools moves immediately out of the hands of the scientists and technologists that gave them to us, and into the hands of ordinary humans. Nuclear power provides untold amounts of energy -- but if we use it blow up cities, that's US. Science and technology gave us plastic -- but we embrace it for everything imaginable to make our lives easier, then throw it away without a thought polluting our world. Science and technology gave us weapons to hunt animals for food, and to defend ourselves -- and we embrace them gleefully in killing other human beings, often enough in incredibly cruel ways.

And science is working madly away at stopping the emission of (or the reabsorption of) greenhouse gasses, while governments around the world are balking at funding them -- and the governments aren't science, they're US.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Life expectancy - Wikipedia

Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!

And I've no doubt whatever that you personally went and reviewed all 155 citations about the article.

As always, how you use resources presented to you is up to you. Ignoring them altogether is just as permissible as tracing down every citation. And the only outcomes from those are what you yourself learn. If you don't want to know anything, then don't bother looking. If you are interested in learning, it wouldn't hurt to do a little digging.

 

[Deeje]

You need some new material.

So do you.....

Try starting with talking points that aren't 50 years old.

Doesn’t science need talking points that aren’t 50 million years old?

So this about sums it up?

"Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence."
-Matt Dillahunty

Couldn’t have said it better myself....science has no real evidence for its first premise....therefore, everything that is built on that brilliant piece of wishful thinking is based on “faith” not real evidence....a very inconvenient truth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!

Anything there you specifically disagree with, or is generic wellpoisoning all you got?