What is Evolution?

[sayak83]

Over the course of many threads here, it has become clear to me that many skeptics of the science of evolution do not understand what evolution is or how it is supposed to work. So I thought it would be good to summarize the main aspects of evolution in a thread so that the basics are clearly expressed for all to see.

Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory (like atomic theory, quantum theory, germ theory) that seeks to explain
1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet
2)The patterns that exist in this diversity of life
Eg. Why the animals in Australia so different from animals in Eurasia. Why can animals be organized in closely allied groups (cat family, dog family, bear family etc.)
3)Why and how the living creatures have the traits they have and the behave the way they do.
Eg:- Why do some plants have flowers while others are flowerless. Why are whales so different from fish though they both live on water.
4)The specific history of life as uncovered by the fossil record and how patterns in that history makes sense.

The theory of evolution seeks to predict:-
1)How species and ecosystems will respond to changes, natural or artificial.
2)To predict and uncover the current evolutionary trajectory of pathogens and how to stay one step ahead in defending against them.
3)Using evolutionary trends and relationships among species in order to be more effective in artificial breeding, GM strains, gene therapy, identification and treatment of genetic disorders etc.


Basic features of the theory of evolution:-
a) Evolution is the change between generations within a population lineage defined by ancestor-descendant relationships. A population is defined by a group of living organisms that inter-breed (or exchange genetic material) often enough over the generations to be considered to have a common pool of genes between them.

b) Genes are specific segments of DNA that determines what proteins get built, how much and when. Proteins build all physical features of the body and controls and constitutes all processes occurring within the organism that determines how it lives and how it behaves.

c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered.

d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation.

e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where.

f)This in turn modifies the structure and behavior of the individuals from one generation to the next and act as a source of variation of characteristics between members of the population and over time.

g) Variation of characters impact (positively or negatively) the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce with others of its population. The organisms that gain an advantage in survival and reproduction leave behind more offsprings that have its genes in the population. Thus genes that improve the survival and reproductive "fitness" of the individual becomes more widespread and eventually dominate over others...until a newer and more "fit" type of gene emerge to outcompete it in turn.

h) This process of enhancement of traits and associated genes that make the organisms better able to thrive in the environment it is in is called natural selection. This is how mutations that confer a survival and reproductive benefit in the organism becomes widespread in the population over time.

i)Over time, a population may change in physical features and behavior so much that it can no longer be called the same species as the earlier ancestral population.

j) If a population gets isolated into two or more groups due to new geographic barriers, the process of mutation and the enhancement of beneficial mutations through natural selection operates independently in both subgroups, making them slowly distinct from each other. Over time, the two populations become so different that they no longer look or behave the same and do not interbreed in the wild. Thus one species splits into two. This process is called speciation and results in the branching tree of life and the present diversity from past forms.

Hope the basic theory is clear. I will add more stuff. Let me if you have questions.

 

[Skwim]

Nice post.

However, the problem with almost all creationists, including those here on RF isn't that they don't understand what evolution is or how it is supposed to work, but that they don't care to. Having committed themselves to the utter truth of the Bible, anything, no matter what it may be, ethics, the variety of life, or the formation of the universe, has to completely agree with their beliefs or it's simply false. No ifs, ands, or buts. Oh, they'll pick up on a point or two to debate, but it isn't to attain a better understanding. It's to refute and try to demolish the beast of evolution that threatens the peace of mind their religion brings them. The thinking being: if evolution is right then my religious theology has to be wrong, And if that's wrong, what is there to live for . . . . well, perhaps not bad, but they've got a huge emotional investment in the truth of their faith. One that's just too valuable to allow to be picked at. Hell, just look at any of the creationists web sites and see how much they're forced to lie about evolution. Why lie? Because on its own creationism has virtually nothing to stand on other than "The Bible tells me so," whereas evolution is backed by impartial evidence, reason, and logic, things religious faith can't lay claim to . . . . . . . well, justifiably anyway.

Again, good post.


.

 

[gnostic]

I agree with Skwim.

Not only they refuse to learn what evolution actually mean, what they "think" they know about evolution are often based on misinformation.

They often confused evolution for abiogenesis, the origin of life. They also think evolution is that life can be made out of "nothing". This tell me that are not at all well-educated as they think they are.

They can't even seem to grasp the differences between theory as use in everyday language and the scientific theory. I don't know how many times, I have tried to explain to them, but they refuse to be educated on real science definition.

I don't mind that they disagree with me, but if they are going to insist in arguing against evolution, they should at the very least understand the basics of scientific theory (in general) and biology, instead of repeating the same stupid misinformation, over and over again.

 

[sayak83]

Nice post.

However, the problem with almost all creationists, including those here on RF isn't that they don't understand what evolution is or how it is supposed to work, but that they don't care to. Having committed themselves to the utter truth of the Bible, anything, no matter what it may be, ethics, the variety of life, or the formation of the universe, has to completely agree with their beliefs or it's simply false. No ifs, ands, or buts. Oh, they'll pick up on a point or two to debate, but it isn't to attain a better understanding. It's to refute and try to demolish the beast of evolution that threatens the peace of mind their religion brings them. The thinking being: if evolution is right then my religious theology has to be wrong, And if that's wrong, what is there to live for . . . . well, perhaps not bad, but they've got a huge emotional investment in the truth of their faith that's just too valuable to be even picked at. Hell, just look at any of the creationists web sites and see how much they're forced to lie about evolution. Why lie? Because on its own creationism has virtually nothing to stand on other than "The Bible tells me so," whereas evolution is backed by impartial evidence, reason, and logic, things religious faith can't claim to have . . . . . . . well, justifiably anyway.

Again, good post.


.

The RF is significantly different from other forums due to
1) Its diversity of audience:- Christians of all stripes, Muslims of all stripes, pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics. Not everyone here is set in their ways and might be interested in knowing and understanding evolutionary science a bit better for their own interests. People cannot ask questions to a book author, and few have taken biology classes where evolution is taught as a subject. Since I know something about it, I thought this forum is a good place to share the knowledge.

2) The complete absence of trolls:- Do not know how they have done it, but in this forum there are no trolls! Yay. Even the most committed creationists here pursues intelligent conversation here.

3) Ability to post pictures and charts:- Figures and charts are key in presenting scinetific knowledge. Again something that RF provides as a posting feature that is not usually available outside.

4) Finally as a scientist from India with Hindu/Buddhist leanings I am not in the us-them slingfest. Thus people might be open to hearing such things from me than an Dawkinsian atheist. South Asia has a long history of religious pluralism as well as more recent religious tensions between various faith groups. This makes me especially motivated to try to do what I can to prevent people from breaking into belief-based silos that leads to the kind of violence and intolerance that many in my community (including my own family ) has suffered from.

So I will do what I must and leave it to the people who read it to believe what they will.

 

[sayak83]

Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory (like atomic theory, quantum theory, germ theory) that seeks to explain
1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet
2)The patterns that exist in this diversity of life
Eg. Why the animals in Australia so different from animals in Eurasia. Why can animals be organized in closely allied groups (cat family, dog family, bear family etc.)
3)Why and how the living creatures have the traits they have and the behave the way they do.
Eg:- Why do some plants have flowers while others are flowerless. Why are whales so different from fish though they both live on water.
4)The specific history of life as uncovered by the fossil record and how patterns in that history makes sense.

The theory of evolution seeks to predict:-
1)How species and ecosystems will respond to changes, natural or artificial.
2)To predict and uncover the current evolutionary trajectory of pathogens and how to stay one step ahead in defending against them.
3)Using evolutionary trends and relationships among species in order to be more effective in artificial breeding, GM strains, gene therapy, identification and treatment of genetic disorders etc.


Basic features of the theory of evolution:-
a) Evolution is the change between generations within a population lineage defined by ancestor-descendant relationships. A population is defined by a group of living organisms that inter-breed (or exchange genetic material) often enough over the generations to be considered to have a common pool of genes between them.

b) Genes are specific segments of DNA that determines what proteins get built, how much and when. Proteins build all physical features of the body and controls and constitutes all processes occurring within the organism that determines how it lives and how it behaves.

c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered.

d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation.

e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where.

f)This in turn modifies the structure and behavior of the individuals from one generation to the next and act as a source of variation of characteristics between members of the population and over time.

g) Variation of characters impact (positively or negatively) the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce with others of its population. The organisms that gain an advantage in survival and reproduction leave behind more offsprings that have its genes in the population. Thus genes that improve the survival and reproductive "fitness" of the individual becomes more widespread and eventually dominate over others...until a newer and more "fit" type of gene emerge to outcompete it in turn.

h) This process of enhancement of traits and associated genes that make the organisms better able to thrive in the environment it is in is called natural selection. This is how mutations that confer a survival and reproductive benefit in the organism becomes widespread in the population over time.

i)Over time, a population may change in physical features and behavior so much that it can no longer be called the same species as the earlier ancestral population.

j) If a population gets isolated into two or more groups due to new geographic barriers, the process of mutation and the enhancement of beneficial mutations through natural selection operates independently in both subgroups, making them slowly distinct from each other. Over time, the two populations become so different that they no longer look or behave the same and do not interbreed in the wild. Thus one species splits into two. This process is called speciation and results in the branching tree of life and the present diversity from past forms.

Hope the basic theory is clear. I will add more stuff. Let me if you have questions.

Certain important features of the living animals and the fossil record that the theory of evolution explains:-


Observed pattern of Progression in the fossil record:-
Progression is defined as the pattern in the fossil record in which

i) Fossils from the earliest strata will look very very different from modern living things.

ii) The creatures depicted in the most ancient strata of the fossil record will be continually replaced by new creatures in subsequent strata who, while sharing many features of the earlier creatures, will also show modifications in some of the features and emergence of some new features. They in turn will be replaced by new creatures in a subsequent strata again showing a similar trend of gradual modifications of features, elimination of some older features and emergence of some new features.

iii) Due to this trend, fossils in closely spaces strata will look similar to each other and in more distant strata will look more different. This trend cannot be explained by functional needs due to change in habitat alone as often modified species occupy nearly same kinds of habitats as older replaced species (like Pterosaurs vs birds, mesosaurs vs dolphins etc.)

iv) Levels closer to the present will increasingly show creatures that look more and more like modern forms (but not the same).

v) When modern creatures are categorized in groups based on character, it is found that the broadest and most generalized of features appear in a primitive form in the earliest fossils (like possessing a spine) while more specific features restricted to specialized subgroups (like having limbs, having feathers etc.) appear in creatures that appear later in the fossil record. More specialized and restricted the feature, the later it appears (like possessing a hoof as in horses appear later than possessing fur as in mammals in general).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adaptation and its observed limits:-

Adaptation is a feature of an organism that fits it to its conditions of existence. Such features play a biological role in the overall life and behavior of the organism in its environment that enables it to pursue activities that help it to survive and reproduce. Eg. Eyes for seeing etc. In and of itself, adaptation, while well explained by evolution, does not rule out other possibilities (like design). But its the idiosyncratic features of adaptive traits that makes evolution more plausible than other contending theories. These are:-

Unity of Type:-
Observation of similarities in structures and physiology among organisms that are leading different ways of life under diverse conditions of existence, going beyond any functional need.
Eg:- Similarity of limb structure and physiology (like hot blooded-ness, mammary glands) between whales, a sea-living creature and most land living mammals.
Eg:- Similarity of limb structure and feather-coat between flying birds and sea living penguins.
Eg:- All tetrapod embroyos show the emergence of four limb buds, even though snakes and some whales lack two of the limbs
Eg:- Human embroyos show the appearance of ape-like fur coat before they lose it just before birth.
Eg:- The same interpretation rule of DNA code to amino acid code for all life even though many other equivalent coding rules would have served the same function.

This Unity of Type where there is similarity without functional needs goes along with entrenched differences between characters in organisms despite the fact that they serve the same function.

Eg:- Difference in fin structure between whales and sharks even though both are used to swim in the open ocean in similar conditions
Difference in wing structure of bats, birds and ancient pterosaurs even though all three used them for flying.
Vastly Different eye structure between insects like bees and tetrapods like mammals and birds even though they are both used for seeing on land in daylight.
Kangaroos, Ostrich and humans all walk and run on two legs over ground and yet their leg structure and manner of locomotion are all vastly different.

All of this shows that adaptation to functional role alone cannot explain many of the similarities and dissimilarities found in the structures and behaviors and physiology of animals as would have been expected from a purely design based theory of origin of species.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Darwin's theory of descent with modification selected for and against by natural selection is able to explain

a) Unity of Type as emerging via inherited traits from common ancestral populations that later diverged into multiple species. The existence of such common ancestral populations sharing unity of type, say among whales and land mammals is bolstered by the fossil evidence of transitional walking whales

b) Modification over successive generations selected for and against by natural selection leads to adaptations that fit the environment the descendant populations find themselves in (as modification of legs into fins and tail into flukes in the evolving whale lineage above) while retaining the unity of type in the internal structure between the evolved fins and the legs of land mammals, thus making them different from shark fins and tail.

c) When played out over geological time, descent with modification leads to the fossil signature of progression discussed earlier.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the theory of evolution shows clear superiority of explanatory power in explaining existing patterns in fossils and living animals and successfully predicting expected patterns in newly discovered fossils or features in living organisms.

For example, evolution predicts that since mammals evolved from egg laying reptiles, there will be non-functioning relict egg laying genes in modern mammals that do not lay eggs. These relict genes have been found.

https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpress.com/2016/10/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

cobblers!


Survival of the fittest, shared design traits, a general progression towards bigger/better but with some dead ends, regressions, mass extinctions, sudden jumps in the historic record.. large gaps with no intermediates.

Are we talking about the evolution of life?

or these?

I don't know either.

Because the whole theory works equally well for both- arguably even better for cars-
like this- I pulled this paragraph out randomly.



Certain important features of the surviving autos and the junk yard record that the theory of evolution explains:-


Observed pattern of Progression in the junk yard record:-
Progression is defined as the pattern in the junk yard record in which

i) cars from the earliest strata will look very very different from modern running cars

ii) The cars depicted in the most ancient strata of the junk yard record will be continually replaced by new cars in subsequent strata which, while sharing many features of the earlier cars, will also show modifications in some of the features and emergence of some new features. They in turn will be replaced by new cars in a subsequent strata again showing a similar trend of gradual modifications of features, elimination of some older features and emergence of some new features.

iii) Due to this trend, cars in closely spaces strata will look similar to each other and in more distant strata will look more different. This trend cannot be explained by functional needs due to change in habitat alone as often modified models occupy nearly same kinds of habitats as older replaced species (like Lincolns vs Studebakers, Cadillacs v Desotos etc.)

iv) Levels closer to the present will increasingly show cars that look more and more like modern forms (but not the same).

v) When modern cars are categorized in groups based on character, it is found that the broadest and most generalized of features appear in a primitive form in the earliest cars (like possessing a chassis) while more specific features restricted to specialized subgroups (like having 4WD, having tailgates) appear in cars that appear later in the fossil record. More specialized and restricted the feature, the later it appears (like possessing OnStar as in Chevrolets appears later than possessing 4wd as in SUVs in general).

I didn't have to change any substance here, just the names and features

i.e. none of this suggests anything whatsoever about all these design improvements being the result of blind luck, if anything the opposite is implied by the observed evidence

 

[sayak83]

cobblers!


Survival of the fittest, shared design traits, a general progression towards bigger/better but with some dead ends, regressions, mass extinctions, sudden jumps in the historic record.. large gaps with no intermediates.

Are we talking about the evolution of life?

or these?

I don't know either.

Because the whole theory works equally well for both- arguably even better for cars-
like this- I pulled this paragraph out randomly.



Certain important features of the surviving autos and the junk yard record that the theory of evolution explains:-


Observed pattern of Progression in the junk yard record:-
Progression is defined as the pattern in the junk yard record in which

i) cars from the earliest strata will look very very different from modern running cars

ii) The cars depicted in the most ancient strata of the junk yard record will be continually replaced by new cars in subsequent strata which, while sharing many features of the earlier cars, will also show modifications in some of the features and emergence of some new features. They in turn will be replaced by new cars in a subsequent strata again showing a similar trend of gradual modifications of features, elimination of some older features and emergence of some new features.

iii) Due to this trend, cars in closely spaces strata will look similar to each other and in more distant strata will look more different. This trend cannot be explained by functional needs due to change in habitat alone as often modified models occupy nearly same kinds of habitats as older replaced species (like Lincolns vs Studebakers, Cadillacs v Desotos etc.)

iv) Levels closer to the present will increasingly show cars that look more and more like modern forms (but not the same).

v) When modern cars are categorized in groups based on character, it is found that the broadest and most generalized of features appear in a primitive form in the earliest cars (like possessing a chassis) while more specific features restricted to specialized subgroups (like having 4WD, having tailgates) appear in cars that appear later in the fossil record. More specialized and restricted the feature, the later it appears (like possessing OnStar as in Chevrolets appears later than possessing 4wd as in SUVs in general).

I didn't have to change any substance here, just the names and features

i.e. none of this suggests anything whatsoever about all these design improvements being the result of blind luck, if anything the opposite is implied by the observed evidence

Human beings who have very limited foresight, have little ability to know what the ideal solution to a problem should be like or anticipate new problems, quite error-prone and have to constantly update design through trial and error and are also inherently competitive creating patents and competing companies trying to find solutions to the same problem independently -- replicate many of the limitations of the evolutionary process itself. This is not surprising, as human ways of finding optimum solutions is the same algorithm that evolution uses, which is the most efficient way to design anything when the future or the optimal solution is unknown. Individual humans come with new ways to tinker with existing design and natural selection of the free market act on the variants and select the most "fit" by consumer choice. Then the next round of mutations and selection happens on the designs that survive. The algorithm of evolution has been applied explicitly and implicitly in all human design efforts. Our confidence that the evolutionary mechanism can do the job is because we have applied it ourselves everywhere and it really works.

The problem with this is, unless you are positing that species were created continuously by a bunch of squabbling human-like aliens who did it for 4.5 billion years and then vanished without living a trace, the idea is a non-starter. Because God is not like humans. He has perfect knowledge of the future and knows all ideal solutions and is fully capable of implementing everything in one go. God, the fore-sightless, error-prone, learning through continuous trial-and error tinkering extending through 4 billion years is probably the worst theology one can have. Unless you are going for generations of gods (like in Sumerian and Greek pantheons) squabbling with each other making and remaking the world, only slightly more knowledgeable and powerful than humans themselves and as prone to errors and mistakes and mood swings as the worst human....you got nothing.

 

[Deeje]

Certain important features of the living animals and the fossil record that the theory of evolution explains:........

But Darwin's theory of descent with modification selected for and against by natural selection is able to explain

a) Unity of Type as emerging via inherited traits from common ancestral populations that later diverged into multiple species. The existence of such common ancestral populations sharing unity of type, say among whales and land mammals is bolstered by the fossil evidence of transitional walking whales

b) Modification over successive generations selected for and against by natural selection leads to adaptations that fit the environment the descendant populations find themselves in (as modification of legs into fins and tail into flukes in the evolving whale lineage above) while retaining the unity of type in the internal structure between the evolved fins and the legs of land mammals, thus making them different from shark fins and tail.

c) When played out over geological time, descent with modification leads to the fossil signature of progression discussed earlier.

There is only one problem with this suggestion and its diagram.......there is not a single shred of solid evidence that links any of these creatures to one another except when scientists are trying to promote a theory that has no real way to test it.

It is just as likely that all these creatures lived and died as separate species who are no longer with us.

Can science really be suggesting that this....

extinct about 48 million years ago.
turned into this (Pakicetus)

then to this (Ambulocetus)

then to this (Rodhocetus)

then to this (Dorocetus)

and finally to this (Baleana)

Now compare the first picture with the last one and tell me that you really believe that nonsense.

A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.

This is a joke...right?

 

[sayak83]

There is only one problem with this suggestion and its diagram.......there is not a single shred of solid evidence that links any of these creatures to one another except when scientists are trying to promote a theory that has no real way to test it.

It is just as likely that all these creatures lived and died as separate species who are no longer with us.

Can science really be suggesting that this....

extinct about 48 million years ago.
turned into this (Pakicetus)

then to this (Ambulocetus)

then to this (Rodhocetus)

then to this (Dorocetus)

and finally to this (Baleana)

Now compare the first picture with the last one and tell me that you really believe that nonsense.

A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.

This is a joke...right?

Dead serious. Scientists are certainly telling that they are descended from each other and the evidence is absolutely clear from the structure of the bones. I am happy to create a whale evolution thread and talk about this bone by bone, and skeleton by skeleton demonstrating the overwhelming evidence for evolution through common descent. But, I have yet to see you engage with me in any of the detailed anatomical studies for example in the human evolution or in the giraffe evolution or in the tetrapod evolution that I have presented so far...

https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpr...-from-land-mammals-to-the-ancestor-of-whales/

http://statedclearly.com/articles/fossil-spotlight-maiacetus-the-mother-whale/

 

[Deeje]

Dead serious. Scientists are certainly telling that they are descended from each other and the evidence is absolutely clear from the structure of the bones. I am happy to create a whale evolution thread and talk about this bone by bone, and skeleton by skeleton demonstrating the overwhelming evidence for evolution through common descent. But, I have yet to see you engage with me in any of the detailed anatomical studies for example in the human evolution or in the giraffe evolution or in the tetrapod evolution that I have presented so far...

https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpr...-from-land-mammals-to-the-ancestor-of-whales/

http://statedclearly.com/articles/fossil-spotlight-maiacetus-the-mother-whale/

LOL...you forget that I reject your so-called "evidence" because there is no way to verify it.

Whales were created in the oceans. They did not evolve from land animals and there is no way to prove that they did. You can believe they did if you wish, but similarities in animals now extinct, does not prove relationship....all it proves is that there were similar creatures who once lived and now they are gone.

How does evolution explain the life cycle of a salamander? According to one source...."they are considered amphibians. They live and grow in water until they eventually develop lungs, so that they can start to breathe air. Before that they resemble a polliwog or fish and they even have gills. This creature is known for changing forms while it grows, so that it can go through the salamander life cycle."

They start off with gills and develop lungs as they grow to adulthood......please explain how this ability could possibly evolve?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Human beings who have very limited foresight, have little ability to know what the ideal solution to a problem should be like or anticipate new problems, quite error-prone and have to constantly update design through trial and error and are also inherently competitive creating patents and competing companies trying to find solutions to the same problem independently -- replicate many of the limitations of the evolutionary process itself. This is not surprising, as human ways of finding optimum solutions is the same algorithm that evolution uses, which is the most efficient way to design anything when the future or the optimal solution is unknown. Individual humans come with new ways to tinker with existing design and natural selection of the free market act on the variants and select the most "fit" by consumer choice. Then the next round of mutations and selection happens on the designs that survive. The algorithm of evolution has been applied explicitly and implicitly in all human design efforts. Our confidence that the evolutionary mechanism can do the job is because we have applied it ourselves everywhere and it really works.

The mechanism really works, where ID is not banished from the process, because it is a vital component of the algorithm.

"same algorithm that evolution uses, which is the most efficient way to design anything"

okay, let's try that. Why not mimic 'nature' as posited by Darwinists. Instead of wasting all this money and time bickering with our own flawed predictions and preferences, auto companies should do away with all R&D departments altogether.
Simply do what evolution does, take the blueprints for each current model RANDOMLY MUTATE THEM and let the public select the best resulting design. Survival of the fittest, natural selection- still applies yes, people would select the 'best' model and by this, these plans would survive to be passed to the next generation. right?

But herein lies the fallacy so many overlook. Survival of the fittest in no way demands that the succeeding generation is fitter than the last. Just as in nature, random corruption of the plans would lead to overwhelmingly more deleterious changes than significant design improvements. Some more destructive than others. Consumers would select the car with the malfunctioning passenger seat warmer, over the car with the malfunctioning transmission- and so on. You see? The model by this algorithm, would not evolve into a superior car, it would quickly de-volve into oblivion. So too with the blueprints of life.

The problem with this is, unless you are positing that species were created continuously by a bunch of squabbling human-like aliens who did it for 4.5 billion years and then vanished without living a trace, the idea is a non-starter. Because God is not like humans. He has perfect knowledge of the future and knows all ideal solutions and is fully capable of implementing everything in one go. God, the fore-sightless, error-prone, learning through continuous trial-and error tinkering extending through 4 billion years is probably the worst theology one can have. Unless you are going for generations of gods (like in Sumerian and Greek pantheons) squabbling with each other making and remaking the world, only slightly more knowledgeable and powerful than humans themselves and as prone to errors and mistakes and mood swings as the worst human....you got nothing.

You forget.. that time itself was part of the creation of the universe. The creator, be it a 'natural event' or God, is not bound by the laws of it's own creation! So God did create humans, along with everything else, in one go. We were described in the primeval atom, and formed according to this ultimate self extracting archive of information- blueprints, highly specific instructions, not random chance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is only one problem with this suggestion and its diagram.......there is not a single shred of solid evidence that links any of these creatures to one another except when scientists are trying to promote a theory that has no real way to test it.

It is just as likely that all these creatures lived and died as separate species who are no longer with us.

Can science really be suggesting that this....

extinct about 48 million years ago.
turned into this (Pakicetus)

then to this (Ambulocetus)

then to this (Rodhocetus)

then to this (Dorocetus)

and finally to this (Baleana)

Now compare the first picture with the last one and tell me that you really believe that nonsense.

A bunch of bones does not in any way link any of these creatures to one another, millions of years apart. There are no transitional species in between any of these and you only have to look at the depiction of Pakicetus and compare it to Ambulocetus and you can see a very big stretch of someone's imagination.

This is a joke...right?

Yes, a lot of artistic license here!

long ago, the gaps were written off as mere artifacts of an incomplete record- to be filled in later. That was a core prediction of the theory. But as David Raup, curator of the Field Museum Chicago said, we have even less transitional examples today than we did in Darwin's time. Because the ones we claimed then turned out to be wrong.

Some Darwinists still claim an incomplete record, 'evolution of the gaps' that the transitional fossils are still hidden or lost- but 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade!

Increasingly scientists are beginning to accept the scientific evidence for what it shows, very distinct and sudden appearances, followed by long periods of stasis, and often sudden disappearances and replacements.
Not slow gradual evolution as once predicted

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is only one problem with this suggestion and its diagram.......there is not a single shred of solid evidence that links any of these creatures to one another except when scientists are trying to promote a theory that has no real way to test it

Done.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n1/full/ng.2835.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113012367/genes-show-how-whales-evolved-for-ocean-life-112513/

 

[sayak83]

The mechanism really works, where ID is not banished from the process, because it is a vital component of the algorithm.

"same algorithm that evolution uses, which is the most efficient way to design anything"

okay, let's try that. Why not mimic 'nature' as posited by Darwinists. Instead of wasting all this money and time bickering with our own flawed predictions and preferences, auto companies should do away with all R&D departments altogether.
Simply do what evolution does, take the blueprints for each current model RANDOMLY MUTATE THEM and let the public select the best resulting design. Survival of the fittest, natural selection- still applies yes, people would select the 'best' model and by this, these plans would survive to be passed to the next generation. right?

We do this regularly in implementing automated design nowadays in engineering product design.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g4urCAAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

But herein lies the fallacy so many overlook. Survival of the fittest in no way demands that the succeeding generation is fitter than the last. Just as in nature, random corruption of the plans would lead to overwhelmingly more deleterious changes than significant design improvements. Some more destructive than others. Consumers would select the car with the malfunctioning passenger seat warmer, over the car with the malfunctioning transmission- and so on. You see? The model by this algorithm, would not evolve into a superior car, it would quickly de-volve into oblivion. So too with the blueprints of life.

You are forgetting natural selection. All the descendants with bad mutations will be automatically eliminated from the gene pool as they won't survive to be adults and reproduce. In humans, 60% of all conceived embroyos are spontaneously aborted due to them having developmental problems caused by bad mutations. In fish like carp, only 2 out of 2 million individuals born ever survive into adulthood to reproduce. The relation between a car about to be bought from a store is like an organism that has survived the developmental process (not junked in the assembly line itself) and the stress test of growing up to adulthood against the dangers of the natural world (stress tested cars). Geneticists know that the rates of bad mutations is about 5%, that of good mutations is about 0.5-1% and that of neutral mutations is about 96% by direct experimentation and that almost all organisms with bad mutations simply don't survive long enough to reproduce. Natural selection works extremely well in driving these "wannabe cars" through rigorous testing in the "real world driving tests" before sending them to the customers to "reproduce".

You forget.. that time itself was part of the creation of the universe. The creator, be it a 'natural event' or God, is not bound by the laws of it's own creation! So God did create humans, along with everything else, in one go. We were described in the primeval atom, and formed according to this ultimate self extracting archive of information- blueprints, highly specific instructions, not random chance.

Which implies that the created world should look nothing like the error-prone trial-error tinkering of human design efforts towards making good cars in the 20th century! Human beings and the evolutionary process share limitations in being not infallible and not having much wisdom and foresight. Therefore they share similar trajectories in their design processes and outcomes. But God?

 

[sayak83]

LOL...you forget that I reject your so-called "evidence" because there is no way to verify it.

Whales were created in the oceans. They did not evolve from land animals and there is no way to prove that they did. You can believe they did if you wish, but similarities in animals now extinct, does not prove relationship....all it proves is that there were similar creatures who once lived and now they are gone.

How does evolution explain the life cycle of a salamander? According to one source...."they are considered amphibians. They live and grow in water until they eventually develop lungs, so that they can start to breathe air. Before that they resemble a polliwog or fish and they even have gills. This creature is known for changing forms while it grows, so that it can go through the salamander life cycle."

They start off with gills and develop lungs as they grow to adulthood......please explain how this ability could possibly evolve?

Ah hit and run is it? Try something else when whale fossils don't work? Typical. Ask about salamander in your own thread. I will not play your whack-a-mole game of asking for something, claiming that you reject all evidence that is provided just because you can't believe it and then asking for something else. This thread will discuss and clarify the basic concepts of the theory of evolution and how it works. If you have any questions that pertain to the concepts I have explained here, ask. Otherwise you have your own thread where the evidence for and against is being discussed.

 

[savagewind]

1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet

Is "origin" right? I think to say "evolution describes the reason for the diversity of life".

The origin (beginning) of the diversity of life on the planet is not evolution.
I think there is no reasonable theory yet for the origin of life. Evolution is good for explaining what happened to life to make it as it is.

 

[sayak83]

Is "origin" right? I think to say "evolution describes the reason for the diversity of life".

The origin (beginning) of the diversity of life on the planet is not evolution.
I think there is no reasonable theory yet for the origin of life. Evolution is good for explaining what happened to life to make it as it is.

Origin of Diversity of Life
Not
Origin of Life

 

[savagewind]

Origin of Diversity of Life
Not
Origin of Life

Yes, I know that evolution had a beginning, but YOU say evolution started evolution. It didn't.
Evolution is about change. It's kind of funny. Evolution is the origin of evolution. It isn't.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We do this regularly in implementing automated design nowadays in engineering product design.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g4urCAAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I've used it myself in programming, many applications, one in our analogy- randomly adjusting suspension elements of a car and selecting for the most stable cornering, another example used here is in designing the most efficient antenna.

Again this proves that the trial and error algorithm works, where an intelligent designer is specifying various desirable fitness functions to be selected for.

The process finds, at best, the simplest most efficient way to achieve that fitness function. The antenna will never spontaneously develop sentience and ponder it's own existence! Even if that arguably made it a better antenna!

You are forgetting natural selection. All the descendants with bad mutations will be automatically eliminated from the gene pool as they won't survive to be adults and reproduce. In humans, 60% of all conceived embroyos are spontaneously aborted due to them having developmental problems caused by bad mutations. In fish like carp, only 2 out of 2 million individuals born ever survive into adulthood to reproduce. The relation between a car about to be bought from a store is like an organism that has survived the developmental process (not junked in the assembly line itself) and the stress test of growing up to adulthood against the dangers of the natural world (stress tested cars). Geneticists know that the rates of bad mutations is about 5%, that of good mutations is about 0.5-1% and that of neutral mutations is about 96% by direct experimentation and that almost all organisms with bad mutations simply don't survive long enough to reproduce. Natural selection works extremely well in driving these "wannabe cars" through rigorous testing in the "real world driving tests" before sending them to the customers to "reproduce".

not at all, natural selection still works without ID as I said, it still selects the best design, which just becomes the least worst design

I agree, the propensity for critically deleterious mutations, would mean that most randomly modified cars, wouldn't make it to the showroom at all- would never get the chance to reproduce. But of those that do, they will overwhelmingly still have defects of some kind- or perhaps relatively neutral inconsequential changes. You tell me, what are the odds, that a completely random corruption of an individual formula one racing car, creates a significantly superior race car, that wins significantly more races? practically nil.

So left to chance alone, natural selection has an inferior line up of new generation designs to select from, not a superior one

Which implies that the created world should look nothing like the error-prone trial-error tinkering of human design efforts towards making good cars in the 20th century! Human beings and the evolutionary process share limitations in being not infallible and not having much wisdom and foresight. Therefore they share similar trajectories in their design processes and outcomes. But God?

But as you said yourself- its the most efficient way to design anything. That's inconsistent with God's work? you'd expect him to use a less efficient method??

 

[savagewind]

Have I spilled somebodies marbles? I'm sorry.

Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain
1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet Evolution

The diversity of life on the planet got that way by evolving, which is called?

I believe it. I was actually thinking about trying to make it clear that some people who seem to be against the fact of evolution are really against the belief that it is the reason for life on the planet.

Evolution simply means to change. Change is not the reason life exists. Change is the reason life is so diverse.