Evolution

[ctogher]

Change of genetic make-up of a population of organisms over time!

Back on topic, the theory's weakest point remains the apparent absence of clearly defined margins of evolution, those "links" that would provide the absolute proof required... There is one point which is conspicuous in its absence.

 

The majority argument thus far refers to unspecified evolutionary advancement. From this I would read that today's monkey shows some similarity to tomorrow's man, but the graduations aren't there.

 

My point is that they are, we have just chosen to ignore them. Think of siamese twins. Is this not an example of evolution at work. Who says the change was gradual. Is it not the anomally that should be studied and not the norm. The normal is exactly that. unchanged...

 

Is it not possible that one species experienced a random mutation at some point in its development, and actively chose NOT to exclude it from the gene pool. (Note that in nature, siblings displaying any sort of abnormality are usually culled before reaching adulthood). Thereby permitting the mutation access, over a very short space of time, to the rest of its social group. Think of the speed with which this group would become affected by the mutation.

 

Just some private thought about where we could be misleading ourselves in trying to wrench some semblance of truth, while applying the filters and misconceptions of our predecessors.

 

Lets form a think tank where the wildest idea gets greater credence than the middle-of-the-road/bog standard/varsity induced doggerel that we all had. Remember what happened to Gallileo when he had the audacity to declare the world round and the sun the centre of the universe? ^_^

[Kethruch]

I look at the question of evolution as such. God is not an active god. If you think about it, what makes more sense, creating an entire system where everything is already at it's highest possible level, or putting in place a set of rules that the universe follows that allows for the growth of what you put into it. For creationism to work, you have to assume that man is the perfect being and that there cannot be anything greater. How sad to think that man is the ultimate achievement of God. How dreary to think that the future will hold nothing better than the current form of man.

 

Now think of an open system, where the rules are set in place, and energy added. Slowly, life takes hold and begins to adapt. The species that didn't work out so well or couldn't survive fell by the wayside, and the better suited ones continued. At some point, entire ecosystems got wiped out, taking millions of years of work with them. Still, the experiment continues. Another tack is taken by life, as much because the conditions were different than the first go round than be chance. God - I view him as a scientist, who is watching the experiment that he started long ago and seeing where it might lead.

 

I have seen arguments here that there are not enough variations for evolution to be real. I put it to you that there are millions of species that inhabit the earth, and those are just the forms that survived. As for the fossil records of the failures, do those who have complained of the lack of fossil evidence truly believe that every animal that ever died left fossil evidence of its existence? The fossilization of animals' bones occurs under only certain circumstances. The percent of all animals that ever lived on this planet that we can find evidence of is miniscule, to say the least. I find it astounding that we are finding so much evidence as we have of the hominids and pre-hominids and the link that they provide between early life and ourselves.

 

I have also seen the argument that if a bear really wanted to, it would grow wings and be able to fly. Look at it this way - what if something happened where there was a disaster that killed all of the bears if they lived on the ground, there would be no bears as we call them today. But, if just one family of those bears had a gene that allowed it to live on the ground, then voila, the bears without this protection get wiped out, and the stronger ones survive. On a much smaller level we can see this happening with bacteria. Some of the strains are becoming antibiotic resistant - what is causing this? It's simple, the bacteria that are weaker die off the quickest, leaving only the stronger bacteria. Over many generations, the bacteria that are left still exist because they are better suited for survival in a world where antibiotics exist. Hence, researchers have to find some other way to kill then that they do not have defences against.

 

To summarize - evolution and creationism can indeed co-exist, and to think that everything was created in the finalized state that it is in is unsupportable by looking at the basic life forms, which are changing before our very eyes and in as short a period as our lifetime.

[Pikeman85]

Argh. Let me try to explain this again.

 

Evolution = genetic change in a population over time.

 

That happens due to normal, sexual contact. It doesn't technically require a mutation, as during sex you're basically mixing and matching genetic material. While mutations do occur, the majority are very simple one, and don't make an individual look/act/do anything different, but only give a /very/ /very/ small reproductive advantage. Over generations, that adds up. It generally happens in an isolated environment because otherwise the whole population would change, and that generally is difficult to do, although I would assume possible, but the gene would likely be bred out unless it conferred a very useful survival advantage. I'm sorry, my knowledge of population genetics isn't much up to par, so I'm not sure the logistics of it.

 

I'm not precisely sure what causes Siamese twins. I've only read very little about them, but I've never seen them held up as an example of evolution. As for evolution covering the norm... what is more normal than sexual relations between animals? Evolution doesn't state that from a frog, out pops a monkey. It says that from a frog pops out a slightly different frog, etc, etc for many generations. This is what we observe. Gradually, said frogs, if isolated, and with the right conditions will adapt to their environment. At a certain point, when the zygotes cannot combine anymore between the two populations, it is said that speciation (and macroevolution) has occured. Although according to the BSC, if they tended towards certain behaviors that prevented the two populations from breeding in the wild, they'd be considered seperate species as well.

 

As for the mutation spreading to the rest of the group, if it confers a great survival advantage, it generally DOES spread fairly fast. However it really depends how well the organism with the mutation survives. And mutations are generally so small to be noticed, as I believe I mentioned earlier in this (sorry, just trying to answer your arguments one by one) It's not like one creature has an extra nose or something. That happens rarely, and most often too great of mutations leads the organism to be aborted. Mutations change one very small thing generally, sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes harmful, most times neutral. And unless you think every organism in every single population is a clone of those before it, and the genetic material doesn't change in the slightest, then yes, evolution occurs.

 

I apologize for not sounding the most educated on the topic. I've still got another 2-4 years before I get my bio degree (depending on how many classes I take a semester) and have yet to take a genetics course, so I only know the basics from my bio courses.

 

If I have made any mistakes, again, please point out.

[ctogher]

While mutations do occur, the majority are very simple one, and don't make an individual look/act/do anything different, but only give a /very/ /very/ small reproductive advantage. Over generations, that adds up. It generally happens in an isolated environment because otherwise the whole population would change, and that generally is difficult to do, although I would assume possible, but the gene would likely be bred out unless it conferred a very useful survival advantage.

I agree....

 

However, one example can be provided where a genetic aberration "infected" an entire tribe in less than 70 years. I am referring to the "Ostrich" people of the Karoo, (South Africa). All the rules applied, (secular environment, little external influence), the entire tribe now shares a trait still considered to be merely a disfiguring anomally. Their feet now resemble those of an ostrich.

 

Now I would accept the argument that this is quite likely an isolated incident. But we cannot discount this on the grounds that it doesn't fit with existing dogma...

 

Besides, 70yrs on the time scale we are talking about is miniscule. To stretch the point, let's say that this particular tribe has now had one such anomally. Would this not be an indication of a gene pool in flux. Also note that if this can happen in such a short space of time, then there will be even less chance of physical evidence being preserved...... ie. fossils....

[Akrid]

I shouldn't need to post evidence on this exsample as it should be common knowlage but I will dig some up if requested. Some lizards have scales that camoflauge them exactly to the region they live in. Now someone who deny's evolution would say that lizard was made that way by god, perhaps when god made all life? but what about the regions that where under the sea or frozen when life came to be according to the non-evolutionist. I suppose god made that lizard on a little island so when that region came to be one day it could fit right in? I find any argument aganst evolution far to crazy to belive. :blink:

[Pikeman85]

If the tribe doesn't breed with outsiders, and continues breeding for a great deal longer (with subsequent mutations, etc) and eventually cannot breed with other humans, then it would not be considered human anymore, and would need a new species. This tribe is a perfect example of genetic isolation and mutation. And that it happened in 70 years! Amazing, truly. Unfortunate (It is a problem for them, isn't it? Or is it just neutral) but it shows mutations in action. Apparently it's not enough of a problem to kill them all of though, because remember, it's survival of those fit enough, and apparently they are.

 

And it's not really dogma. If one piece of evidence is found that contradicts it (And that itself stands up to testing), the theory is changed. It's happened before, and the likelihood is it'll happen again. (This is why it's called neo-Darwinism, and not Darwinism, they had to change it with additional data coming in. Not so much contradicting it, but building upon it.)

 

There was another point I wanted to bring up, but it slips my mind. Will edit my topic if I remember.

[Darnoc]

Well, I didn't have time to read everything through here, so I don't know if anyone has brought up the things I''m going to tell you.

 

First of all, Evolution and any other theory about the origins of life and the universe are just theories, which means they can never be proved (the only possible way to do this would be to build a time machine, but that is not possible in our status of technology). This counts for evolution and creationism. Both are only unprovable theories (this lies in the nature of a theory; a theory is a hypothetical idea with arguments to support it) and everything is a matter of believe and interpretation. There are arguments for evolution and against creationism and vice versa.

 

I personally believe in the creation, but I would never say that this is the whole truth and that it is proven, because it would be a lie. Some of you have brought up arguments against the biological evolution, I will now tell you something about arguments against the cosmic evolution (and also some against the biological evolution). Because I'm from Switzerland, I sometimes don't really know how the subjects are called in English, but I try to translate them as good as possible.

 

First of all, there is no prove at all that our universe is built up the way that we do interprete it nowadays. Scientist believe that our universe is expanding. For this they point out the so called "red displacement". But a red displacement also occurs when the object rotates arround the point of observation, this means, our universe could just rotate around a certain point. There is a new theory that time is faster in the outer regions of space. When the universe is rotating around a point, time would go slower near the point the rotation. Because everything messured from the earth has this red displacement, it could also be that the earth is very near or on this point of rotation. So our earth could be a lot younger than believed and still the light from the outer regions from space would reach us and we would see objects which are a lot older than our earth.

 

Some years ago, the plausibility of accidental development of life was calculated. The mathematicians calculated a plausibility of 1: 10 times 80000. The border of possibility is at a plausibility is at 1: 50000. So the accidental development is not possible. For those guys who shout now "But there are billions of stars out there! Somewhere life must have developed!": You should look at a list, what is needed for the development of life. When you once seen this list, you never say again that it is possible. Just let me state some of the things needed for this: no double-star-system (that means, 70% of all star-systems can't support life), planet must lie in a very small perimeter around this star (a very small perimeter, a litte bigger than earth), the star must be a star-class like or similar as our sun, the planets gravition must be like on our earth or very similar (no too low and not too high), the planet mustn't be too big or too small (about the size of earth), the planet must have about the same speed as earth etc, etc. As you can see, earth is the absolute perfect planet for life. Mathematical a planet like earth isn't even possible. Was earth an accident which will only occur once in our universe or was it created?

 

The methods of finding out the age of a layer are not so exact as they make you believe. Everyone who had chemistry knows probably the problems with the C14-method. But with the other method (uranium-lead-method) there are also a lot of problems. How do you know that everything was uranium at the beginning and that not something was already lead (scientists do assume that it all was uranium, but nobody is really certain). How do you know that the rate of decay was always the same?

 

Someone here said that micro- and macro-evolution are the same. This is not entirely true. Micro-evolution is the change of a kind of lifeform to a differnt variation of this kind, e. g. all the different kinds of wolfs. This can be observed all the time everywhere in nature and is also done by man (different cats, cows, horses, dogs etc.). But micro-evolution stops at a certain border. When this border is cross, then you talk about macro-evolution. This is, when a lifeform changes in a different kind of lifeform. This was never observed in living nature and in fossils and is purely hypothetical. There is no prove at all that there is and was macro-evolution, so it is a matter of believe.

 

But you creationists here, don't think now "yes, I knew it all the time", because there is also no prove at all for creation. So I would say that the origins of life will be always an unsolved mystery and no theory can be proven. It is always a matter of believe and anyone who says something different is a liar (now don't feel insulted, I'm only stating the facts). Neither the evolutionist nor the creationists can prove their theories and so they will fight on and on. Wouldn't it be better to discuss something more important? What is with all the people dying today in our world? What is with hunger, war, terrorism, globalisation? Isn't this more important and shouldn't we discuss such things? What is with all the people who want more and more power and have no scruples to kill for this? What is with guys who cry aloud "war, war, war" and forget that mostly innocent civilians die in modern wars? Isn't this much more important than the unsolvables origins of life?

[Akrid]

Wrong Wrong Wrong, and your thread hijacking attempt at the end is wrong as well.

 

First of all, Evolution and any other theory about the origins of life and the universe are just theories, which means they can never be proved (the only possible way to do this would be to build a time machine, but that is not possible in our status of technology). This counts for evolution and creationism. Both are only unprovable theories (this lies in the nature of a theory; a theory is a hypothetical idea with arguments to support it) and everything is a matter of believe and interpretation. There are arguments for evolution and against creationism and vice versa.

 

A theory can be proven once there is enuff evidence to prove it, just like there where theories about the shape of the world, that dosn't mean the world couldn't be proven to be round one day.

 

First of all, there is no prove at all that our universe is built up the way that we do interprete it nowadays. Scientist believe that our universe is expanding. For this they point out the so called "red displacement". But a red displacement also occurs when the object rotates arround the point of observation, this means, our universe could just rotate around a certain point. There is a new theory that time is faster in the outer regions of space. When the universe is rotating around a point, time would go slower near the point the rotation. Because everything messured from the earth has this red displacement, it could also be that the earth is very near or on this point of rotation. So our earth could be a lot younger than believed and still the light from the outer regions from space would reach us and we would see objects which are a lot older than our earth.

 

Time dosn't exist, it's just a man made thing. You are refering to relitive motion I believe.

 

Some years ago, the plausibility of accidental development of life was calculated. The mathematicians calculated a plausibility of 1: 10 times 80000. The border of possibility is at a plausibility is at 1: 50000. So the accidental development is not possible. For those guys who shout now "But there are billions of stars out there! Somewhere life must have developed!": You should look at a list, what is needed for the development of life. When you once seen this list, you never say again that it is possible. Just let me state some of the things needed for this: no double-star-system (that means, 70% of all star-systems can't support life), planet must lie in a very small perimeter around this star (a very small perimeter, a litte bigger than earth), the star must be a star-class like or similar as our sun, the planets gravition must be like on our earth or very similar (no too low and not too high), the planet mustn't be too big or too small (about the size of earth), the planet must have about the same speed as earth etc, etc. As you can see, earth is the absolute perfect planet for life. Mathematical a planet like earth isn't even possible. Was earth an accident which will only occur once in our universe or was it created?

 

 

The chemicals for life to accidenly happen no doubt must have been in large amounts, with many diffrent chemicals reacting for billions of years, they fasioned them selfs into eco systems, if it hadn't been life as we know it it would have been somthing else but it had to be somthing and it was, was this. If you toss a coin off a building and it lands somwhere what where the chances of it landing in the exact spot it did? it had to land somwhere. I think scientific theory may not be fact, but it is a lot more believable to me than religion and superstision.

 

Someone here said that micro- and macro-evolution are the same. This is not entirely true. Micro-evolution is the change of a kind of lifeform to a differnt variation of this kind, e. g. all the different kinds of wolfs. This can be observed all the time everywhere in nature and is also done by man (different cats, cows, horses, dogs etc.). But micro-evolution stops at a certain border. When this border is cross, then you talk about macro-evolution. This is, when a lifeform changes in a different kind of lifeform. This was never observed in living nature and in fossils and is purely hypothetical. There is no prove at all that there is and was macro-evolution, so it is a matter of believe.

 

A border huh? where do you have any proof or reason to belive there is one? because you like the idea of it?

 

But you creationists here, don't think now "yes, I knew it all the time", because there is also no prove at all for creation. So I would say that the origins of life will be always an unsolved mystery and no theory can be proven. It is always a matter of believe and anyone who says something different is a liar (now don't feel insulted, I'm only stating the facts). Neither the evolutionist nor the creationists can prove their theories and so they will fight on and on. Wouldn't it be better to discuss something more important? What is with all the people dying today in our world? What is with hunger, war, terrorism, globalisation? Isn't this more important and shouldn't we discuss such things? What is with all the people who want more and more power and have no scruples to kill for this? What is with guys who cry aloud "war, war, war" and forget that mostly innocent civilians die in modern wars? Isn't this much more important than the unsolvables origins of life?    

 

This debate is carried on by some of the greatest minds in our world, I think it a worthy topic. Perhaps proof is not at hand, as we are not reaserchers, but we are thinkers, facts are nothing without people to complie them together to see what they add up to. And no we will stay on topic, sorry.

[Darnoc]

@acrid: The border between micro and macro evolution is reached, when a species originated from another species can't reproduce with the species it originated from. All the species living today of which we now that they originated from another species living today can reproduce with the species of their origin (e.g. a dog can reproduce with a wolve). That is why there is no empiric prove or observation for macro evolution, only for micro evolution. Everything else is purely a matter of interpretation and is so hypophetical (you can't really prove that a fossil was the origin of a today living lifeform, but you do assume it normally).

 

Something else: Evolution isn't really a theory, it is a model used to describe the origins of live. And models can't be proved or disproved, because they are from the beginning purely hypothetical and a help to understand the function of something.

 

Also evolution is contradictory to the fundemental physical law of decay, which states that everything existing is in a state of decay. In every other part of natural science this a absolute rule, but interesting not in evolution. Evolution is contradictory to one of the most fundamental laws of nature! Even in other parts of biology you use this law, but it seems that evolutionists disregard this rule.

 

I was an evolutionist myself until I began to dig a little and found that somethings aren't as they should be. Evolution may be true and also creation, I can't tell. But sorry, I'm not so arrogant to say that I have the final solution to everything and what I say is true. I just hate people who do this, no matter if they are evolutionist, atheists, christians, muslims or what ever. Here I've got the same oppinion as Socrates: I only know that I don't know anything.

 

I'm sorry if I made anyone angry, but I'm a philosopher and I always try to prove that you can't prove anything at all and that in the end everything is a matter of believe or not believe. And I also question everything I get accros and I always try to challenge people who believe in something. This time it was evolution I questioned, next time I will question the existence of god or aliens or I question the way the USA acts at the moment. It's always something else and I must say, I enjoy doin it :rolleyes:

 

Can you prove that anything exists at all? Can you prove that you exist? No, you can't (Descartes famous sentence "I think so I am" was disproved by several philosophers). The only thing you can truly be sure of is that there is nothing you can be sure of. Or in other words: Everything is an assumption. So, with this philosophical statement I will end and wish you alltogether a happy new year. Don't get to heated up in discussions and don't kill eachother, listen what the others have to say and then bring your arguments. :)

[Malchik]

Can we, for the sake of argument, not get involved in deciding whether we are all NPCs in some greater mind's computer game or experimental creatures in a programme run by white mice.

 

Of course philosophers can say that a thing does not exist when you can't see it but that kind of discussion belongs outside the concerns of most of us. I'll willingly enter into a debate of that nature elsewhere but it is an excellent way of killing a topic if not used with caution.

 

I could say, all life is pointless an so no one's opinion on anything has any true meaning. I too can play devil's advocate if I want to be mischievous. Can we not discuss matters 'on the balance of probabilities' and leave the 'well we don't really exist anyway' for a separate thread?

 

Merely a suggestion.