Evolution - Possibly Not True
- Thread starter Graeme
- Start date
Re: Evolution - Simply Not True
Many times it is a question of finding the fossils. The Afar region of Ethiopia is ideal because of the stratigraphy but many tines fossils are found only after they have been dislodged from the historical context by erosion or other agents. That is what complicates the dating and drawing firm connections between species. The mitochondrial methods are better.
In order that evolutionary theory is not simply challenged because it has not risen to the level of a law or principle maybe many principles and laws should be degraded to theories or hypothesis. Mendel’s principles of inheritance definitely need a downgrade.
Graeme said:
Many times it is a question of finding the fossils. The Afar region of Ethiopia is ideal because of the stratigraphy but many tines fossils are found only after they have been dislodged from the historical context by erosion or other agents. That is what complicates the dating and drawing firm connections between species. The mitochondrial methods are better.
In order that evolutionary theory is not simply challenged because it has not risen to the level of a law or principle maybe many principles and laws should be degraded to theories or hypothesis. Mendel’s principles of inheritance definitely need a downgrade.
The theory of evolution is the only theory that adequately explains the morphological and genetic relationships between the known species on this planet. It also explains why these things are related and why the differences in similar genes and proteins over time reflect the emergence and extinction of species. It explains why plant and animal husbandry works, why diseases have the characterisrics they do and much of why animals (including humans) behave the way they do.
There is no more successful theory in all of Science. People who try to discredit this theory on the basis that it is "not a fact", just show that they need to learn at least the elementary basics of the scientific method before they attempt to critque it.
The fact of evolution is that environmental changes cause changes in allele frequencies in gene pools.
The Theory describes the mechanism by which this occurs and pulls together knowledge in paleontology, molecular biology, physiology, climatology, systematics, ethology and genetics in order to demostrate the interrelatedness of all events that have occurred in this planet.
There are no objections to the Theory in general by honest people who understand it but because it is a scientific theory and not a primitive superstition, it is always being refined as new data come in.
There is no more successful theory in all of Science. People who try to discredit this theory on the basis that it is "not a fact", just show that they need to learn at least the elementary basics of the scientific method before they attempt to critque it.
The fact of evolution is that environmental changes cause changes in allele frequencies in gene pools.
The Theory describes the mechanism by which this occurs and pulls together knowledge in paleontology, molecular biology, physiology, climatology, systematics, ethology and genetics in order to demostrate the interrelatedness of all events that have occurred in this planet.
There are no objections to the Theory in general by honest people who understand it but because it is a scientific theory and not a primitive superstition, it is always being refined as new data come in.
Well it's garbled and somewhat confused, but the gist is OK.
As stated, this is nonsense:
but I'll assume that we've got a "chicken or the egg" objection.
To the extent that "enzyme-like" activity was required to assemble the first oligonucleotides (strands of DNA or RNA, which can be used interchangeably, at least by some viruses), RNA can catalyze chemical reactions like enzymes and can store genetic informations like DNA.
RNA world
Keep in mind, though that this has nothing to do with Evolution whatsoever.
This DNA-RNA-enzyme business concerns another, separate idea called abiogenesis. People who attempt to critiques the theory of Evolution from a position of scientific ignorance frequently confuse the two.
Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True
Evolution's not about the origins of life, it's about what happens after it starts.
Jay said:
Evolution's not about the origins of life, it's about what happens after it starts.
Is this a joke? look at the fosscil records, which proves evolution rather then creation. The world has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Also if you take into account new fossils being found every year you could also piece together we have only scratched the surface.
If you also take into consideration that fossils in themselves are pretty rare and indead many species may not have been in the right sercumstances to be fossilized, as well as so called transitional speciies taking only a few generations at times to change may not have had the chances to make many fosscils.
God I can't believe we still debate these things.
What you think god put fossiles in the ground to test your faith or as a joke!?
Of course this is what we can expect from the nutjar extreme religous right these days.
If you also take into consideration that fossils in themselves are pretty rare and indead many species may not have been in the right sercumstances to be fossilized, as well as so called transitional speciies taking only a few generations at times to change may not have had the chances to make many fosscils.
God I can't believe we still debate these things.
What you think god put fossiles in the ground to test your faith or as a joke!?
Of course this is what we can expect from the nutjar extreme religous right these days.
Re: Evolution - Simply Not True
I don't think your explanation for the leap in science is correct. Humans have always needed technology to survive and multiply. I'm sure it probably took many tries by many humans before man invented fire. Agriculture is another technology that vastly increased humans ability for survival. Besides there has always been people who have dedicated themselves to science. Just look even at the past 200 years, a lot of science was done back then but the discoveries have grown on eachother and multiplied exponentially. Look at computers in the last 50 or so years and look at how they have improved drastically in the past 5-10 years.
Also, there is evolution in the last 65,000-150,000 years but since that is a relatively short period of time the changes haven't been as drastic. Although 100,000 years ago we were neaderthals, so I'd say evolution has definately occured.
Evolution doesn't have to occur, it usually happens when there is a stress or reason to change. So the fact that species have stayed the same for millions of years does not prove that evolution doesn't exist. If an organism is doing quite fine as it is, why should it evolve? There needs to be a selective pressure.
I'm glad you enjoy it, I'm quite fascinated by it myself. My only question would be how mononucleotides self-polymerized to form oligonucleotides.
I'm afraid you are wrong. When antibiotics were first invented around world war II, there was no such thing as antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and antibiotics worked quite well. However, mostly in the last 20 years or so there has been a growth in antibiotic resistance to the point that now it is quite common. I would have to look up the statistics but I think over half of infections of S. aureus are now methicillin resistant (MRSA), though I could be quite off on the exact numbers.
EDIT: Actually those numbers are pretty accurate, 54.85% are MRSA.
Article
Graeme said:
I don't think your explanation for the leap in science is correct. Humans have always needed technology to survive and multiply. I'm sure it probably took many tries by many humans before man invented fire. Agriculture is another technology that vastly increased humans ability for survival. Besides there has always been people who have dedicated themselves to science. Just look even at the past 200 years, a lot of science was done back then but the discoveries have grown on eachother and multiplied exponentially. Look at computers in the last 50 or so years and look at how they have improved drastically in the past 5-10 years.
Also, there is evolution in the last 65,000-150,000 years but since that is a relatively short period of time the changes haven't been as drastic. Although 100,000 years ago we were neaderthals, so I'd say evolution has definately occured.
Evolution doesn't have to occur, it usually happens when there is a stress or reason to change. So the fact that species have stayed the same for millions of years does not prove that evolution doesn't exist. If an organism is doing quite fine as it is, why should it evolve? There needs to be a selective pressure.
I'm glad you enjoy it, I'm quite fascinated by it myself. My only question would be how mononucleotides self-polymerized to form oligonucleotides.
I'm afraid you are wrong. When antibiotics were first invented around world war II, there was no such thing as antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and antibiotics worked quite well. However, mostly in the last 20 years or so there has been a growth in antibiotic resistance to the point that now it is quite common. I would have to look up the statistics but I think over half of infections of S. aureus are now methicillin resistant (MRSA), though I could be quite off on the exact numbers.
EDIT: Actually those numbers are pretty accurate, 54.85% are MRSA.
Article
Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
I forgot to address this. Yes, mutations that result in drug-resistant bacteria, and people getting taller are both examples of evolution within a species (though one could argue that people getting taller may have other causes, i.e. diet). However if it is possible for a species to change and adapt via mutations (ie evolve) then it is not a huge leap to say that they can change enough to become a distinct species. The mechanism is the same, it's just a matter of the extent to which it occurs.
I forgot to address this. Yes, mutations that result in drug-resistant bacteria, and people getting taller are both examples of evolution within a species (though one could argue that people getting taller may have other causes, i.e. diet). However if it is possible for a species to change and adapt via mutations (ie evolve) then it is not a huge leap to say that they can change enough to become a distinct species. The mechanism is the same, it's just a matter of the extent to which it occurs.
THe reality is that we beleive what we believe ........ and quite rightly.
One can argue that God did not create the world in 7 days; one can argue that to an eternal being 7 millenia is 7 days.
You beleive what you believe.
I am an non-creationist, Christian and come the day of reckoning either I will be right or you will never know ........
One can argue that God did not create the world in 7 days; one can argue that to an eternal being 7 millenia is 7 days.
You beleive what you believe.
I am an non-creationist, Christian and come the day of reckoning either I will be right or you will never know ........
I'm no biologist and I would like this question answered:
How is genetic information transmitted? Do we understand exactly how genes are transmitted from one generation to another? Is there a random factor in the equation?
If there is a random factor, we have to ask ourselves if there really is such a thing as randomness. I believe this is a key issue to this debate.
I tend to be annoyed when scientists say that this or that happens "randomly"... To me, they are simply filling gaps in their incomplete theories. it's much too easy to use the principle of randomness to explain what is not yet understood.
How is genetic information transmitted? Do we understand exactly how genes are transmitted from one generation to another? Is there a random factor in the equation?
If there is a random factor, we have to ask ourselves if there really is such a thing as randomness. I believe this is a key issue to this debate.
I tend to be annoyed when scientists say that this or that happens "randomly"... To me, they are simply filling gaps in their incomplete theories. it's much too easy to use the principle of randomness to explain what is not yet understood.
Evolution remains the best theory projected by any community- scientific, religious or otherwise. Parts of the evolutionary puzzle continue to be assembled. We've seen several examples of this just in the last year. And most recently from Australia- now thought by some to be the birthplace of life on the planet.
Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True
yeah, we are talking about the cartoons. Where "intelligent design" and "science" ara claiming that he is on the their team. I'm saying that he isn't in either team. :wink:
Jay said:
yeah, we are talking about the cartoons. Where "intelligent design" and "science" ara claiming that he is on the their team. I'm saying that he isn't in either team. :wink:
s_lone said:
Genetic information is transmitted to the next generation through DNA which (in the case of sexual reproduction) half of it comes from one parent and the other half from the other parent. So each parent divides it's DNA (chromosomes) in half, they come together, DNA is replicated, cell divides and this continues...The whole process is understood quite well considering on what a small scale this occurs.
A lot of genetic mutations come from simply replicating the DNA inaccurately. Sometimes the enzymes that replicate DNA simply make mistakes. It is purely statistical, if they replicate a certain number of base pairs of DNA they will make roughly a certain number of mistakes. Where these mistakes occur you could say is random because it is no more likely to occur in one area of the chromosome than another. You could compare this to writing an essay. You are bound to make a few typos, but where those typos occur is "random". Usually the mistakes are meaningless but once in a while it can have a negative effect, or more rarely a positive effect. A mutation can also occur from chemical exposure, UV exposure, x-rays etc...
P.S. dekhqonbacha, Albert Einstein was in fact raised Jewish. However, he does not believe in a God that sits in heaven and judges us. He said he could only possibly believe in Spinoza's God (do a search on google or wikipedia). Actually his religious beliefs are quite interesting.
By the way, people getting taller in the last few generations has absolutely nothing to do with mutations. It's the result of better diet, sanitation and healthcare.
gc's got the transmission of genetic information spot on and correctly points out that mutations are random, as are selection pressures they are subjected to. that's why this business of "good" and "bad" mutations is not very clearcut in evolutionary terms. It all depends on competing selection pressures. For example, the gene for sickle-cell anemia is good if you're heterozygous and in malaria country. Otherwise, it's bad.
gc's got the transmission of genetic information spot on and correctly points out that mutations are random, as are selection pressures they are subjected to. that's why this business of "good" and "bad" mutations is not very clearcut in evolutionary terms. It all depends on competing selection pressures. For example, the gene for sickle-cell anemia is good if you're heterozygous and in malaria country. Otherwise, it's bad.
Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True
Well you're right. He isn't on any team. That was just taking the cartoon literally, which really is not what cartoons are for. The quote presented on the issue by Einstein ," The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God." Is there to make you think and wonder whether it's even necessary to have "teams" to begin with....Which is what I believe what the cartoonist was alluding to by making both parties look a little silly.
As an Encore:
dekhqonbacha said:
Well you're right. He isn't on any team. That was just taking the cartoon literally, which really is not what cartoons are for. The quote presented on the issue by Einstein ," The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God." Is there to make you think and wonder whether it's even necessary to have "teams" to begin with....Which is what I believe what the cartoonist was alluding to by making both parties look a little silly.
As an Encore:
One final point regarding the thread title: yes, certainly evolution is possibly not true in a strict sense, no scientific theory is and no scientist worthy of the name would claim otherwise. However, there are so many converging lines of evidence that support it, and it makes sense of such an enormous range of phenomena, that no reasonable person would withold assent. Assent in science is always provisional, except for the trivial. If there's a better explanation science will eventually find it, and it will almost certainly also find that our existing understanding is a subset of it. Creationism and intelligent design, in all their various guises, are not it. They explain nothing and lead to no new insights, they just avoid an explanation by invoking magic and incomprehensibility: "We don't know, and we'll never know, 'cause god did it by inscrutable means of his own." End of the research program.