Evolution - Possibly Not True

[s_lone]

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...

~

Your explanation is quite clear but still, the random factor or 'mistake' still seems to me as the weak point of the theory. You can't call it a mistake if their is a clear cause to the mutation. Using the word mistake is giving a sense of INTENTION to nature and almost admitting its intelligence (IMO). I can accept the idea that mutations can occur because of such things like chemical exposure, radioactivity etc. But is the theory open to the idea that mutations could actually be part of the life process; that it is no mistake or accident?

Me and my brother both come from the same parents. What causes our differences if we have the same genetic background? What are the factors that cause these differnces? Randomness again?

 

[s_lone]

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.

You have to learn how to make a difference with the intelligent design and the creationism theory. Creationism as known as inspired by the bible is totally unscientific and is simply myth and legend. But 'intelligent design' is a valuable logical concept not to be underestimated.

If you arrived on Mars and saw a huge system of machinery extracting minerals from the soil you would logically deduce that intelligent beings have constructed the facilities. By observing the complex principles of life, it is quite respectable to see life as a 'designed' process.

I respect science. Science is essential. But science has to learn to aknowledge its own limits. The evolution theory is incomplete and it must be confronted.

 

[gc]

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...

~

Your explanation is quite clear but still, the random factor or 'mistake' still seems to me as the weak point of the theory. You can't call it a mistake if their is a clear cause to the mutation. Using the word mistake is giving a sense of INTENTION to nature and almost admitting its intelligence (IMO). I can accept the idea that mutations can occur because of such things like chemical exposure, radioactivity etc. But is the theory open to the idea that mutations could actually be part of the life process; that it is no mistake or accident?

Me and my brother both come from the same parents. What causes our differences if we have the same genetic background? What are the factors that cause these differnces? Randomness again?

I don't know how to explain the 'mistake' part any better than my typo analogy but I'll try. The enzymes that reproduce DNA bind to the appropriate nucleotide to be added, and the new nucleotide must also bind to the existing DNA. The enzyme preferentially binds to a particular nucleotide because the binding is more energetically favorable. However even though it is favourable to bind a particular nucleotide, it doesn't mean mistakes won't occur. Think of a weighted coin that is weighted to land on tails more often than heads (so you could say that tails is energetically favoured), yet once in a while a "heads" will land. These mistakes are for the most part accidental and rare. There is a whole proofreading system to prevent mutations from happening because they are often harmful and rarely beneficial. Now, there is some debate that mutations increase when an organism is exposed to stress where the organism must mutate or face extinction and there may be certain areas of the chromosome for this purpose. I did a very quick search on goolge and found this Link to get you started, but if you do a search you can probably find a lot more info than that.

As for your second question, humans have two sets of 23 chromosomes one from each parent. So each parent divides their 46 chromosomes in half to 23 (or one of each chromosome). That is where the difference between brothers and sisters come in. The 23 that you have from your father (or mother) may be different from the 23 your brother/sister recieved. Those in turn would have come from either grandparent. I'm not sure how the chromosomes are divided exactly, I would have to read more, but I believe it is 'random'. When a cell divides, the chromosomes pair up then each one goes to each new cell. I don't have any reason to believe that the cell purposely chooses which new cell will get which chromosome, I think it is more like whichever side of the cell the chromosome is closer to is where it ends up. So that is where the 'randomness' comes in.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

 

[pastafarian]

You have to learn how to make a difference with the intelligent design and the creationism theory. Creationism as known as inspired by the bible is totally unscientific and is simply myth and legend. But 'intelligent design' is a valuable logical concept not to be underestimated.

The only difference between creationsim (which is a belief, not a theory since it explains nothing) and the "intelligent design" assertion is that the former is honest about what it is, whereas the latter is not. ID is trying to sneak God in the back door, where at least creationism respects the idea of a creator enough to put her front and centre.

ID is not a "logical concept", but rather it is a logical fallacy known as "Argument from Incredulity". Read more here.

As John E. Jones III, United States District Judge wrote in his decision finding against the Pennsylvania Dover Area School District, et al:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.

 

[s_lone]

The only difference between creationsim (which is a belief, not a theory since it explains nothing) and the "intelligent design" assertion is that the former is honest about what it is, whereas the latter is not. ID is trying to sneak God in the back door, where at least creationism respects the idea of a creator enough to put her front and centre.

ID is not a "logical concept", but rather it is a logical fallacy known as "Argument from Incredulity". Read more here.

In rhetoric, the line of reasoning used by ID advocates is known as an argument by incredulity. Because what is entirely plausible to one person is ludicrously unlikely to another, arguments by incredulity are inherently weak. ID is not a scientific theory amenable to testing, but an opinion, a philosophical preference, a belief. That fact made it easy for me to dismiss the ID movement as scientifically unimportant.

This excerpt from the link you gave me is important I believe. I agree that ID is a philosophical preference and this is where I am concerned with the attitude of some. Because some God loving people tend to bring God into science by the back door, many simply look at the ID idea and throw it in the garbage saying it's unscientific crap. It's not because many people use the ID concept for their religious agenda that ID must be dismissed as stupid. The evolution theory can ALSO be used for religious or plain wacky agendas. The hard core Nazis believed their race were superiour; more evolved. They took the concept of the evolution theory and twisted it into their sick agendas. But this is no reason to dismiss the theory. I maintain my position that ID is a respectable position as long as it is considered in a rational and humanistic way. And it is not incompatible with the evolution theory in the sense that both observe evolution from a different point of view. I do admit that ID has much more its place in the philosophical realm than in the scientific one.

While science tends to take care of "HOW?". Philosophy tends to take care of "WHY?" Both worlds are intimately connected and while it is useful to maintain a seperation between philosophy and science, you can't deny that both come from the same origin. That is, humans trying to understand the world they live in.

Because of this intimate connection between science and philosophy, I do tend to question those who say with so much conviction that ideas such as ID have no place in science. It seems to me that whether or not an observed phenomenon results from a random process or from an intelligently designed process is rather significant to our understanding of the phenomenon. And don't forget that ID does NOT necessarily have to promote the existence of God. It doesn't have to go there. As mentionned in the link, you can apply the idea to aliens. ID only aknowledges (wrongly or rightly) that their seems to be an intelligence factor behind the process. You don't have to speak of God.

I guess there are 2 kinds of scientists, the technicians that only analyse and observe the world and never go beyond what they observe. This is necessary hard cold science in which ID has no place (and rightly so). But then there are scientists who are able to maintain the essential dialogue between science and philosophy. I really don't see why ID shouldn't be part of this important dialogue.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But 'intelligent design' is a valuable logical concept not to be underestimated.

No, intelligent design is a useless and logically flawed concept of no scientific merit at all. It's just creationism tarted up with some of the words and concepts of science. Pastafarian's right, entirely. It doesn't deserve to be part of the dialog between science and philosophy because it has nothing to contribute. There's no evidence in its favour that isn't readily explicable by other means. It violates one of the basic rules of reasoning, about not multiplying assumptions unnecessarily, which may be familiar to you as Occam's Razor.

You've also committed a logical fallacy with this one: "...whether or not an observed phenomenon results from a random process or from an intelligently designed process is rather significant..." Those aren't the only two options, and evolution in particular is not a random process, though there's an element of randomness in it. What we observe in the living things around us is merely the superficial appearance of design, which fails on closer inspection.

 

[pastafarian]

I really don't see why ID shouldn't be part of this important dialogue.

It's a fair question and many in the scientific community will refuse to answer it because of the hidden agenda and mendacity of those who champion the ID agenda. you're right that they're not stupid. They have achieve a remarkable PR success in getting people to consider them seriously.

Keep in mind that there is no philosophical contradiction between belief in God and acknowledging the strength of the theory of evolution by natural selection. This is critical to understand, so I'll say it again: The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with belief in God.

One of my favourite thinkers is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin whose merging of theism with the reality of evolutionary change has never been equalled.

In your post you have confused two separate ideas, namely the fact and mechanism of evolution in the world of living things on the one hand and extrapolations of this idea to situations that have shown no applicability of the idea (i.e "races" of humans), on the other. Economics is another area in which naive ideas of evolution have been invoked, but where they cannot be applied.

Again, ID is not an idea. Unless you can suggest one testable hypothesis that emerges from it or one mechanism that explains one fact better than any real idea, all you've got is a series of assertions supported only by a logical fallacy: "X can't have arisen in nature through natural means because I lack the intelligence or the desire to come up with a way it could have. Therefore God did it."

ID is all negative; it offers no positive thought. It adds nothing to any discussion, therefore it is at best merely expendable. However, since it has been used to muddy thinking and confuse reasonable thought, as well as to camouflage a bigotted, intolerant and primitive superstitious world view, it needs to be fought and extinguished, in the name of education and open, rational discussion.

ETA:Science answers 'How?" questions and even some "Why?" questions. For example, evolutionary theory answers the question "How were so many diverse organism produced and why do the frequencies of certain DNA sequences change or persist over millenia?"

What questions could the ID "preference" answer?

 

[s_lone]

Again, you can't blindly associate ID with creationism. Learn to make the difference. It's one thing to say that the world was created in 7 days and it all started with Adam and Eve. It's another thing to say that there appears to be a sense of intentionality in the beautiful and complex structures of life and the universe.

If you keep ID out of science, I'm sure you can make the effort to keep creationism out of ID. All you need is to stop taking for granted that someone who talks of ID is necessarily a religious freak blinded by his faith.

Let me return to my main point:

I believe that one of science's main faliure is when it applies the concept of randomness to a phenomenon. By doing so, science has the responsiblity of defining what exactly is this "randomness".

Is this "randomness" an extremely complex series of mechanic principles too complicated to analyse? The weather is a good example... We can predict to a certain extent but there are so many factors that we are always limited, even if weather functions through clear laws of physics (or does it?). We use the word "random" or "statistical" to describe phenomenons that go beyond our analytical capacities. This is not TRUE randomness.

Does true randomness exist? That's a very tough question to answer. You can tell me it SEEMS to exist but I can always suggest that there is a very complex but theoretically explainable chain of causality behind a seemingly random phenomenon.

I'm not blind; I certainly believe in the core of the evolution theory but I'm highly critical about certain gaps where randomness is involved. Any thoughts?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're quite right, randomness is a very slippery concept, and may mean different things to a physicist, a mathematician, a biologist, and so on. There's a pretty good Wikipedia article on randomness that discusses these things. Sometimes, as you've suggested, it just means unpredictable due to the complexity of the event being studied. We can't predict how an individual flip of a coin will turn out, for instance, but in principle it would appear to be completely deterministic and thus, at least in principle again, it should be calculable. Sometimes it means without bias or correlation, which is how sampling theory--polling, drug trials, stuff like that--treats it. And sometimes it means with no discernible cause, as in the irreducible randomness that seems to lie at the heart of quantum theory.

Sometimes, as in the coin toss, there are what are usually labelled "hidden variables" that determine the outcome. That's just a euphemism for our ignorance in that case. In quantum theory, however, there don't appear to be any hidden variables that would render events deterministic. If you follow the link to Bell's inequality in the Wikipedia article on randomness you'll find a nice discussion of that; quantum fluctuations seem to be genuinely random in the sense of being uncaused, and the size and structure of the universe appears to be one consequence of that.

The problem I have with invoking ID at that point (or at any point, really) as an explanation for seemingly uncaused events is that it doesn't really explain anything. It just says that the Designer, whatever you conceive it to be, does it. It also leads to an infinite regression of similar questions: what caused the Designer to exist? And what caused that cause? Etc. It's simply not a useful idea.

I'd immediately agree that, as you put it, "there appears to be a sense of intentionality in the beautiful and complex structures of life and the universe." But the key word is "appears." Is the appearance the reality, or are we just anthropomorphising nature? I would argue the latter, mostly because if you look closely at life there are many instances of very bad design--if that's what it is-- and many things any sensible human recoils against in horror. Consider assorted parasites and diseases, for instance, or the ichneumon wasp which lays its eggs in a paralyzed caterpillar which its larvae then eat alive. disgust Even Darwin was appalled by such things.

Nature's not nice. In human terms, it's brutal, wasteful, inefficient, and often repulsive. If this is a design, it's a horrible piece of work.

 

[vulpine]

So, if evolution really happened, then

1.) how did it happen over a period of only 3-3.5 Billion years
2.4-2.9 Billion of which were spent evolving in to the SIMPLEST form of animal life, Then only 420 Million to get to the Oldest form of dinosaur and then an amazing 180 Million years to develop in to humans. It seems the more complicated the changes got the faster they happened... this seems a little counter intuitive doesn't it. Especially seeing that over the past 65000 years (using the same dating methods for everything else) there has been no change in ANY species, including humans, when there should be a change of at least 0.0361% the difference of the very first dinosaurs and humans, and actually more considering the rate of acceleration of evolution.

2.) Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms.... something doesn't seem right here either.

Now those were the easier ones to argue away.

3.) Natural selection before there was something to select. If there was a primordial goop of amino acids, how in the world did they naturally and randomly combine to form even the simplest DNA, which is REQUIRED to replicate. More over, how did the proteins get created without the DNA guiding their creation. Proteins which the cell and DNA depend on to live let alone divide. Never mind the other mechanical devices required to create the proteins.

The fact is evolution doesn't have an answer and really can't answer these questions.

First i'd just like to say any book on the most basic introduction to the theories of evolution would answer most of your questions, but i suppose for you to hear both sides of the story would be too much

anyways
1.) 3.5 billion years is a long time, that's how
2.as species evolve and populations get larger, the size of the gene pool which they have to select from gets larger, so when they mate there are numerous more random combinations of genes occuring and that is what natural selection is based on, random mutations in DNA and those members of the species that are best able to pass on their DNA (re: best able to have children and have those children survive until they have children) will have their specific mutation of DNA spread out more in the population than those of members of the species who die or whatever. So in conclusion, larger more sophisticated species populations=more random mutations= larger selection of possible best DNA for species=faster evolution.
2.)yes you';d be quite right here if the fossilized remains of every animal that ever lived were under ground and easily accessible to archeologists. The fact is, however, the conditions for an animal to be fossilized are so precise that the amount of ancient animals that got fossilized is a extremely infiniestimally small percentage of all the animals that have ever lived, and then combine that with archeologist only really being able to find those that are easily excessible and you see my point
also i dont like this "continuous line of transitional species" that you put it suggests that you think there is a straight line of evolution from single celled organisims to humans, which demonstates a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a straight line, evolution is randomly occuring all the time in all species on this planet, any species can have a sub-genus offshoot from it, one that are still a member of the species but have some distinct about it that make it slightly indepedant of the main species. Some of these will be around very short ammounts of time then die out, some will stay around for a while, then die out, and some eventually evolve into a distinctly indepedent species of their own. Different sub-genus and species come and go all the time, and homo sapians are just another offshoot, that really still hasn;t been around long enough for people to conclude it has staying power, not the pinical of the constant transistional line of evolution.
3.)okay here, i have read the theory of how this happened, but it escapes me at the minute, i will get back to you on this one, for now, suffice it to say that it happened.

 

[gc]

Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True

I believe that one of science's main faliure is when it applies the concept of randomness to a phenomenon. By doing so, science has the responsiblity of defining what exactly is this "randomness".

Is this "randomness" an extremely complex series of mechanic principles too complicated to analyse? The weather is a good example... We can predict to a certain extent but there are so many factors that we are always limited, even if weather functions through clear laws of physics (or does it?). We use the word "random" or "statistical" to describe phenomenons that go beyond our analytical capacities. This is not TRUE randomness.

I'm not sure what this debate on randomness has to do with the debate on evolution? Maybe if I understood I could explain better.

Does true randomness exist? That's a very tough question to answer. You can tell me it SEEMS to exist but I can always suggest that there is a very complex but theoretically explainable chain of causality behind a seemingly random phenomenon.

Sometimes, as in the coin toss, there are what are usually labelled "hidden variables" that determine the outcome. That's just a euphemism for our ignorance in that case. In quantum theory, however, there don't appear to be any hidden variables that would render events deterministic. If you follow the link to Bell's inequality in the Wikipedia article on randomness you'll find a nice discussion of that; quantum fluctuations seem to be genuinely random in the sense of being uncaused, and the size and structure of the universe appears to be one consequence of that.

I've always agreed with Einstein (and s_lone) on this debate. Just because quantum fluctuations seem to be random, doesn't mean there isn't some phenomenon or cause that we don't know about occuring on a scale much smaller than we can observe. But before I get too involved in this debate, I'd better go read that article you have reccommended.

 

[pastafarian]

Again, you can't blindly associate ID with creationism. Learn to make the difference. It's one thing to say that the world was created in 7 days and it all started with Adam and Eve. It's another thing to say that there appears to be a sense of intentionality in the beautiful and complex structures of life and the universe.

I don't make any statements about ID, creationism or evolution "blindly" and I don't equate the first 2. As I wrote in a previous post, I think creationism is far more respectable.

The point I'm making, is that ID requires a supernatural intelligence (i.e. A Goddess), therefore, it is not science. Evolutionary theory works as well in a theistic universe as in a Goddessless one.

Most phenomena that underlie evolutionary cahnge are either truly random or are chaotic. In either case, there exist precise mathematical representations of the outcomes that are possible, even though it is impossible to predict what any particular outome will be or when it will occur. These include prey-predator populations, quantum events in biochemistry, statistical thermodymanic processes in biochemistry, enzyme functions, etc. There's also climate/weather changes, mutation rates, failure of DNA repair mechanisms, changes in cosmic ray fluxes, genetic recombination events , mass extinctions and many, many more.

For reasons that no one understands completely, living things have become more complex with time, which gives the impression of a "direction" to evolutionary change. Part of this has to do with the fact that changing something by adding on to a previously existing structure is more likely, takes less energy and has a higher probability of success than by figuring out how to destroy the existing structure, and then building a new one from scratch.

Evolutionary "progress" is an illusion. As Bertrand Russell reportedly wrote:
"Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoon to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoon, who gives us this assurance. "

 

[s_lone]

The problem I have with invoking ID at that point (or at any point, really) as an explanation for seemingly uncaused events is that it doesn't really explain anything. It just says that the Designer, whatever you conceive it to be, does it. It also leads to an infinite regression of similar questions: what caused the Designer to exist? And what caused that cause? Etc. It's simply not a useful idea.

I'd immediately agree that, as you put it, "there appears to be a sense of intentionality in the beautiful and complex structures of life and the universe." But the key word is "appears." Is the appearance the reality, or are we just anthropomorphising nature? I would argue the latter, mostly because if you look closely at life there are many instances of very bad design--if that's what it is-- and many things any sensible human recoils against in horror. Consider assorted parasites and diseases, for instance, or the ichneumon wasp which lays its eggs in a paralyzed caterpillar which its larvae then eat alive. disgust Even Darwin was appalled by such things.

Nature's not nice. In human terms, it's brutal, wasteful, inefficient, and often repulsive. If this is a design, it's a horrible piece of work.

Thanks for your answer on randomness. Why invoke ID at the point of the random parts of the theory? From a scientific point of view, there are indeed few good reasons to do so. From a philosophical point of view, it belongs to each of us to deal with the problem of causality.

But for the sake of discussion, let's pose the hypothesis that life on earth was created and designed by intelligent extraterrestrial beings. Forget about God. (IMO, ID doesn't have to talk about supernatural beings). So let's say we were created by ETs! We don't care whether or not these ETs were themselves created by other aliens or evolved naturally; the point is to understand how life started and evolved on our planet.

This very basic idea can give us a whole new point of view on how life processes COULD work. What if mutations were programmed to be triggered under specific circumstances? What if "random" events appeared to be so only because they are part of a code we haven't decrypted yet. What if genetic information is transmitted under very strict, but higly rich and complex principles?

This hypothesis can lead to sub-hypothesises. What if life started on it's own on earth but was then boosted or altered by alien manipulations.

I'll stop there because I don't want to be accused of being a X-files loving deluded and paranoid freak. I don't really believe we were created by aliens, but it remains a possibility and am quite open to it. The point is that wondering if whether or not there is an "intention factor" in the life processes on earth can add great depth to the issue. Maybe it doesn't offer immediate answers but it at least helps us contemplate the issue from different point of views.

Here's another one: Imagine aliens finding a music score of Mozart floating in space. These aliens do not have a hearing system; they do not know there can exist such a thing as music. They understand the physics and mathematics of frequencies and vibrations (sound and music) but they can't guess that the score they are looking at relates to sonic realities. Mozart's score is written in a code invented by humans. By looking at the score they might see that there seems to be a form of ordering. There are patterns, but they don't understand them. If they draw the conclusion that the information is random, they will never understand the content. But if they suppose it was created by a form of intelligence, they might have a chance of understanding it even if it takes a very long time.

 

[gc]

This very basic idea can give us a whole new point of view on how life processes COULD work. What if mutations were programmed to be triggered under specific circumstances? What if "random" events appeared to be so only because they are part of a code we haven't decrypted yet. What if genetic information is transmitted under very strict, but higly rich and complex principles?

In order to try to understand this idea, you must understand how DNA is replicated and how enzymes work. I thought my previous post explained it well, so here it is again:

The enzymes that reproduce DNA bind to the appropriate nucleotide to be added, and the new nucleotide must also bind to the existing DNA. The enzyme preferentially binds to a particular nucleotide because the binding is more energetically favorable. However even though it is favourable to bind a particular nucleotide, it doesn't mean mistakes won't occur. Think of a weighted coin that is weighted to land on tails more often than heads (so you could say that tails is energetically favoured), yet once in a while a "heads" will land.

Now to try to clarify what I mean, enzymes bind a particular substrate because it is more energetically favourable to do so. However it can not be infinitely more energetically favourable, therefore a less energetically favourable binding can occur due to entropy. This is where the heads/tails analogy comes in. Even if there is a 99% chance of a coin landing tails, it will land heads approx. 1% of the time, due to entropy (or a greater number of combinations). That is why mutations occur. Because enzymes are not perfect and do not 'perfectly' bind substrates, they will always make "mistakes" or mutations.
Of course that is not even taking into account mutations due to radiation and chemicals.[/i]

 

[s_lone]

Thanks GC, what you say is rather clear. I never liked the term 'mistake' and you give a decent explanation of what biologists mean...

 

[earth_as_one]

Evolution is both a "theory" and a "fact" depending on your meaning. Most people when they refer to "evolution" the theory, mean "Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection" which is the most commonly accepted theory to explain "evolution" a fact supported by evidence.

Archeological evidence supprts the fact that simply organisms evolved into more complex organimsms over time. But don't confuse facts with absolute certainty.

Whether or not evolution occurred as a result of natural selection (Darwin's Theory) remains unproven. But that doesn't mean its wrong or right. Its just the best theory we have right now.

Its no different than Newton's Theory of Gravity explaining why an apple falls, being replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Apple's didn't stop falling because Newton's theory of gravity was proven inaccurate by facts better explained by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Even Relativity has problems explaining observable and measurable "facts".

Until a better theory than "Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection" is replaced by a better theory, it remains the best explanation for evolution (fact supported by evidence).

Another possible theory is that a divine being created the earth and man, complete with an archeological record supporting our current misinterpretation of the facts. Unlikely but possible. Why would divine beings play games?

Every time man comes up with a theory to explain the observable facts about the nature of the universe, we eventually realize our theory is wrong. There's no reason to have a great degree of confidence that our current accepted theories about the nature of the universe are any more correct than the very long list of theories proven wrong or inaccurate over the millenia.

After careful examination of the facts and theories, I've developed my own theory that theories really don't matter and are personal choices based on beliefs.

Therefore I've chosen to believe the sky people created the flat earth which rests on the back of a turtle. Underneath the turtle is another turtle and so on. Everything else we think we know about the nature of the universe is really just an illusion within an illusion in a dream, and nothing really exists except what we percieve to be reality.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True

There's no reason to have a great degree of confidence that our current accepted theories about the nature of the universe are any more correct than the very long list of theories proven wrong or inaccurate over the millenia.

No, you're quite wrong about that. Theories aren't proven wrong in the sense you mean, they're simply seen to be limited descriptions of part of a broader range of phenomena that a new theory deals with. People once thought the earth was flat, for instance, then they thought it was spherical, when in fact it's neither, but if you think the latter are just as wrong as the former, you're more wrong than both of them.

You're wrong about this too: "Whether or not evolution occurred as a result of natural selection (Darwin's Theory) remains unproven."

 

[tamarin]

No theory has ever come close to evolution in authority and substance. ID presumes the existence of a single all-powerful creator, the pre-eminence of man in that creation. Gotta get past this stuff. And man needs to move aside to let evolution scurry into the future.

 

[earth_as_one]

Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True

There's no reason to have a great degree of confidence that our current accepted theories about the nature of the universe are any more correct than the very long list of theories proven wrong or inaccurate over the millenia.

No, you're quite wrong about that. Theories aren't proven wrong in the sense you mean, they're simply seen to be limited descriptions of part of a broader range of phenomena that a new theory deals with. People once thought the earth was flat, for instance, then they thought it was spherical, when in fact it's neither, but if you think the latter are just as wrong as the former, you're more wrong than both of them.

You're wrong about this too: "Whether or not evolution occurred as a result of natural selection (Darwin's Theory) remains unproven."

Perhaps I was oversimplifying, but I know I'm right about the turtles.

 

[earth_as_one]

Re: RE: Evolution - Possibly Not True

No theory has ever come close to evolution in authority and substance. ID presumes the existence of a single all-powerful creator, the pre-eminence of man in that creation. Gotta get past this stuff. And man needs to move aside to let evolution scurry into the future.

But we still can't assume that presumption is wrong. It is possible that a divine spirit plays games with us and purposely meddles in our experiments, manipulating results as a test of our faith.

No its definitely about turtles. I'm even more certain now.