Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution in pieces.
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1 of 153 (68913)
11-24-2003 5:33 AM


This is actually a repost from another discussion forum, but I thought it might be worthwhile bringing it over here. One of the problems I see in the Evolution/Creation debate is the rather ill-defined nature of the word 'evolution'. What follows is my attempt to break it down into individual parts:
Decent With Modification. The idea that all species alive on earth today derived from earlier species, changing by small steps each time. I consider this proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The fossil record unanimously supports it, DNA sequencing unanimously supports it.
Single Common Ancestor. The idea that all life today shares a single common ancestor. Certain similarities in DNA across all life hugely supports this idea. That the exact same mechanism could arise independently multiple times is radically unlikely. The only possible exception is Viruses, who are only loosely categorised as life anyway (can only reproduce with help and all that), but even their RNA has a few tell-tale hints in it.
Natural Selection. The idea that the major mechanism responsible for this Decent With Modification is the principle of Natural Selection. That Natural Selection occurs is almost unarguable, and research such as the infamous speckled moths experimentally verifies it. Unfortunately it is massively harder to demonstrate that it is responsible for the observed changes over time. What we can do is model the potential of Natural Selection mathematically and using computers. And indeed these both support the idea of NS being sufficiently capable. Since no-one has an alternative mechanism capable of this action, I accept NS as being the driving force behind Decent With Modification. While other actions almost certainly have an effect (genetic drift, for example), they are not responsible for the increase in Fitness, and Complexity, exhibited by life on earth.
Historical Reconstruction. Working out which ancestor links to whom; tracing out the intricate paths of life on earth. This is the weakest part of evolutionary theory, while we can establish this in broad sweeps for most life and fairly precisely for those few species we have a good record for, the fossils record isn't complete enough to cover all life, and it is almost impossible to tell whether a fossil is a direct ancestor or a 'cousin' of that ancestor.
Things which are not evolution (but are often lumped with it). Abiogenesis, the big bang, plate tectonics, solar system formation, radioactive dating, etc. These range from speculation (abiogenesis), to certain fact but unclear mechanism (big bang) to certain fact and clear mechanism (radioactive dating, and plate tectonics). But I shan't discuss them in detail here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mike the wiz, posted 11-24-2003 8:45 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 10:19 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 10:06 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 2 of 153 (68928)
11-24-2003 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
11-24-2003 5:33 AM


Good summary Mr.Jack, a little more info explaining the natural selection would be nice, but that's ok. The common ancestral confuses me somewhat. Is there evidence of the common ancestor? what about humans? Has the common ancestor - as we are told so much about by evolutionists, - actually been found?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2003 5:33 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2003 9:12 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 153 (68933)
11-24-2003 9:08 AM


The only quibble I have is with excluding abiogenesis. It's probable that pre-biotic evolution preceded genetic evolution.
-Neil

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 11-24-2003 2:01 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 153 (68934)
11-24-2003 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mike the wiz
11-24-2003 8:45 AM


Single Common Ancestor, Mike, the single is important. 'Common Ancestor' can refer to the common ancestor of any two species. Single common ancestor refers to the ancient (~2 - 4 billion years ago) organism from which all modern life evolved.
We will never find such an ancestor. If we did find it, we couldn't demonstrate it was the actual ancestor and not just another member of the same species, or that there wasn't an earlier common ancestor we just haven't found. Note that the single common ancestor is generally defined as the latest such organism.
The common ancestor you seem to be talking about, is the common ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees. To the best of my knowledge we haven't found a common ancestor for Humans and Chimpanzees. But that's another topic, so if you want to discuss it further I suggest you start a new topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mike the wiz, posted 11-24-2003 8:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 153 (68991)
11-24-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NeilUnreal
11-24-2003 9:08 AM


Abiogenesis is treated separately because it is considered to be a non-evolving process in the biological sense. The Theory of Evolution starts with the first self replicating reaction/chemical so the first evolutionary product may have been less genetic than we hypothesise, we just don't know right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NeilUnreal, posted 11-24-2003 9:08 AM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 153 (69092)
11-24-2003 9:59 PM


True Loudmouth, I tend to see evolution more from a process standpoint than from a biological standpoint. I'm in A.I. so my interest is in the characteristics common to all evolving systems, and especially those which use RM&NS. It's possible that there is a continuum between pre-genetic and genetic evolutionary systems. However, it's also possible that they share mathematical characteristics but that there is a discontinuity between them in our biological history.
Logically, abiogenesis is not a necessity for RM&NS, so its absence cannot be used to falsify the other things we know about evolution. I guess that is the important point with respect to the creation vs. evolution debate. I just like to champion the cause of RM&NS as a general scientific principle which extends beyond the genetic evolution which we see in DNA/RNA biology.
-Neil

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 153 (69098)
11-24-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
11-24-2003 5:33 AM


The difficuly of "historical reconstruction" should not inhibit the creation of a discipline of deductive biogography but this difficulty combined with a reactionary attitude to the infinite Laplace intellect seems to have prohibited its existence so far yet that did not stop me from making some still unpublished piecemeal inductions by using the tension in creation and evolution as an illusion instead of a still transcendental issue. Both creationists and evolutionist are likely to blame for the powerless discipline despite a plethora of scientitific tools already available. There just are more doctors and lawyers than natural historians and that more than the c/e issue guides the pedagogy needed to develop such better academics. Lving distributions need not wait for fossil dispersal htpotheses to unearthed before the work is supported. Oh well, the time is not yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2003 5:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 5:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
soldier_of_christ
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 153 (73065)
12-15-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
11-24-2003 10:19 PM


yes it isnt the time yet but i wan't to go back a second. The theory that life originated from a single cell is totally idiotic. The chances that the parts of a cell by chance formed is about the chances of you filling a hundred universes with golfballs and putting a red dot on one and blindfolding a baby; and him picking it on its first try.
And besides how would the DNA get put together. there is absolutly no way it would happen by chance.
sorry about my grammer. im only 14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-24-2003 10:19 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2003 6:03 PM soldier_of_christ has replied
 Message 99 by Brad McFall, posted 12-18-2003 10:59 AM soldier_of_christ has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 153 (73072)
12-15-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by soldier_of_christ
12-15-2003 5:50 PM


The chances that the parts of a cell by chance formed is about the chances of you filling a hundred universes with golfballs and putting a red dot on one and blindfolding a baby; and him picking it on its first try.
If there are 10 million cities in the world, then the chances of you being in any city is 1 in 10 million. Therefore, the probability that you were born is too low, you weren't born at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 5:50 PM soldier_of_christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 6:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
soldier_of_christ
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 153 (73081)
12-15-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Loudmouth
12-15-2003 6:03 PM


well then im not born. Im trying to say that there is absolutely no chance of it happening. and the reason im alive is because god has a plan for me and im blessed to be one of his children and u are too. like it or not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2003 6:03 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 6:23 PM soldier_of_christ has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 11 of 153 (73086)
12-15-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by soldier_of_christ
12-15-2003 6:13 PM


quote:
well then im not born. Im trying to say that there is absolutely no chance of it happening. and the reason im alive is because god has a plan for me and im blessed to be one of his children and u are too. like it or not
The reason that you're alive is that your parents had sex. It has nothing to do with an invisible friend in the sky.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 6:13 PM soldier_of_christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 6:35 PM Rei has replied

  
soldier_of_christ
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 153 (73093)
12-15-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rei
12-15-2003 6:23 PM


i dont have any parents they both died 4 months ago. and god isnt my friend hes my savior, the alpha,omega, beginning and end king of kings lord of lords, shepard, master, savior, lord above all, the great I am, messiah, holy of holys, holy spirit, lamb of god, jesus,jehova, The glorious one, beloved one, he is above all, knows all and loves all. And he sent hes one and only begotten son to die bye our hands. He took all our sins and died on the cross. beaten, tortured, flogged and finally crucified. hes not my imaginary friend in the sky. my lord loves me and all of you that dont belive. and when i die im going to heaven. I hope you find christ too and get saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 6:23 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 12-15-2003 6:58 PM soldier_of_christ has replied
 Message 14 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 7:19 PM soldier_of_christ has not replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 153 (73097)
12-15-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by soldier_of_christ
12-15-2003 6:35 PM


And of course you have scientific evidence that validates everything you just said, right?
PS. Sorry about your parents but unless you fell from the sky the reason you are alive is your parents had sex and your mother gave birth to you. Be grateful to them, not god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 6:35 PM soldier_of_christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 7:23 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 14 of 153 (73109)
12-15-2003 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by soldier_of_christ
12-15-2003 6:35 PM


quote:
i dont have any parents they both died 4 months ago.
But you had parents. They had unprotected sex, and that's why you exist. It has nothing to do with a (formerly) Caananite deity.
quote:
and god isnt my friend hes my savior, the alpha,omega, beginning and end king of kings lord of lords, shepard, master, savior, lord above all, the great I am, messiah, holy of holys, holy spirit, lamb of god, jesus,jehova, The glorious one, beloved one, he is above all, knows all and loves all. And he sent hes one and only begotten son to die bye our hands. He took all our sins and died on the cross. beaten, tortured, flogged and finally crucified. hes not my imaginary friend in the sky. my lord loves me and all of you that dont belive. and when i die im going to heaven.
Do you have any reference for this apart from the transcribed millenia-old oral traditions and legends of a particular nomadic desert shepherd tribe, assembled and ironed out in committee (sometimes through voting), then usurped by followers someone who doesn't exist in contemporary records, and reassembled by yet another committee and yet more voting?
Mm.... committee-developed religion... I can just picture that now. "I think this text is holy!" "Well, I don't think it's holy at all. But this text! This is holy!" "But that one says the opposite of mine, you blasphemer!". That must have been a fun weekend.
quote:
I hope you find christ too
I didn't even know he was lost.
Can't you even keep track of your own savior?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 6:35 PM soldier_of_christ has not replied

  
soldier_of_christ
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 153 (73112)
12-15-2003 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rand Al'Thor
12-15-2003 6:58 PM


thx for the sympathy. and i am thankful to my parents but the reason my parents had me was that god had a plan for them. and as for evidence. give me evidence that there isn't god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 12-15-2003 6:58 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 7:26 PM soldier_of_christ has not replied
 Message 17 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 7:50 PM soldier_of_christ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024