Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 268 (129181)
07-31-2004 9:53 PM


I have heard that there are problems with the theory of evolution that are swept under the rug and not discussed by scientists who have closed their mind to ideas outside of evolution, or that data has been found that conflicts with the idea that life evolved on Earth. I don't think any data of this type exist, because any "problems" would be ironed out by the self-correcting nature of science. Most of these problems are merely made up by creationists who have an interest in poking holes in the theory of evolution. Is there any validity to the idea that there are specific problems with evolution?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2004 3:39 AM Gary has not replied
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Gary has not replied
 Message 36 by lfen, posted 09-04-2004 5:16 PM Gary has not replied
 Message 134 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 9:05 PM Gary has not replied
 Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-05-2004 9:10 PM Gary has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 268 (129182)
07-31-2004 9:57 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 268 (129254)
08-01-2004 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
07-31-2004 9:53 PM


you answered your own question.
I don't think any data of this type exist, because any "problems" would be ironed out by the self-correcting nature of science. Most of these problems are merely made up by creationists who have an interest in poking holes in the theory of evolution.
the most straight-forward is that, yes, there ARE problems with evolution. there are problems with any scientific theory. evolution does not work exactly like darwin original theorized, and we've since discovered new mechanisms outside the original idea of slow successive heritable changes.
but that's hardly the same as saying "oop, a problem! let's throw it out and try something completely unfounded." theories change, get revised and modified, as new evidence is found, in the attempt to make the theory as accurate as possible.
and certainly the problems creationists bring up -- well, they're just hogwash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 07-31-2004 9:53 PM Gary has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 4 of 268 (129308)
08-01-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
07-31-2004 9:53 PM


Was the Ceolacanth (sp?), which was believed extinct for 70 million years considered a problem after a few of them were caught and found to have none of the midway modifications to becoming a land animal?
I've heard the creationist argument. Tell me the evolutionist explanation.
eta: and does the Platypus have an ancestral family? If so, how do you know: fossil evidence or genome studies?
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-01-2004 10:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 07-31-2004 9:53 PM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 12:02 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 12:09 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2004 12:11 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 8 by Yaro, posted 08-01-2004 12:13 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 12:34 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 08-01-2004 8:42 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 08-01-2004 10:43 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 268 (129312)
08-01-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


No, it was not a problem at all. It was thought to be extinct. That's all. Finding some simply showed that they were not extinct. Why would that be a problem?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 268 (129314)
08-01-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


Forgot to add.
Here is a site with some information on the monotremata. I have been trying to find some information on the recent findings in Argentina and will post it once I relocate it.
Monotremata

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2004 12:13 PM jar has not replied
 Message 20 by KCdgw, posted 09-01-2004 2:55 PM jar has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 268 (129315)
08-01-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


coelacanth
Was the Ceolacanth (sp?), which was believed extinct for 70 million years considered a problem after a few of them were caught and found to have none of the midway modifications to becoming a land animal?
Why is this a problem at all?
There is nothing saying that a group has to die out. There is nothing saying, even, that a species must go extinct. However, it would be astonishing if the coelacanth was the same species over that period of time. It is not. It is a close relative of the extinct species but is not even the same genus.
I don't recall clearly any creationist arguements but I think one talked as if a species had to go extinct. This is wrong (though it would be surprising as I said) and it is wrong because they don't even have the genus of the extant fish right. It is a small pretty typical example of the kind of very, very careless junk that is claimed as a "problem" for the ToE.
"None" of the modifications? Have you looked at the "fins"? They are a line that is a relative of those which did take the evolutionary path to amphibians but not, as far as I know, supposed to be "on their way" anywhere. The branch went it's own way for 100's of Myrs. Why is this a problem?
It would be helpful if you would describe the precise problem that is supposed to be here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 2:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 8 of 268 (129316)
08-01-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


Was the Ceolacanth (sp?), which was believed extinct for 70 million years considered a problem after a few of them were caught and found to have none of the midway modifications to becoming a land animal?
Don't fall for that one Hangdawg13, evolution by no means requires that the ceolocanth be changed. Infact even if we found a dinosaur living in the deepest darkest jungle, it would not hurt evolution.
case in point, frogs and Crocodiles have remained pretty much the same since the days of the dinosaurs. Why is this? Because they satisfy the requirements for succesfull life that there is little to no pressure for change.
Thus, the ceolocanth is just another example of this same phenomena.
Hope that helped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 268 (129317)
08-01-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
08-01-2004 12:09 PM


Wow!
I didn't know those things about the monotremes! They are a missing link in their own right! Alive now! At least that is my biased reading of what the first page of your link is saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 12:09 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 268 (129324)
08-01-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


Found the refernce to the Argentine find
It's located Here
This critter was first described in 1992, and additional samples were found in 2002.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 268 (129412)
08-01-2004 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


Hangdawg,
Was the Ceolacanth (sp?), which was believed extinct for 70 million years considered a problem after a few of them were caught and found to have none of the midway modifications to becoming a land animal?
The species of ceolacanth alive today are not represented anywhwere in the fossil record, therefore they couldn't have been thought of as extinct, because they hadn't been discovered yet.
Secondly, the ceolocanths belong to a group of fish called the lobe-fins. And certain lobe fins are said to have spawned terrestrial animals, just not the coelacanths, that's why they don't possess semi-terrestrial characters.
Both morphological & molecular studies point the finger at the Dipnoia (lungfish; another group of lobe-fins) as being the closest extant fish relatives of the early tetrapods. Curiously these DO possess semi-terrestrial traits. What a coincidence that both lines of evidence should agree!
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 268 (129435)
08-01-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
08-01-2004 11:44 AM


Hangdawg13 writes:
and does the Platypus have an ancestral family? If so, how do you know: fossil evidence or genome studies?
The platypus being used as an example against evolution is probably one the most common creationist strawman... well, apparently not that common... But anyway, don't be fooled by those evil creationists.
Before I begin, here are a few things to clear up for those that are not familiar with evolution.
Mammals did not evolve from birds. They evolved from reptiles, like mammals. The fossil evidence for the mammal-like reptiles is, like all fossil evidence, compelling evidence of this gradual change.
All proto mammals (early mammals) lay eggs; the platypus along with the echidnas all lay eggs. They are all are mammals. They didn't evolve from a live bearing animal to an egg layer, they just never stopped being egg layers.
The platypus absolutely do not have a duck bill. They have a wide mouth with a leathery skin that bears a resemblance to a duck's bill. The appearance is an example of convergent evolution: They are primarily an aquatic animal that hunts for prey in the muck in the bottom of streams. Other than the superficial appearance, the teeth, etc. are all very much mammalian.
There's nothing puzzling at all about the platypus. It's a primitive mammal with a very narrow niche living in the wonderful evolutionary cooking pot that Australia represents. Rather than look at the platypus and try and say it looks like an enigma, you should have been looking at the marsupials in Australia.
Australia became geographically isolated very early on in the evolution of mammals so you wound up with some primitive orders like the platypus and early marsupial mammals.
So, do not fall into the creationist trap by accepting that the platypus is an enigma. It's clearly not!

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-01-2004 11:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2004 11:21 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 268 (129447)
08-01-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
08-01-2004 10:43 PM


A basic problem
I've been trying to think of a real problem. Something which bothers me and I hope will be resolved in the next decades is the lack of specific predictive power.
The ToE is able to predict the general nature of outcomes of the evolutionary process. What we can not do it predict what specific path will be taken by an organism under specific selection.
When (if?) we understand the entire genome and all it phenological effects will we be able to predict (perhaps through brute force simulation) where an organism is most likely to move under specific selective pressure? That would be very powerful.
I'm afraid though it is a bit like the 3 body( and more) problem in physics. We can approximate very well but not be precise. Is this true in biology but much, much more so? We can't have a "simple" (2 body like) ecosystem can we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 08-01-2004 10:43 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 11:28 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 08-02-2004 1:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 268 (129451)
08-01-2004 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
08-01-2004 11:21 PM


Re: A basic problem
But there is are other steps needed for that to be useful. Not only do you need to predict the evolutionary changes needed, you need to be able to accurately predict the environment and then have the wisdom to implement in a timely fashion.
Of the various challenges, IMHO, Wisdom will be the most difficult.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2004 11:21 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2004 11:43 PM jar has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 268 (129455)
08-01-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-01-2004 11:28 PM


wisdom to implement?
I don't understand what you are saying.
What I'm asking for is a situation with a bunch of rats (say) in a moderately complex but still lab environment. I want to change the environment and predict down to the genes what set of changes will evolve. I want to produce probabilities for the various possible outcomes. Asking a lot I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-01-2004 11:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-02-2004 8:11 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 08-02-2004 12:56 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 28 by lfen, posted 09-04-2004 1:34 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024