Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think you and Behe disagree on any relevant point.

You both agree on that organisms change and adapt, you both agree on that we all share a common ancestor, and you both agree that there is not enough evidence to conclude (beyond reasonable doubt) that all (or nearly all) the complexity and diversity of life was caused by a process of random genetic change and natural selection.

Perhaps the only point of disagreement is that he goes one step forward and proposes ID as the best alternative.

Behe believes that magic was involved. That some steps were too large to occur naturally. He might have a valid point, if he could find some evidence to support his case.

 

[gnostic]

Not reading everything (my fault for lack of time). I do not confuse abiogenesis with evolution, although evolution is virtually impossible without abiogenesis, isn't it? You really can't have evolution, can you, without abiogenesis. And yes, while evolution circumvents and can't explain or prove the idea of God, it also exemplifies mindless happenstance in that some things just got together and continued on their evolutionary way without a purpose more or less. I say more or less because someone may start philosophizing about that. So -- in essence, it just -- happened. Starting with life. It just -- happened by virtue of starting with a few chemicals by chance meeting producing life. And now scientists are trying to figure out how to escape the disaster the latest link on the scale (humans "homo sapiens") may wreak on the earth.
While many religious concepts have not been helpful, in fact, have been hurtful, the concept of mindless evolution certainly is not helping mankind to turn around on a more beneficial course. That's how I see it.

YoursTrue. You are TRULY damn frustrating.

I have already told you several times, that Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. And a hypothesis hasn't been accepted yet.

A hypothesis is only a falsifiable proposed explanation, that required observable testings (thus Scientific Method) and reviews (thus Peer Review), before such proposal can elevate the hypothesis to “Scientific Theory” status.

You do understand what a “proposal” or “proposed” means, don’t you?

A proposal is something like a draft paper, that require more detailed explanation or more detailed predictions, that still require testings and corrections.

And a proposal is something that have the possibility of being accepted or rejected, and in science, a proposed model (eg hypothesis) MUST PASS ALL THREE CRITERIA or THREE REQUIREMENTS, before it becomes an accepted model (Scientific Theory), and these are:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Failing the first one would mean the proposed explanation or proposed model isn’t even a hypothesis, thereby disqualifying itself from even meeting the 2nd requirement.

Michael Behe’s paper on Irreducible Complexity, is a prime example of failed model that was never a hypothesis, because Behe failed to include in his paper a way or instruction of how one may test his work (eg explanation and predictions). This mean Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable, and therefore disqualified of it ever being a hypothesis.

If it (Irreducible Complexity) failed the first requirement, then there is no way he could possibly move forward to try the next 2 requirements.

Behe, with Discovery Institute’s help and funding, tried to have his work published by other means, without the Peer Review, and by publishing the book, titled Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), to appeal to the public.

But Behe admitted himself, in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, that both his IC and DBB that he have no original research and no data, MEANING Behe has no evidence to back up his works.

Behe, underhandedly tried to get around of having his works published without meeting any of the 3 requirements, just demonstrated that he doesn’t have integrity of being biochemist.

But getting back to my original point about Abiogenesis only being a draft or proposed explanation of how life may have begun. There are actually several proposed models to Abiogenesis, meaning different versions, and one of them is that organic matters may have been to Earth via meteors or comets or planetesimals that have crashed on Earth, because during the accretion stage and the primordial development of Earth’s crusts, because the very young Earth was continuously being bombarded.

Anyway, each one of these models, have already being tested, but none of the evidences are conclusive, so Abiogenesis is still a mystery as to how life got started.

But regardless of what the outcome of Abiogenesis (being accepted or debunked), or which model get accepted as most likely scenario, I am quite certain, that a number of people have already explain to you, that it will not in any effect Evolution.

That because Evolution is already accepted and well-tested Scientific Theory, that explains how diversity of life occurred over times, through one of 5 mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutation, Natural Selection, etc).

Evolution isn’t an explanation of how life started on Earth. You have Abiogenesis for this.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are propositioning two different things, and Abiogenesis is still under development, still undergoing testing and researching, and last of all, it is still a HYPOTHESIS, not a “scientific theory”.

Until Abiogenesis achieve all 3 requirements, and being accepted as scientific theory, there is no point in teaching Abiogenesis to undergrad biology students.

 

[leroy]

That because Evolution is already accepted and well-tested Scientific Theory, that explains how diversity of life occurred over times, through one of 5 mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutation, Natural Selection, etc).
.

what are those 5 mechanisms?

 

[gnostic]

@leroy

A question?

Have you not notice that Behe have been silent for the last 10 years about his Irreducible Complexity?​

His IC have already been debunked by a number of fellow biochemists. Behe also haven’t made any discovery, because he has offer no new evidence and no new data to back up failed model.

Only creationists keep bringing up Irreducible Complexity that have been dead in the water for over a decade and a half now.

Behe admitted during cross examination at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial (2005), there have never been any original research or data, and no Intelligent Design have ever been peer reviewed.

 

[gnostic]

what are those 5 mechanisms?

I have already listed three, above.

But for your edification, here are the 5 mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Not many people talk of the last two.

Gene Flow have more to do with, subspecies intermixing, eg population A migrating to population B’s territory, breeding with other groups, to produce a new subspecies. With Gene Flow, the mechanism Natural Selection isn’t involved.

And as to Gene Hitchhiking, you are better off asking someone else more qualified than me, to explain this mechanism to you.

 

[leroy]

I have already listed three, above.

But for your edification, here are the 5 mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Not many people talk of the last two.

Gene Flow have more to do with, subspecies intermixing, eg population A migrating to population B’s territory, breeding with other groups, to produce a new subspecies. With Gene Flow, the mechanism Natural Selection isn’t involved.

And as to Gene Hitchhiking, you are better off asking someone else more qualified than me, to explain this mechanism to you.

ok and you said:

gnostic said: ↑
That because Evolution is already accepted and well-tested Scientific Theory, that explains how diversity of life occurred over times, through one of 5 mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutation, Natural Selection, etc).

Can you explain when/how/where etc. was evolution tested and proven to be true, to an extend where the researchers concluded that all the diversity of life came to be as a product of those 5 mechanisms?

Is there any PR article that concludes that the statement is true? Was there any experiment where that result was achieved?

In other words were is the evidence that shows that those 5 mechanisms where responsible for all the diversity of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably on the count of them being different religions.

The point is that most all religions make some promise regarding "afterlife". As in: dead isn't the end.
That was the point.



I don't see what's interesting about that, other then the concensus among mainstream historians that Moses is a fictional character.



That's just your religious belief.

Not about to contest with you right now about whether Moses was a real person as related in the Bible but the Bible has been around for thousands of years
And discoveries have been made showing aspects of history in the Bible to be true. And as we all know, histories can be falsified. Opinions are made such as changing views of evolution and discoveries. Your contention about Moses isn't going far. No matter what selected peer reviewed journals may say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then calling something an assumption is meaningless and tells us nothing about the validity of the position. What matters is WHY we assume something is true.

And abiogenesis and evolution are not strictly related.

Not in the sense that you think life did not come about UNTIL that first whatever popped up, cropped up, emerged. But it clearly, crystal clearly, involved with the start of the process.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again you used the Word "evolved" in your definition for evolution, that definition is cyrcular...... But anyway so what do mean by "evolved"?

Nice to see you here. I wonder if anyone who believes in evolution has answered you yet. I would like to hear their reply but as of now, I have not seen the answer. Maybe I just didn't come across it as a response to your question.

 

[leroy]

@leroy

A question?

Have you not notice that Behe have been silent for the last 10 years about his Irreducible Complexity?​

His IC have already been debunked by a number of fellow biochemists. Behe also haven’t made any discovery, because he has offer no new evidence and no new data to back up failed model.

Only creationists keep bringing up Irreducible Complexity that have been dead in the water for over a decade and a half now.

Behe admitted during cross examination at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial (2005), there have never been any original research or data, and no Intelligent Design have ever been peer reviewed.

Nice to see you here. I wonder if anyone who believes in evolution has answered you yet. I would like to hear their reply but as of now, I have not seen the answer. Maybe I just didn't come across it as a response to your question.

Yes evolution has been defined/explained multiple times since I asked for a definition, it is just that evolution is defined in a different way every time, this is why I like to ask for a definition befor answering to anything related to this subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, given that definition I guess evolution is uncontroversial, the controversial part is on whether if these tiny changes are mainly caused by random mutations and then selected by natural selection, or if there are other mechanisms that play a major role.

If you think there are other mechanisms in play that aren't currently included in the theory, you are completely free to point them out and demonstrate their existance and role.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That depends on how do you define evolution

No scientific definition of evolution includes the origins of life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In what sense?

If 2 religions say the same thing, they wouldn't be different religions, right?

Some claim to be in a religion, but do not share the same views with others in that same religion.

Ow sure, I agree.
It's only one of the many problems with religion.

2 people can read the same scripture and walk away with quite opposite ideas. To the point where both would be following pretty much different religions, eventhough they both read the same scripture.

And there is no way to independently verify wich of both is actually correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok I have no problem in accepting descent from a common ancestor.(nether do many ID proponents like Behe and Demski) and I would agree with the first post of this thread, there is too much evidence for evolution and few if any evidence against it

And back to the abiogenesis stuff, then yes evolution (common ancestry) does rely on some assumptions regarding abiogenesis, for example it relies on the assumption that abiogenesis only happened once (or that only 1 line survived to this date)

With assumption I simply mean: something that you take for granted (regardless if there are good scientific reasons to accept it or not) please let me know if I should use any other word instead of “assumption”

Yes, evolution "assumes" that life exist and originated at some point in the past in some way.

Knowing that at one point in history there was no life on this planet and look around seeing life everywhere, it seems to be a pretty safe assumption.

Why do you think this is a problem?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not in the sense that you think life did not come about UNTIL that first whatever popped up, cropped up, emerged. But it clearly, crystal clearly, involved with the start of the process.

How, exactly?

If evolution is a process of how life changes over time through reproducing, how can evolution be involved in a process that occurred before life existed?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you explain when/how/where etc. was evolution tested and proven to be true, to an extend where the researchers concluded that all the diversity of life came to be as a product of those 5 mechanisms?

There is no one single test or experiment. It rather is the accumulation of piece of evidence after piece of evidence, with no evidence at all to contradict it.

The strength and explanatory power of evolution lies in the fact that multiple indepenent lines of evidence, even accross different fields of inquiry, all converge on the same answer of evolution and common ancestry.

Examples of such independent lines of evidence are the genetic record (comparative genomics etc), comparative anatomy, the fossil record, biogeography (the geographic distribution of species, like only finding kangaroo's in australia or finding fossils of the same population in west africa and latin america, dating to when these continents were attached to eachother in pangea) etc.

When you map out all the data within the context of these different fields of inquiry, you can build a "phylogenetic tree". This is like a family tree which shows the various relationships between species.

Here's the kicker: no matter on what you base this tree, it always ends up being the same tree. You can draw it based on geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, genetic comparision of full genomes or even just the tracing of a single genetic marker or gene sequence... It's the same tree every time. A family tree.

All that stuff together converges on a single answer: species evolved from common ancestors.

When you have multiple lines of evidence converging on the same answer and no evidence contradicting it.... that's when you have a ridiculously solid theory.

Is there any PR article that concludes that the statement is true?

There are about 300.000 peer reviewed publications on evolution in all kinds of fields, each detailing a portion of the evidence described above.

Was there any experiment where that result was achieved?

Many of those 300.000 peer reviewed papers include succesfull experments and tests.

Also, technically, every single breeding program in the world - be it plants or animals - is an evolutionary experiment, as they make use of evolutionary mechanisms to breed for specific traits. This practice is called "artificial selection".

In other words were is the evidence that shows that those 5 mechanisms where responsible for all the diversity of life.

In all the publications that have been published these past 150 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not about to contest with you right now about whether Moses was a real person as related in the Bible but the Bible has been around for thousands of years

So what?
Being around a long time doesn't make it true.

And discoveries have been made showing aspects of history in the Bible to be true.

So what?
Getting a few things right doesn't mean the rest of the book is accurate.
Manhatten exists and I'm sure a Peter Parker lives there, but that doesn't mean he's Spiderman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes evolution has been defined/explained multiple times since I asked for a definition, it is just that evolution is defined in a different way every time, this is why I like to ask for a definition befor answering to anything related to this subject.

No, the definitions you got pretty much all agreed.

Just because different people use different words, doesn't mean that the underlying meaning is different.

 

[leroy]

Yes, evolution "assumes" that life exist and originated at some point in the past in some way.

Knowing that at one point in history there was no life on this planet and look around seeing life everywhere, it seems to be a pretty safe assumption.

Why do you think this is a problem?

Evolution (common ancestry) assumes that abiogenesis happened only once (or that only 1 line succeeded) any model of abiogenesis that sates that life arose and succeeded multiple independent times would be incompatible with evolution (common ancestry)


Is that really hard to understand?

 

[leroy]

There is no one single test or experiment. It rather is the accumulation of piece of evidence after piece of evidence, with no evidence at all to contradict it.

The strength and explanatory power of evolution lies in the fact that multiple indepenent lines of evidence, even accross different fields of inquiry, all converge on the same answer of evolution and common ancestry.

Examples of such independent lines of evidence are the genetic record (comparative genomics etc), comparative anatomy, the fossil record, biogeography (the geographic distribution of species, like only finding kangaroo's in australia or finding fossils of the same population in west africa and latin america, dating to when these continents were attached to eachother in pangea) etc.

When you map out all the data within the context of these different fields of inquiry, you can build a "phylogenetic tree". This is like a family tree which shows the various relationships between species.

Here's the kicker: no matter on what you base this tree, it always ends up being the same tree. You can draw it based on geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, genetic comparision of full genomes or even just the tracing of a single genetic marker or gene sequence... It's the same tree every time. A family tree.

All that stuff together converges on a single answer: species evolved from common ancestors.

When you have multiple lines of evidence converging on the same answer and no evidence contradicting it.... that's when you have a ridiculously solid theory.



There are about 300.000 peer reviewed publications on evolution in all kinds of fields, each detailing a portion of the evidence described above.



Many of those 300.000 peer reviewed papers include succesfull experments and tests.

Also, technically, every single breeding program in the world - be it plants or animals - is an evolutionary experiment, as they make use of evolutionary mechanisms to breed for specific traits. This practice is called "artificial selection".




In all the publications that have been published these past 150 years.

All that is evidence for common ancestry, (which I accept) but accepting common ancestry doesn’t necessarily imply that live evolved mainly by a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Where is your “irrefutable evidence” that shows beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved by a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection. Or perhaps you can agree with me and grant that there is no conclusive evidence yet.