Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[BilliardsBall]

No this is an incredibly ignorant error at best and possibly even a lie on your part since this has been explained to you many times. There are no "gaps". Not in any meaningful way. I doubt if you could find one. And you don't know if a species has remained the same for millions of years. In fact creationists often shoot themselves in the foot when they make that claim. One will see similarities that are caused by environment. For example the rough outline of a dolphin is rather similar to a shark and that is rather similar to a mosasaur, but all of those are quite different creatures. You can't go on looks alone when making such a claim.

Please do not repeat the false claim of "just so-storytelling" that is what creationists do. But I see that you still do not understand phylogenetic trees either. Perhaps someone else has the patience to teach you, but I do not right now. The problem with all of the man made objects that you mentioned is that they do not form phylogenetic trees.

The reason you haven't put boats and planes in a p-tree is because you have foreknowledge that they were created and not evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Conversely, almost 80% of the trees fitted a model in which new species emerge from single rare evolutionary events."

Please describe these events using scientific data and not just-so stories, you may use any species you like:

If you want to make a demand you must try to use proper questions, and do not make false claims about others. If you believe the Adam and Eve myth you are the one that believes in a "just so story". Do you even know what a just so story is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

That is not the case. Where have you ever seen that claim made seriously?

sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory. Just to be clear.

Yes, quite a few things have been developed through the process of evolution. Perhaps you should have qualified your earlier statement.

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.

That is because you use a false definition of "observe". And quote mining is often a form of lying that should not be used in a debate. If you quote someone you need to link to the source. Otherwise the quote is worthless. For example it would be dishonest of me to try to argue for the non-existence of God by stating the fact that the Bible says at least 12 times "there is not god". That is a quote mine that appears at least twelve different times in the Bible. Your quote may have a different meaning than it appears to since he could have a qualifier that explained that.

Meanwhile we do have examples of "half wings", "half feet" and other developing structures. Your quote is about cellular evolution and much of that occurred a long time ago. We do not expect to find much in the way of fossil evidence for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason you haven't put boats and planes in a p-tree is because you have foreknowledge that they were created and not evolved.

No, the reason is that they did not evolve. If we wanted to we could follow phylogenetics, but we can work outside of that limitation and so of course we do. Life does not seem to have that ability. Designed things do not have to follow phylogenetics. That life always does follow phylogenetics indicates that it is not designed.

 

[Audie]

That is not the case. Where have you ever seen that claim made seriously?



Yes, quite a few things have been developed through the process of evolution. Perhaps you should have qualified your earlier statement.





That is because you use a false definition of "observe". And quote mining is often a form of lying that should not be used in a debate. If you quote someone you need to link to the source. Otherwise the quote is worthless. For example it would be dishonest of me to try to argue for the non-existence of God by stating the fact that the Bible says at least 12 times "there is not god". That is a quote mine that appears at least twelve different times in the Bible. Your quote may have a different meaning than it appears to since he could have a qualifier that explained that.

Meanwhile we do have examples of "half wings", "half feet" and other developing structures. Your quote is about cellular evolution and much of that occurred a long time ago. We do not expect to find much in the way of fossil evidence for that.

Not every organism needs even half-wings to be off thro' the treetops.

The question about half-formed has been left behind, it seems, for a new treetop.

 

[Augustus]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

What are your views on gene centric views of evolution v multi-level selection?

 

[Audie]

Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it -
.

For greater clarity, let us point out that things you make
are what you call "just-so stories". Like the "scandal" over fossils earlier referred to, and never backed with facts nor retracted.

 

[sayak83]

What are your views on gene centric views of evolution v multi-level selection?

I am more inclined to multi-level selection. Though I will say that the math is often the same and one is often simply clubbing and arranging the terms differently to develop different theoretical concepts from the same math.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Please describe these events using scientific data and not just-so stories, you may use any species you like:

The authors of the paper already did that:

Phylogenies reveal new interpretation of speciation and the Red Queen

Perhaps you should read about the actual research before saying that they didn't present any evidence?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory.

Why would you expect a process that take 10's of millions of years to happen over a 100 year period?

The reason that we know mutations are responsible for the differences between species is the bias of transition mutations over transversion mutations as well as the bias towards CpG mutations. You can read more here:

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations

 

[Yerda]

I am more inclined to multi-level selection. Though I will say that the math is often the same and one is often simply clubbing and arranging the terms differently to develop different theoretical concepts from the same math.

I've never seen any maths in evolution related biology except that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation. Could you recommend a good text or a website?

 

[Astrophile]

Yep, a refinement of a theory is not a refutation of a theory. Einstein's General Relativity refined Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation". We still fall if we go off of a cliff,

Yes, and planets, comets and binary stars still move in elliptical orbits.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I've never seen any maths in evolution related biology except that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation. Could you recommend a good text or a website?

There are plenty of equations relating to population genetics which is very important in the field of evolution:

http://www.radford.edu/~rsheehy/Gen_flash/ABLE_Workshop/Popgen_Equations.pdf

 

[sayak83]

I've never seen any maths in evolution related biology except that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation. Could you recommend a good text or a website?

Try this.
Modeling Evolution

 

[sayak83]

I've never seen any maths in evolution related biology except that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation. Could you recommend a good text or a website?

Also this paper below (open access)
Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations

An overall (and open access) article on the state of the debate

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

 

[Yerda]

Also this paper below (open access)
Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations

An overall (and open access) article on the state of the debate

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Thanks very much.

 

[tayla]

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Thank you for your offer.

Regarding the randomness of mutations and gene copying errors. Evolutionists try to say it's not random (they don't like that term for some reason), but what I am interested in knowing concerns the fact that mutations and gene copying errors do in fact occur without any pre-planning by someone. You can't predict in advance that one is about to occur, especially a significant one that turns out to be selected for via natural selection and that triggers a significant evolutionary train of events.

When I try to research whether the probability of such "random" events are capable of explaining all of evolution, all I find is evolutionists disputing creationists who are using statistics wrongly to come up with wildly extremely high odds against evolution.

I want to know what the probability really is; whether evolution is sensible from this perspective.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I want to know what the probability really is; whether evolution is sensible from this perspective.

The field of population genetics is probably what you should be looking at. Since a random mutation can change any base to any of the other 3 bases at any time it really isn't a question of if random mutations can produce a specific change. Insertions, deletions, and recombination events can also make large scale changes to a genome. Obviously, any specific difference you point to can be produced by the known and observed processes of mutation.

The real question is if there has been enough time for those changes to build up, and those questions are answered by population genetics. This is the field that tries to figure out how many genetic differences can build up over time, how selection will change the accumulation of mutations, and how breeding affects the distribution of alleles. You will often see this referred to as "molecular clocks". From all of the papers on population genetics I have seen, the differences seen between species is in line with observed mutation rates and population sizes. A good example is this paper which puts the human-chimp divergence at 5-8 million years ago:

Molecular Clocks: Determining the Age of the Human–Chimpanzee Divergence

In other words, the number of differences between the chimp and human genomes is consistent with the observed mutation rate operating over a 5-8 million year time span which is consistent with the fossil record.

 

[tayla]

The field of population genetics is probably what you should be looking at.

Thank you.

 

[james dixon]

The following is not a product of "random mutation"; nor is it a product of evolution. It is nothing more than make believe images strung together with no supporting facts to support this BS;------------------------- period.
BTW; there are monkeys climbing trees today. What's up, were they picking up fallen nuts on the ground when the great mutation took place and got left behind? lol