Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Bunyip]

Oh, that is interesting!

Is this actually evolution though, at least, is this really the "change of kinds" macroevolution,

Yes it is, in fact even small variations within a species are evolution by definition.

where there is new genetic information?

In every cell there is 'new information', the average human beong has anout 150,000 minor genetic variations.

You claimed there was a change of phyla here, which sounds major but maybe that's just an arbitrary scientific distinction

Of course it is, the classificaltion system is arbitrary and scientific.

, because nothing seems to have actually changed. I mean, some yeast already clumps together, and the clump will behave together as one unit. What the scientists did here was separate the big clumps from the single celled stuff. It's selective breeding, farmers do it a lot.

The yeast hasn't suddenly gained an ability, no gene seems to have changed here, the yeast is just doing what yeast has always been able to do, but this time the big clumps are selectively bred, so naturally the yeast which are most prone to budding will then make the next batch more likely to form bigger and more frequent clumps.

No, not a clump - a mulitcellular organism. Are you a clump?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are describing Creationism and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is Creationism. And Intelligent Design has always been an argument from the gap.

the arguments that overturned classical physics were arguments from gaps, very tiny gaps between the theory and the observation- of subatomic physics and orbits of planets.

Evolution is biology, not bl#@dy physics. And the Big Bang has nothing to with biology.

Why talk about physical cosmology (Big Bang) and evolution together, when one has nothing to do with the other?

You'd have to go back to the origin of the thread, but it's partly about the temptation to accept simple theories as adequate explanations, especially where personal beliefs are supported.

More specifically, the reason classical physics failed is precisely because it was so simple, too simple to overcome entropy. Under the simple superficial 'laws' of physics alone, the universe would fall foul to entropy, collapse into the simplest state, not regenerate giant fusion reactors to manufacture elements necessary for biology, life itself. Physics required a deeper set of instructions, a blueprint to guide it to produce specific productive, creative, emergent properties.

Similarly with evolution, the superficially observed 'laws' of random mutation and natural selection alone are not adequate to account for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. by themselves, without a blueprint, they would similarly produce the simplest homogenous blob of replicators.

And atheism has nothing to do with science.

we agree there, it's not science, it's a belief, popular among certain academic institutions, responsible for the mocking the primeval atom as 'big bang', pushing steady state, Big Crunches, and flying spaghetti multiverses..

As a good scientist should do, he had recorded natural phenomena without the need for God-did-it, during his voyage on HMS Beagle, during 1830s. He only recorded what he can observed.

I'd highly recommend reading Voyage of the Beagle if you haven't, slow start but quite an adventure he had. I don't disagree with much of Darwin's view, including the pitfalls in the theory he talks about

 

[Guy Threepwood]

8 Examples of Evolution in Action

"Evolution is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs. Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed. Here are eight examples, amongst many, of evolution in action.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

a familiar enthusiasm existed for classical physics within living memory.

Classical physics is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all physics in the universe, physicists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of classical physics, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny classical physics works. the formation of a new solar system from a clump of dust, takes a very long time yet there are physical steps which can be observed. We have many examples of classical physics in action.

Point being, observation and explanation are two different things entirely. " [science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact" (Mark Twain)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, that is interesting!

Is this actually evolution though, at least, is this really the "change of kinds" macroevolution, where there is new genetic information? You claimed there was a change of phyla here, which sounds major but maybe that's just an arbitrary scientific distinction, because nothing seems to have actually changed. I mean, some yeast already clumps together, and the clump will behave together as one unit. What the scientists did here was separate the big clumps from the single celled stuff. It's selective breeding, farmers do it a lot.

The yeast hasn't suddenly gained an ability, no gene seems to have changed here, the yeast is just doing what yeast has always been able to do, but this time the big clumps are selectively bred, so naturally the yeast which are most prone to budding will then make the next batch more likely to form bigger and more frequent clumps.

significant/fundamental changes are often attributed to inevitable gradual modification over vast timescales, in theory.. yet in observation the greatest leaps occur in a geological blink of an eye, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, while other species remain almost identical for vast timescales.

 

[metis]

significant/fundamental changes are often attributed to inevitable gradual modification over vast timescales, in theory.. yet in observation the greatest leaps occur in a geological blink of an eye, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, while other species remain almost identical for vast timescales.

But this would have nothing to do with God as creation was completed on the 6th day, according to Genesis.

 

[viole]

significant/fundamental changes are often attributed to inevitable gradual modification over vast timescales, in theory.. yet in observation the greatest leaps occur in a geological blink of an eye, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, while other species remain almost identical for vast timescales.

The cambrian explosion is based on the same evidence, and processes used to gather it, that leads to deductions like our common ancestry with Chimps.

Do you accept it? Or are you only cherry picking what does not contradict your holy book?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes it is, in fact even small variations within a species are evolution by definition. In every cell there is 'new information', the average human beong has anout 150,000 minor genetic variations. Of course it is, the classificaltion system is arbitrary and scientific.No, not a clump - a mulitcellular organism. Are you a clump?

The point is, this budding already takes place, this isn't anything new, they seem to have just selectively bred the yeast so they form this organism more. It isn't a single celled organism suddenly gaining some ability to join together with another cell, the cell already has this ability.

 

[shawn001]

significant/fundamental changes are often attributed to inevitable gradual modification over vast timescales, in theory.. yet in observation the greatest leaps occur in a geological blink of an eye, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, while other species remain almost identical for vast timescales.

So Guy, explain the five mass extinction events? Was there a blueprint for those?

Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

 

[shawn001]

"Archaefructus liaoningensis would never have made the cover of Better Homes & Gardens. But this 125 million-year-old plant, discovered in fossil beds in northeastern China, did grace the cover of Science. It’s heralded as the earliest known angiosperm, or flowering plant. Here, explore what makes Archaefructus a flowering plant and how it compares to blooming beauties of today."

NOVA | Flowers Modern & Ancient

 

[gnostic]

the arguments that overturned classical physics were arguments from gaps, very tiny gaps between the theory and the observation- of subatomic physics and orbits of planets.

The classical physics is not arguments the gaps.

It was based on observation (through either tests or evidences), with the best tools and technology that they have at the time. They didn't have the technology of the 20th century (and of course, the 21st century). Progress allowed for better tools or equipments that allow scientists to investigate what they couldn't before.

Evidences for atoms didn't first exist till early 19th century, even though ancient Greek philosophers have hypothetically suggest the smallest matters were "atoms". It was until J.J. Thomson measure the mass of the cathode rays (in 1897) that he detect a particle lighter than hydrogen that electron was first discovered. Other technology enabled physicists to detect for nucleus, and then protons and neutrons.

But it wasn't till the first particle accelerator was used that they detected particles smaller than electron, proton and neutron, the subatomic particles like quarks. And that protons and neutrons were made out of these smaller particles, ie quarks.

Take the evolution of the computers, which began with being very large computer, taking up whole floor of office building, and yet do even less than what a desktop computer or notebook computer can do today. Only with increasingly more advance technology, was computer was made with increasingly smaller electronic components, like CPU (central processing unit, or the processor) or memory, where transistors has become microscopic, when comparing to transistors of 20 or 30 or 50 years. Each year, processor makers, like Intel or AMD can fit more transistors into a single processor than 10 years or 15 years ago.

Before the iPad, was a PDA device was a tablet-like device that Apple began manufacturing the Newton devices in 1987. Newton has capability of recognising handwriting with a status, similar to the touchscreen of most mobile devices of today tablets and mobile smartphones.

It is progress that allow science to advance. And when science advanced, so does engineering or any other technology.

If you were to tell people 40 or 50 years ago, that there would be computers in just about every home, they would have thought you were insane.

Classical physics have to give way to modern physics, but not all classical physics have been discarded. We can still use Newton's law of motion or his knowledge on gravity, but we have gone beyond it with quantum physics and relativity, and number of scientists/mathematicians are trying to replace these two modern physics fields with (yet unsuccessful) string theory.

It would be remiss for any scientist today to ignore progress of science for sake of classic or tradition.

Evolution has progressed since Darwin's time, with several more new evolutionary (biological) mechanisms, but Natural Selection is still a very valid mechanism (and theory), but Darwin's original theory has since been updated during the 20th century, to take into account of mutation (another mechanism that I was talking about) and others like DNA, RNA, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.

And there are plenty observed evidences for Natural Selection as there are for other mechanisms of evolution, so evolution is not just a theory, because the evidences supporting evolution are what evolution "factual", as opposed to the myths or superstitions of religious scriptures.

 

[Bunyip]

The point is, this budding already takes place, this isn't anything new, they seem to have just selectively bred the yeast so they form this organism more. It isn't a single celled organism suddenly gaining some ability to join together with another cell, the cell already has this ability.

You should read the article, rather than make a fool of yourself by so catastrophically misunderstanding it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

You should read the article, rather than make a fool of yourself by so catastrophically misunderstanding it.

"In the new study, researchers led by Travisano and William Ratcliff grew brewer’s yeast, a common single-celled organism, in flasks of nutrient-rich broth.

Once per day they shook the flasks, removed yeast that most rapidly settled to the bottom, and used it to start new cultures. Free-floating yeast were left behind, while yeast that gathered in heavy, fast-falling clumps survived to reproduce."

I have read the entire article. What am I misunderstanding?

No new ability has emerged, including all the multicellular stuff, they've just taken what yeast already does and selectively bred it.

Yeast has already been found to bear many of these characteristics:

Co-ordinated cell death in brewer's yeast - Cell death with predominant apoptotic features in Saccharomyces cerevisiae mediated by deletion of the histone chaperone ASF1/CIA1 - Yamaki - 2001 - Genes to Cells - Wiley Online Library

And from this article: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31605/title/Evolving-Multicellularity/ :

“Were there any changes in expression of signaling genes after they selected the snowflakes?” - this was from a biochemist, Dr Todd Miller of Stony Brook University. They don't actually know...

 

[Bunyip]

"In the new study, researchers led by Travisano and William Ratcliff grew brewer’s yeast, a common single-celled organism, in flasks of nutrient-rich broth.

Once per day they shook the flasks, removed yeast that most rapidly settled to the bottom, and used it to start new cultures. Free-floating yeast were left behind, while yeast that gathered in heavy, fast-falling clumps survived to reproduce."

I have read the entire article. What am I misunderstanding?

No new ability has emerged, including all the multicellular stuff, they've just taken what yeast already does and selectively bred it.

Yeast has already been found to bear many of these characteristics:

Co-ordinated cell death in brewer's yeast - Cell death with predominant apoptotic features in Saccharomyces cerevisiae mediated by deletion of the histone chaperone ASF1/CIA1 - Yamaki - 2001 - Genes to Cells - Wiley Online Library

And from this article: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31605/title/Evolving-Multicellularity/ :

“Were there any changes in expression of signaling genes after they selected the snowflakes?” - this was from a biochemist, Dr Todd Miller of Stony Brook University. They don't actually know...

What you are not understanding is a scientific field called 'evolution'.

 

[Muffled]

What scientific facts do you think creation is based on?

Usually what I hear on Christian radio are facts on co-dependency. Co-dependency is a real problem for evolution.

 

[Muffled]

I agree.
However, I bet we disagree on the who...

I believe there is no doubt. So I suppose that means you think one pot evolved from the other?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So Guy, explain the five mass extinction events? Was there a blueprint for those?

Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

we would not be discussing this, if it were not for a perfectly aimed, weighted asteroid surgically removing the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely-

so that's just one good example of how 'classical evolution' alone could never create humanity

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The classical physics is not arguments the gaps.

It was based on observation (through either tests or evidences), with the best tools and technology that they have at the time. They didn't have the technology of the 20th century (and of course, the 21st century). Progress allowed for better tools or equipments that allow scientists to investigate what they couldn't before.

Evidences for atoms didn't first exist till early 19th century, even though ancient Greek philosophers have hypothetically suggest the smallest matters were "atoms". It was until J.J. Thomson measure the mass of the cathode rays (in 1897) that he detect a particle lighter than hydrogen that electron was first discovered. Other technology enabled physicists to detect for nucleus, and then protons and neutrons.

But it wasn't till the first particle accelerator was used that they detected particles smaller than electron, proton and neutron, the subatomic particles like quarks. And that protons and neutrons were made out of these smaller particles, ie quarks.

Take the evolution of the computers, which began with being very large computer, taking up whole floor of office building, and yet do even less than what a desktop computer or notebook computer can do today. Only with increasingly more advance technology, was computer was made with increasingly smaller electronic components, like CPU (central processing unit, or the processor) or memory, where transistors has become microscopic, when comparing to transistors of 20 or 30 or 50 years. Each year, processor makers, like Intel or AMD can fit more transistors into a single processor than 10 years or 15 years ago.

Before the iPad, was a PDA device was a tablet-like device that Apple began manufacturing the Newton devices in 1987. Newton has capability of recognising handwriting with a status, similar to the touchscreen of most mobile devices of today tablets and mobile smartphones.

It is progress that allow science to advance. And when science advanced, so does engineering or any other technology.

If you were to tell people 40 or 50 years ago, that there would be computers in just about every home, they would have thought you were insane.

Classical physics have to give way to modern physics, but not all classical physics have been discarded. We can still use Newton's law of motion or his knowledge on gravity, but we have gone beyond it with quantum physics and relativity, and number of scientists/mathematicians are trying to replace these two modern physics fields with (yet unsuccessful) string theory.

It would be remiss for any scientist today to ignore progress of science for sake of classic or tradition.

Evolution has progressed since Darwin's time, with several more new evolutionary (biological) mechanisms, but Natural Selection is still a very valid mechanism (and theory), but Darwin's original theory has since been updated during the 20th century, to take into account of mutation (another mechanism that I was talking about) and others like DNA, RNA, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.

And there are plenty observed evidences for Natural Selection as there are for other mechanisms of evolution, so evolution is not just a theory, because the evidences supporting evolution are what evolution "factual", as opposed to the myths or superstitions of religious scriptures.

I don't think we disagree on much there, the point being that classical physics fundamentally failed as an explanation for observed reality. The laws were not just added to, they had to be fundamentally broken for the universe to work. So too I think with classical evolution.

The evidence of apples falling from trees was factual, unambiguous, undeniable too, and far more directly observable, repeatable, measurable than evolution, but observations and conclusions are two different things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think we disagree on much there, the point being that classical physics fundamentally failed as an explanation for observed reality. The laws were not just added to, they had to be fundamentally broken for the universe to work. So too I think with classical evolution.

The evidence of apples falling from trees was factual, unambiguous, undeniable too, and far more directly observable, repeatable, measurable than evolution, but observations and conclusions are two different things.

Not quite true. The laws are not broken in so much as that they are no longer correct but they are now only correct within defined parameters and certain new parts of equations must be added for it to remain factually true for specific scenarios.

However biology and evolution is far more well known than the ideas of advanced physics. We all know that we know very little and scientists even more so about how little we know about the laws of the universe. However in matters of biology we are able to draw more accurate and conclusive scientific opinions on the world as we know how it works. Abiogensis for example however would be a difficult tree to climb.

Though again no one believed that physics was broken till it was broken and an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary was presented. So in the same way we should assume that what we know of evolution is as correct as we think it is till we find overwhelming, or even some, evidence against that line of thinking. To simply assume that a theory is wrong is not only pointless but also asinine.

But what are the overwhelming bits of evidence you feel contradict evolution to the point you are convinced that it is wrong? Do you feel the same way about gravity? Or heliocentric orbits?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

we would not be discussing this, if it were not for a perfectly aimed, weighted asteroid surgically removing the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely-

so that's just one good example of how 'classical evolution' alone could never create humanity

We have had seven mass extinctions. They aren't that rare. In fact we will see another one. And if life survives that one we will see another one after that. So on and so forth. If it wasn't for every single mass extinction we wouldn't be here. In fact if it wasn't for a lot of very specific things we wouldn't be here. But from an alternative perspective we see that life adapts to new environments. As conditions on earth change so do the life forms. If any of those previous events had not happened then life still would have continued in one form or another. There is nothing particularly special about us in that we were destined to happen.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What you are not understanding is a scientific field called 'evolution'.

How so?

You said "As to a change in 'kinds', that is easy to provide - recently a species of yeast was observed to undergo a change in phyla as it transitioned from a single celled to a multi-celled organism."

This is what you were trying to prove. All you showed was an already existing characteristic of brewer's yeast being selectively bred, this is not a change of kinds, which is literally what you were claiming to have demonstrated.