Enough Time for Evolution?

[Enai de a lukal]

Meanwhile... I'm reading in a recent science magazine about how they're comparing modern human genes with Neanderthals and Denisovans by using epigenomes and methyl chemical tags to figure out what genes were switched on and off for the brain. Neanderthals and Denisovans had different brains than us, and used 3 times more calories (IIRC). And it seems like cognitive and mental disorders are connected somehow. Haven't finished the article yet, but it's funny that they're comparing DNA from different species of humans... which we are related to, which can be seen in the DNA, and then we're having discussions about if it happened or not. *facepalm*

I forget which book it was in, but Dawkin's likened this situation to a class concerning the history of the Roman Empire, in which the professor can never begin talking about the subject because his students keep questioning and demanding he prove that there even was any such thing as the Roman Empire!

This is what is so ludicrous about the whole conversation- we're forced to go back and forth over whether evolution even occurs at all, all the while scientists have lapped us and are actually learning the specifics of how evolution works! And all because people think that a 2000 year old religious myth should somehow supercede observation and fact!

 

[Falvlun]

Isn't the benefit of a mutation only apparent when placed in a suitable environment. I find from a family that has the sickle cell gene. Lots if us have the trait. Here in the U.S where malaria isn't a huge issue if it at all, it's an annoyance. In a place with high malaria rates, it's a beneficial mutation.

That's true too, and one of the reasons why you can't discount "neutral" mutations in the equation. Some trait can become beneficial some time in the future, or within a different environment.

Say there's a group of monkeys, and some have webbed toes and some don't. They live in a forest environment with some water, so either trait doesn't convey a huge advantage or disadvantage. Now say that some of these monkeys break off from the group for some reason and now live in a much wetter environment, like a swamp. Suddenly, the webbed toes become much more desirable. Non-webbed toes die out.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, your conclusion is that there is not enough time. Could you make a handy list of the reasons you think support that?

Such as:
1. Not enough beneficial mutations.
2. ?
3. ?
4. etc

2. Beneficial mutations generally aren't that much of a change to begin with and haven't been observed to do much more than adapt from within the structure, not adapt the structure itself. (I.E. developing resistance to antibodies).
3. No demonstratable evidence of large-scale structural changes.
4. As Dr. Stewart Newman says, lack of evidence of incremental changes leading to such large-scale structural changes, and a reliance on the idea of "Giant leaps" which currently has no basis from evidence but relies totally on speculation.
5. The time frame for beneficial mutations in general on complex life forms is far higher than for Bacterium.
6. A reliance on the idea of "Mutational hot spots" that have yet to show any actual observation in light of these issues.


There's a start.

And then we have issues like the anomalies of the Cambrian explosion, where things seem to have developed way too fast even in the wildest dreams of an evolutionist, which defy the concept of steady incremental changes.

Now if you don't mind a few quotes from some Creation websites that discuss the basic facts at hand:

Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?

The standard tale is that Cambrian creatures did not evolve until about 500 million years ago. In contrast, these authors suggested that animals were actually alive and evolving 800 million years ago. But without the fossils to support their story, why should other scientists believe it?

Their answer was to ignore the fossils and emphasize molecular clocks. When the idea of a molecular clock was first conceived, researchers believed that DNA bases change at a steady rate over time, and thus "tick" at a reliable rate.

However, a decade of abundant research has clearly shown that DNA base change rates are not steady at all, and they are restricted to mutational "hot spots" and non-lethal changes that are different for various genes. For these reasons, and because most molecular clock-based evolutionary histories are markedly different from fossil-based ones, researchers routinely "calibrate" molecular clocks to fossils of supposedly "known ages."2, 3 The molecular clock estimates in this Science study were adjusted to 24 fossil-based "ages." Thus tuned, the researchers' clocks indicated that "the last common ancestor of all living animals arose nearly 800 Ma [million years ago]."1 This falls within the range reported by Stony Brook University's Barry Levinson, who wrote in BioScience in 2008 that the molecular-based histories constantly contradict the fossil-based histories of life on earth.4

But if this molecule-based age of 800 million years is true, then how did animals avoid fossilization for 300 million years?

 

[Shermana]

I put Shermana on ignore,

Speaks volumes.

 

[Ouroboros]

I read your synopsis and analogy. It was helpful to me, so thanks!

Good.

I saw another Creationist sum up the critique of W&E this way:

Thus their conclusion that "there's plenty of time for evolution" is unsubstantiated. The probability calculation to justify evolutionary theory remains unaddressed.

I think that's fair. No one has been able to create a full scale evolution emulator in the sense of having a large set of genes and many "individuals" competing for resources. One fundamental problems is that there are millions (or billions maybe?) of possible proteins (poly-peptides) that could be created by a gene, but only some 10,000 (I think it is) proteins are in use in the biosphere. "Life" hasn't even "tried" all possible proteins yet. And a computer emulator would have to be able to simulate all chemical models of these unknown proteins, and how they would work in a physical world. There's no computer or software (or programmer) that can do this yet. It's too big. But we really don't need to do this. Another way is to study bacteria and how fast it evolve new beneficial traits. And this has been done, and the result is that they mutate to beneficial traits about 1,000 times faster than thought. Link: The best is the enemy of the good : Nature News

Watching real live bacteria do the job and study the speed of its mutation rate, that's better than a computer model.

 

[Ouroboros]

I forget which book it was in, but Dawkin's likened this situation to a class concerning the history of the Roman Empire, in which the professor can never begin talking about the subject because his students keep questioning and demanding he prove that there even was any such thing as the Roman Empire!

That's why I put people on ignore that can't contain themselves or use "Hovind" methods of argument.

This is what is so ludicrous about the whole conversation- we're forced to go back and forth over whether evolution even occurs at all, all the while scientists have lapped us and are actually learning the specifics of how evolution works! And all because people think that a 2000 year old religious myth should somehow supercede observation and fact!

It is very crazy. We know there's been many different kinds of homo and australopithecus. And we can see the gradual change in the bones. I've looked at them and seen it, after learning what details to look for. To me, it was a moment of conviction. It's undeniable after actually studying it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

2. Beneficial mutations generally aren't that much of a change to begin with and haven't been observed to do much more than adapt from within the structure, not adapt the structure itself. (I.E. developing resistance to antibodies).
3. No demonstratable evidence of large-scale structural changes.
4. As Dr. Stewart Newman says, lack of evidence of incremental changes leading to such large-scale structural changes, and a reliance on the idea of "Giant leaps" which currently has no basis from evidence but relies totally on speculation.
5. The time frame for beneficial mutations in general on complex life forms is far higher than for Bacterium.
6. A reliance on the idea of "Mutational hot spots" that have yet to show any actual observation in light of these issues.


There's a start.

And then we have issues like the anomalies of the Cambrian explosion, where things seem to have developed way too fast even in the wildest dreams of an evolutionist, which defy the concept of steady incremental changes.

Now if you don't mind a few quotes from some Creation websites that discuss the basic facts at hand:

Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?

I can't answer the others but case 5 is where sexual reproduction comes into play. Even bacteria do some form of gene swapping, splitting isn't the only way that mutations occur in them.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's true too, and one of the reasons why you can't discount "neutral" mutations in the equation. Some trait can become beneficial some time in the future, or within a different environment.

Agree.

And most people don't understand the importance of synonymous codons. I will try to explain it later if it's of interest.

Say there's a group of monkeys, and some have webbed toes and some don't. They live in a forest environment with some water, so either trait doesn't convey a huge advantage or disadvantage. Now say that some of these monkeys break off from the group for some reason and now live in a much wetter environment, like a swamp. Suddenly, the webbed toes become much more desirable. Non-webbed toes die out.

And this we can see with tails, thumbs (there's a monkey that doesn't have a thumb, Columbine I think, because it helps with their brachiation), and many other things (soundbox, eyes, ...).

 

[Agnostic75]

Okay Agnostic, if you'd like to have a Public debate on this with experts, you're welcome to invite whoever you want to this thread.......

But I never claimed that I could win a debate with an expert. Since I do not know a lot about biology, I accept the opinions of the vast majority of experts. What is wrong with that?

I am not boasting about what I know, I am questioning what you know. Even if skeptics at this forum cannot adequately refute your arguments, there are a multitude of other skeptics who can.

.......hopefully they'll be willing to actually address the OP and properly represent the arguments as well as from counter sources, it would be a major improvement than what this sorry lot of Naturalismists have offered so far.

Hopefully you will be willing to address the vast amount of scientific literature that disagrees with Dr. Newman, and to address Dr. Newman's hypotheses about evolution.

If you really wanted to learn something about evolution, you would be willing to debate at Physics Forum. It has over 385,000 members, many of whom have advanced degrees in science. It would interesting to see you repost your opening post there. And, wherever you live, there must be some college biology professors who will be happy to discuss your arguments with you.

Whatever you say in this thread is irrelevant since you cannot adequately defend what you claim in debates with experts. I have no idea where you got the notion that it proves something if you know more about evolution than some skeptic laymen do.

Anyway, my following aliens argument easily refutes your opening post.

If "Aliens" are responsible, that's still basically the same thing as saying "gods". It's really Semantics.

You claimed that incremental changes cannot account for naturalistic evolution. Even if you are right, aliens could have plausibly accounted for evolution. If God created the aliens, you have won your argument about naturalism, but you have not won your argument that God created life on earth if that is what you are arguing.

You are essentially objecting to naturalism, not to evolution since if a God exists, he can cause evolution to occur in any ways that he wants to, and he does not need to use incremental changes if he does not want to.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We know there's been many different kinds of homo and australopithecus. And we can see the gradual change in the bones. I've looked at them and seen it, after learning what details to look for. To me, it was a moment of conviction. It's undeniable after actually studying it.

While I never really doubted the truth of evolutionary theory, I know exactly what you mean; taking "Human Evolution" in college and actually getting to see some of the bones, and casts of most of the significant fossils, was sort of a moment where it all hit home. Its literally inconceivable to me how people can flatly deny the preponderance of evidence which supports evolutionary theory, especially the evidence that is tangible and observable like the fossil record!

 

[Ouroboros]

While I never really doubted the truth of evolutionary theory, I know exactly what you mean; taking "Human Evolution" in college and actually getting to see some of the bones, and casts of most of the significant fossils, was sort of a moment where it all hit home. Its literally inconceivable to me how people can flatly deny the preponderance of evidence which supports evolutionary theory, especially the evidence that is tangible and observable like the fossil record!

Exactly. And since then, there's been more research done and even more evidence provided. It just keeps on piling up in support for evolution. Doesn't matter if there was "plenty more time than needed" or "just enough time", it still did happen. Now, of course the question could be if there's a divine spark/force/energy pushing life and evolution to move forward or not, or if this divine is actually Nature, that's a question science can't show yet. Still, evolution is how life happened.

 

[dust1n]

Indeed.

It's very difficult to get people to actually respond to my responses.

When I ask a person to substantiate their claim which I don't believe is indicated by the text they highlight, I get told I'm "demanding them to take responsibility for my lack of biological knowledge" and then I get told I'm going off topic when I respond to a topic, and then I get accused of avoiding a question simply because they don't like the answer.

This thread has been an excellent exercise and an irrefutable proof of just how nigh on impossible it can be to get an honest debate going with actually substantiated, properly represented critiques and rebuttals.

Do they not think that anyone objectively reading can't see right through the ruse?

Yea, I didn't expect much with an OP that lays out a statistical model for something like evolution to be understood in any meaningful way by anyone, nor did I expect anyone to understand the second study which most likely fails to understand the former to be understood by anyone.

Relying on the authority of one guy who is fighting another authority without being able to understand any of it is a rather futile way of debating anything.

You can't possibly understand the studies and nor could I, so what is there to debate?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's very difficult to get people to actually respond to my responses.
When I ask a person to substantiate their claim which I don't believe is indicated by the text they highlight....

I have the same problem. When someone makes a claim of the unlikelihood of
evolution or abiogenesis, I ask to see their calculations. There never are any.
When I read an article, & point out a lack of appropriate assumptions, this is
never ever addressed.

 

[Awoon]

I have the same problem. When someone makes a claim of the unlikelihood of
evolution or abiogenesis, I ask to see their calculations. There never are any.
When I read an article, & point out a lack of appropriate assumptions, this is
never ever addressed.

Every question ever asked in this forum has been answered.

All questions are rehashed because of the turn over of members.

Somebody tell us all something NEW.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every question ever asked in this forum has been answered.

I missed mine about chemical pathways, frequency & time.

 

[Awoon]

I missed mine about chemical pathways, frequency & time.

Google that question and you'll get an answer. Maybe not the one you want but you'll get sum ting.

 

[Agnostic75]

I found an Internet article at Biologic Institute that is word for word the same as what Shermana quoted in the opening post. It is from the Biologic Institute. Consider the following from the website:

Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing a new approach to biology. Thanks to technological advances, the life sciences have become very effective at acquiring facts. What they need now is a theoretical foundation that makes sense of these facts. Some still claim that Darwin’s theory does just that, but the ongoing struggle to make sense of genomic data (for example) indicates otherwise.

Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. That’s a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the fact it appears to be correct) it doesn’t do much for biology if left at that. Yet it could be the gateway to big things if interested biologists are allowed to work from that starting point. The science establishment is decidedly against this, but the truth is that no one will know how much the design-centered approach will benefit biology until that approach is taken by enough people for a full theory to come out of it.

Our role as an organization is to assist those who can tackle this challenge now and to grow the number who can continue that work by introducing future scientists to the field.

We gave a simple definition above. Intelligent design is the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. Things get more complicated quickly when you begin to unravel the implications of that idea, or when you ponder the questions it raises. The worldview implications make the idea controversial, which explains why you’ll find both favorable and unfavorable takes on it. We suggest that you understand how its proponents describe it before you decide whether its opponents have really refuted it.

Biologic Institute’s position on the intelligent-design controversy is described in more detail here.

Regarding "life appears to have been designed because it really was designed," theistic evolution easily takes care of that. In addition, aliens might have brought life to earth. If they did, that does not explain where the aliens came from, but it would explain where life on earth came from.

Regarding "intelligent design is the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed," as Ken Miller shows, that is a misrepresentation of what intelligent design is. Ken Miller explains that in an article at The Flagellum Unspun. Consider the following from the article:

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists.

.......anti-evolutionists.......[require] that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great vigor. However, the notion at the heart's of today intelligent design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.

Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear. As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

At http://www.intelligentdesign.org/, there is another of the many Christian websites that misrepresent what intelligent design is. Consider the following:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That is a misrepresentation of what intelligent design is for the same reasons that I have already stated.

 

[Curious George]

Indeed.

It's very difficult to get people to actually respond to my responses.

When I ask a person to substantiate their claim which I don't believe is indicated by the text they highlight, I get told I'm "demanding them to take responsibility for my lack of biological knowledge" and then I get told I'm going off topic when I respond to a topic, and then I get accused of avoiding a question simply because they don't like the answer.

This thread has been an excellent exercise and an irrefutable proof of just how nigh on impossible it can be to get an honest debate going with actually substantiated, properly represented critiques and rebuttals.

Do they not think that anyone objectively reading can't see right through the ruse?

I responded. You never commented back after your first reply to me. I am not even sure what you are trying to suggest. You wanted us to comment on the review. I explained why the review was irrelevant criticisms of the original paper. Is a more complex calculation necessary to account for the time necessary for evolution? Yes. But the paper was clearly focused on one argument dealling with the time necessary. Then you posted a video which dealt with the focus on Neo Darwinism as a sole portrayal of evolution. This critique is very valid, there is a bias towards Neo Darwinism. But, that does not mean that evolution is not occurring. What is it that you do not understand about evolution? Is it the time? Do you not feel there is enough time? Is it mutation? Speciation?

 

[McBell]

Yep, you ask people to debate honestly and substantiate their positions, and it turns into a brawl.

Methinks most Evolutionists and Naturalism-ists are simply terrified at the prospect of what honest debate and proper representation of the data might lead to.

How about you start.
Now since it has already been pointed out numerous times that your OP is NOT honest nor debate, I guess we will have to wait until you actually get your **** together and start with honest debate.

Might I suggest you leave your ego masturbation at the door?

 

[Shermana]

How about you start.
Now since it has already been pointed out numerous times that your OP is NOT honest nor debate, I guess we will have to wait until you actually get your **** together and start with honest debate.

Might I suggest you leave your ego masturbation at the door?

It's been pointed out that my OP is not honest or debate?

Oh really, show how this has been pointed out, and I suggest you take your own advice and actually try to contribute to the debate.

I can't help but notice that people who are unable to actually contribute just dismiss and handwave counter arguments, or attack the OP itself without saying anything. Like I said, the only conclusion to be drawn is that they're simply terrified of what actually addressing the issues may lead to so they decide to fling scat instead.

Don't fling scat instead of actually discussing the material, it only shows your deeper insecurities about the subject matter, and winds up right back on you.