Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Valjean]

So everything one says is a matter of opinions in reference to the evolution genetically of one's mind. Is that true? Does the mind come into the picture with evolution? Can the mind/evolution be wrong? Further, if anyone's science is decades out of date, and evidence proving to later scientists the untruthfulness of the previous science, perhaps more discoveries will prove that the present concept of evolution is not true.

With major, established theories it's the details that change as evidence accumulates, not the well established facts or principles themselves.
Evolution, change, did occur. That's well established and won't change. The details of the mechanisms involved, on the other hand, are constantly evolving.

 

[Astrophile]

LOL, you keep quoting the 9th Commandment when you don't believe in God's word anyway. Have you ever heard of Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee? They are the authors of a book I recently took out of the library called, "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe." It is very interesting.

Yes, I have heard of Ward and Brownlee, and I have read part of their book. It is an interesting book, but inevitably it runs into the difficulty that it is largely an argument from ignorance. We have explored only a tiny part of the universe and have only just started discovering extrasolar planets; we know almost nothing about how life originated on Earth, let alone anywhere else; and we know very little about either the geology of the Earth at the time when life originated or the necessary conditions for abiogenesis. As a result, the book can be little more than an expression of the opinion of its authors.

The book was published in 2000, and so is bound to be out of date, but since we have no definite answers to our questions about extrasolar planets, the origin of terrestrial life, and Hadean geology that fact is less serious than it would be in a better developed branch of science.

 

[Astrophile]

It was included. So again, aside from the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees share 98-99% of the DNA with humans, what is the common ancestor of all three?

Perhaps something like Orrorin or Sahelanthropus for humans and chimpanzees.

 

[YoursTrue]

of course it is . The topic here is evidence for And against evolution. That book had no evidence against evolution. And it appears that they accepted evolution, but did not spend too much supporting the concept.

Because they figure (and quite rightly) that the possibilities are very improbable for life to exist in the material form we know it as anywhere else in the universe. They go into detail about these things. So thanks for that, no need to think too long about radio waves coming from outer space as if maybe aliens are trying to signal us. And so far men need special equipment to walk on the moon. Like breathing equipment. And that's only the moon.
Here's an interesting thought: "To help astronauts survive the forbidding environment of space, the Apollo spacecraft were designed with many safety features. The command and lunar modules protected the astronauts against such hazards as cosmic radiation, extremes of heat and cold, and micro-meteoroids. The Environmental Control Systems and the Crew Life Support Systems in the spacecraft provided the crews with oxygen, water, and food." Breathing & Drinking | National Air and Space Museum
(and that's just the beginning of it. So much for trying to exit the earth and living somewhere else.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I have heard of Ward and Brownlee, and I have read part of their book. It is an interesting book, but inevitably it runs into the difficulty that it is largely an argument from ignorance. We have explored only a tiny part of the universe and have only just started discovering extrasolar planets; we know almost nothing about how life originated on Earth, let alone anywhere else; and we know very little about either the geology of the Earth at the time when life originated or the necessary conditions for abiogenesis. As a result, the book can be little more than an expression of the opinion of its authors.

The book was published in 2000, and so is bound to be out of date, but since we have no definite answers to our questions about extrasolar planets, the origin of terrestrial life, and Hadean geology that fact is less serious than it would be in a better developed branch of science.

The statistics of likelihood regarding elements and productivity are very powerful to present the idea that life as possibly having evolved in some other place in the universe as it has on this earth is unlikely. Shall we say very unlikely. That is not ignorance, that is using logic and knowledge and observation. Again, thinking about this, there would have to be a huge important of oxygen to keep men breathing on the moon. And water. And food. Etc.
Now here is something interesting I came across. And yes, I will continue reading the book when I have time, especially since it is so beautifully written. And logic and science presented.
"Because DNA is more reliable than other forensics, scientists have shrugged off suggestions that it could fall victim to the vagaries of bias. But Dror noted that much DNA analysis involves interpretation. With interpretation comes subjectivity, and with subjectivity can come error."
“DNA results can be in the eye of the beholder,” Dror said."

Isn't that something. Results can be in the eye of beholder, and with interpretation comes subjectivity which can involve error. Isn't that something.
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps something like Orrorin or Sahelanthropus for humans and chimpanzees.

Yet the obvious. Which is, the classic but profound response, imo of course. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees and humans remain humans so far.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I have heard of Ward and Brownlee, and I have read part of their book. It is an interesting book, but inevitably it runs into the difficulty that it is largely an argument from ignorance. We have explored only a tiny part of the universe and have only just started discovering extrasolar planets; we know almost nothing about how life originated on Earth, let alone anywhere else; and we know very little about either the geology of the Earth at the time when life originated or the necessary conditions for abiogenesis. As a result, the book can be little more than an expression of the opinion of its authors.

The book was published in 2000, and so is bound to be out of date, but since we have no definite answers to our questions about extrasolar planets, the origin of terrestrial life, and Hadean geology that fact is less serious than it would be in a better developed branch of science.

So again, the likelihood is rather abysmal when it comes to life as evolving certainly like human type life with vegetation, potable water, rain and so forth in some other part of the universe. Having worked with sci-fi writers, I now smile when I think how people might imagine life somehow (maybe beings with one eye, etc., or eyes in their hands) are living in a distant place. I wish I had known this when I worked with them, but life is an experience and knowledge can be powerful when used in the right manner. The book is a treasure and should be considered a masterpiece.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I have heard of Ward and Brownlee, and I have read part of their book. It is an interesting book, but inevitably it runs into the difficulty that it is largely an argument from ignorance. We have explored only a tiny part of the universe and have only just started discovering extrasolar planets; we know almost nothing about how life originated on Earth, let alone anywhere else; and we know very little about either the geology of the Earth at the time when life originated or the necessary conditions for abiogenesis. As a result, the book can be little more than an expression of the opinion of its authors.

The book was published in 2000, and so is bound to be out of date, but since we have no definite answers to our questions about extrasolar planets, the origin of terrestrial life, and Hadean geology that fact is less serious than it would be in a better developed branch of science.

Here's another thing I just came across. See how you respond to this:
"Scientists are still exploring the circumstances and ease with which DNA can travel. Many of our cells and fluids — skin, saliva, sweat, and mucus — routinely find their way into our environment. If conditions are favorable, our genes can wind up places we’ve never been."
So, scientists exploring traveling DNA. And it is said that our genes can wind up places we've never been. Isn't that also something.
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing
What? Now there's more. "The presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or the circumstances under which it came to be there,” says defense expert and researcher Dan Krane."
Another reason why I won't be on a jury if possible where DNA profile is used as "evidence."(Sorry...and I'll tell that to the judge if I have to.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they figure (and quite rightly) that the possibilities are very improbable for life to exist in the material form we know it as anywhere else in the universe. They go into detail about these things. So thanks for that, no need to think too long about radio waves coming from outer space as if maybe aliens are trying to signal us. And so far men need special equipment to walk on the moon. Like breathing equipment. And that's only the moon.
Here's an interesting thought: "To help astronauts survive the forbidding environment of space, the Apollo spacecraft were designed with many safety features. The command and lunar modules protected the astronauts against such hazards as cosmic radiation, extremes of heat and cold, and micro-meteoroids. The Environmental Control Systems and the Crew Life Support Systems in the spacecraft provided the crews with oxygen, water, and food." Breathing & Drinking | National Air and Space Museum
(and that's just the beginning of it. So much for trying to exit the earth and living somewhere else.)

From what little I could tell from the articles about them and from what @Astrophile said about it that was not the case. They thought that simple life would be commom, but not complex life. It was not that evolution was unlikely, they appeared not to like the odds of the formation of eukaryotes. But all they had was an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. It amounts to "I don't know how this happened so it is extremely unlikely" . Other scientists did not agree with them then and apparently even fewer do now since, as happens with knowledge, it appears some of the questions they did not have the answer to then have been answered now.

And are you serious about that article that you rather foolishly linked? You did not understand why in that particular case the DNA evidence was bad. You made a nasty generalization fallacy. Tell me, if you find one left handed person that was a murderer does that make all left handed people murderers? Hopefully you see your error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's another thing I just came across. See how you respond to this:
"Scientists are still exploring the circumstances and ease with which DNA can travel. Many of our cells and fluids — skin, saliva, sweat, and mucus — routinely find their way into our environment. If conditions are favorable, our genes can wind up places we’ve never been."
So, scientists exploring traveling DNA. And it is said that our genes can wind up places we've never been. Isn't that also something.
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing
What? Now there's more. "The presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or the circumstances under which it came to be there,” says defense expert and researcher Dan Krane."
Another reason why I won't be on a jury if possible where DNA profile is used as "evidence."(Sorry...and I'll tell that to the judge if I have to.)

An article that you abuse is not evidence for your myths. Please don't do this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again, the likelihood is rather abysmal when it comes to life as evolving certainly like human type life with vegetation, potable water, rain and so forth in some other part of the universe. Having worked with sci-fi writers, I now smile when I think how people might imagine life somehow (maybe beings with one eye, etc., or eyes in their hands) are living in a distant place. I wish I had known this when I worked with them, but life is an experience and knowledge can be powerful when used in the right manner. The book is a treasure and should be considered a masterpiece.

No, that is an incorrect conclusion. Try again.

By the way, grasping at straws is not a proper debating technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet the obvious. Which is, the classic but profound response, imo of course. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees and humans remain humans so far.

Christ on a bicycle, or course humans remain humans. That is what the theory of evolution says. You are also still an ape. You or your ancestors never stopped being apes.

 

[Astrophile]

And so far men need special equipment to walk on the moon. Like breathing equipment. And that's only the moon.
Here's an interesting thought: "To help astronauts survive the forbidding environment of space, the Apollo spacecraft were designed with many safety features. The command and lunar modules protected the astronauts against such hazards as cosmic radiation, extremes of heat and cold, and micro-meteoroids. The Environmental Control Systems and the Crew Life Support Systems in the spacecraft provided the crews with oxygen, water, and food."

The statistics of likelihood regarding elements and productivity are very powerful to present the idea that life as possibly having evolved in some other place in the universe as it has on this earth is unlikely. Shall we say very unlikely. That is not ignorance, that is using logic and knowledge and observation. Again, thinking about this, there would have to be a huge important of oxygen to keep men breathing on the moon. And water. And food. Etc.
Now here is something interesting I came across. And yes, I will continue reading the book when I have time, especially since it is so beautifully written. And logic and science presented.
"Because DNA is more reliable than other forensics, scientists have shrugged off suggestions that it could fall victim to the vagaries of bias. But Dror noted that much DNA analysis involves interpretation. With interpretation comes subjectivity, and with subjectivity can come error."
“DNA results can be in the eye of the beholder,” Dror said."

Isn't that something. Results can be in the eye of beholder, and with interpretation comes subjectivity which can involve error. Isn't that something.
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing

First, the title of Ward and Brownlee's book is 'Rare Earth: Why Complex Life in Uncommon in the Universe' (my italics); the authors are not saying that there is no life of any sort anywhere else in the universe, or even that the Earth is the only planet with complex life. In fact, I am inclined to agree with them; I think that complex life probably is an uncommon phenomenon in the universe as a whole, although, of course, it depends on one's definitions of the words 'complex' and 'uncommon'. Is an amoeba or a sponge complex? If only one out of twenty stars with planets was inhabited by living things with a maximum size of more than 10 cm, would that be uncommon?

Second, you appear to have a very parochial view of the size of the universe, with your references to Apollo astronauts and visits to the Moon. The universe is much larger than our solar system. The Milky Way galaxy contains between 100 and 400 billion stars, and there are probably between 10^23 and 10^24 stars in the observable universe. With so many stars, I would expect that there would be many planets with some form of complex life even in the Milky Way, although I cannot guess how many. However, the sheer size of the Milky Way, and a fortiori, of the Universe, means that we can never visit these planets.

To give a specific example, the star cluster Praesepe (M44), in the constellation Cancer, is about 181.2 parsecs (591 light-years) away, or 14.5 billion times the distance of the Moon. When you consider the history of the Apollo missions and of manned spaceflight generally, I think that you will understand the impossibility of sending astronauts even to a relatively nearby cluster such as Praesepe to see whether it possesses complex life.

 

[Astrophile]

Yet the obvious. Which is, the classic but profound response, imo of course. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees and humans remain humans so far.

But neither chimpanzees nor humans began as chimpanzees and humans. Since the time of Orrorin and Sahelanthropus, there have been Ardipithecus, various species of Australopithecus, and such different species of Homo as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Homo antecessor, and Homo neanderthalis, as well as Homo sapiens. I suppose that there were also various species of 'pre-chimpanzees', although no fossils of these animals have been identified. The evolution of chimpanzees and humans was a gradual process, passing through many intermediate species between our common ancestor and the living animals, not a sudden jump from the common ancestor to the living species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Christ on a bicycle, or course humans remain humans. That is what the theory of evolution says. You are also still an ape. You or your ancestors never stopped being apes.

All I get is another version of the denial of evolution based, not on the evidence, but on some religious doctrine. Everything else just seems to be brought in, or forced in, to reinforce that belief. At best, there is only a superficial understanding of science. If science was part of some previous education, it is not reflected in what I see.

If I were to claim that during my education, I merely repeated back the answers I thought would get me good grades, regardless of understanding, it would be dishonest of me to blame that fact on the education system or science. My failure to gain understanding would be my failure and not that of science or something that casts doubt on the validity of science. However, this seems to be one of the core messages and one worthy enough to have been repeated.

 

[Astrophile]

So again, the likelihood is rather abysmal when it comes to life as evolving certainly like human type life with vegetation, potable water, rain and so forth in some other part of the universe. Having worked with sci-fi writers, I now smile when I think how people might imagine life somehow (maybe beings with one eye, etc., or eyes in their hands) are living in a distant place. I wish I had known this when I worked with them, but life is an experience and knowledge can be powerful when used in the right manner. The book is a treasure and should be considered a masterpiece.

Your idea of complex life appears to be restricted to something like human beings. Since you mention vegetation as part of our environment, I suppose that you don't think of plants as complex life. Also there are many terrestrial life-forms (extremophiles and marine animals and plants) that live in environments that would kill us instantly, so there is no reason to think that such hostile environments on other planets would necessarily be inimical to all complex life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your idea of complex life appears to be restricted to something like human beings. Since you mention vegetation as part of our environment, I suppose that you don't think of plants as complex life. Also there are many terrestrial life-forms (extremophiles and marine animals and plants) that live in environments that would kill us instantly, so there is no reason to think that such hostile environments on other planets would necessarily be inimical to all complex life.

I have noticed the restriction on the concept of complex life too. If it is true that learning was just recitation, you would think some of that recitation would have involved the recognition of what complex life is.

 

[YoursTrue]

From what little I could tell from the articles about them and from what @Astrophile said about it that was not the case. They thought that simple life would be commom, but not complex life. It was not that evolution was unlikely, they appeared not to like the odds of the formation of eukaryotes. But all they had was an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. It amounts to "I don't know how this happened so it is extremely unlikely" . Other scientists did not agree with them then and apparently even fewer do now since, as happens with knowledge, it appears some of the questions they did not have the answer to then have been answered now.

And are you serious about that article that you rather foolishly linked? You did not understand why in that particular case the DNA evidence was bad. You made a nasty generalization fallacy. Tell me, if you find one left handed person that was a murderer does that make all left handed people murderers? Hopefully you see your error.

I understand but I was listening to doctors talk about Lynch syndrome and they were talking about imperfect genes. Which makes the entire thought of micro and macro evolution interesting.

First, the title of Ward and Brownlee's book is 'Rare Earth: Why Complex Life in Uncommon in the Universe' (my italics); the authors are not saying that there is no life of any sort anywhere else in the universe, or even that the Earth is the only planet with complex life. In fact, I am inclined to agree with them; I think that complex life probably is an uncommon phenomenon in the universe as a whole, although, of course, it depends on one's definitions of the words 'complex' and 'uncommon'. Is an amoeba or a sponge complex? If only one out of twenty stars with planets was inhabited by living things with a maximum size of more than 10 cm, would that be uncommon?

Second, you appear to have a very parochial view of the size of the universe, with your references to Apollo astronauts and visits to the Moon. The universe is much larger than our solar system. The Milky Way galaxy contains between 100 and 400 billion stars, and there are probably between 10^23 and 10^24 stars in the observable universe. With so many stars, I would expect that there would be many planets with some form of complex life even in the Milky Way, although I cannot guess how many. However, the sheer size of the Milky Way, and a fortiori, of the Universe, means that we can never visit these planets.

To give a specific example, the star cluster Praesepe (M44), in the constellation Cancer, is about 181.2 parsecs (591 light-years) away, or 14.5 billion times the distance of the Moon. When you consider the history of the Apollo missions and of manned spaceflight generally, I think that you will understand the impossibility of sending astronauts even to a relatively nearby cluster such as Praesepe to see whether it possesses complex life.

As far as parochial goes, I was just thinking if we cannot live on the moon or Mars, and there is no sign that any other place within a reachable distance can support life if transported from this Earth in the near future, how is it likely that life, as we know it, exists somewhere else as having evolved? The probability is probably just about 0.000 you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand but I was listening to doctors talk about Lynch syndrome and they were talking about imperfect genes. Which makes the entire thought of micro and macro evolution interesting.

Why? It simply looks as if you are grasping at bits of articles that you do not understand as an excuse not to believe. But so far you refuse to learn even the basics of science meaning that your disbelief can only be irrational at best. If you let yourself understand the basics of science you will be a better debater, but to do so you will also have to admit the obvious.

As far as parochial goes, I was just thinking if we cannot live on the moon or Mars, and there is no sign that any other place within a reachable distance can support life if transported from this Earth in the near future, how is it likely that life, as we know it, exists somewhere else as having evolved? The probability is probably just about 0.000 you think?

Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[YoursTrue]

From what little I could tell from the articles about them and from what @Astrophile said about it that was not the case. They thought that simple life would be commom, but not complex life. It was not that evolution was unlikely, they appeared not to like the odds of the formation of eukaryotes. But all they had was an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. It amounts to "I don't know how this happened so it is extremely unlikely" . Other scientists did not agree with them then and apparently even fewer do now since, as happens with knowledge, it appears some of the questions they did not have the answer to then have been answered now.

And are you serious about that article that you rather foolishly linked? You did not understand why in that particular case the DNA evidence was bad. You made a nasty generalization fallacy. Tell me, if you find one left handed person that was a murderer does that make all left handed people murderers? Hopefully you see your error.

I understand but I was listening to doctors talk about Lynch syndrome and they were talking about imperfect genes. Which makes

No, that is an incorrect conclusion. Try again.

By the way, grasping at straws is not a proper debating technique.

so let me hear your opinion instead of railing against the idea of the improbability of humans, birds, fish, evolving somewhere else in the universe. You're making yourself more and more ridiculous.