Evidence For And Against Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

This is simply not true.

If we take, for the sake of clarity, a bit of a simplistic, yet possible, view of abiogenesis...
Let's look at it as simple chemistry. If you take 2 H atoms and an o atom, it will form H2O. It doesn't matter where this takes place. So let's assume for a second that the reaction that produces a "living" molecule will also always result in the same molecule. We can imagine this happening in dozens of places multiple times. Eventhough there would a genetic isolation between all those populations - the populations nevertheless would be near identical. So eventhough there's no interbreeding between the populations, this would totally look like a common genepool. One population would evolve into X and the other into Y. And both would look as if they share the same ancestry - eventhough those ancestors would be 2 distinct populations.

Is that explanation likely? Well, I don't know... because we don't know the process by which life originates. But it certainly is possible. And fully compatible with evolution as we know it.

It's also possible that abiogenesis continuously happens - even today. There's actually a scientific idea I think about that... it states that this newly created life would almost immediatly be consumed by already existing life. That too, is thus compatible with evolution.


Are there forms of abiogenesis that can be imagined that are NOT compatible with evolution? Sure. So while the origins of life aren't within the scope of evolution theory, it is true that evolution makes a few predictions about the type of life that got the process of evolution started.
Things like:
- it was simple life. If abiogenesis resulted in multi-cellular organisms, that wouldn't be compatible with evolution as presently understood.
- it happened at least 3.8 billion years ago since we have evidence of existing life that old

So it does put some restrictions on what we expect to find in our quest for unraveling how life came to be, sure. Not sure why this is a problem though.

Is that really hard to understand?

I think you are primarily viewing this far to simplisticly and are trying to create problems where there really aren't any....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Well, as said previously, if you feel like there is another factor that needs to be included in the model that presently isn't included, you are completely free to point out that factor and build your case for it with rational argumentation and verifiable evidence.

As it stands, the model works perfectly find with the factors that are included. In a nutshell, descent with modification followed by selection is sufficient to explain the data we observe.

Does that mean there are no other factors? Certainly not. But it does mean that there is no need for other factors.... But still, as said, there sure could be additional factors that are presently unknown to all biologists working in these fields day in, day out.

So if you think you've stumbled upon something that millions of scientists have missed this past century... by all means, share and make your case!

Where is your “irrefutable evidence” that shows beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved by a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

You mean aside from the fact that genetic mutations and natural selection are both processes that can be observed and which are sufficient to explain the data we have?

There's nothing in any sequenced genome that can't be accomplished / explained by these processes.

Are we "absolutely certain" that there are no other factors? No. Primarily because we can never be "absolutely certain" about anything. But the point is, that these processes are sufficient to make evolution work. And there is no observation or whatever that expresses a need for a additional processes.

Are you absolutely sure that germs are what causes desease?
Well, no.... but the fact is that killing the germs makes the desease go away and the germs are sufficient in explaining the desease....

Could there be "other" factors at play? Sure. There "could". But until you can identify such factors and make a rational case for them... it seems kind of pointless to ponder the idea.

Or perhaps you can agree with me and grant that there is no conclusive evidence yet.

If by "conclusive" you mean "certainty" then indeed there isn't. And not just for evolution, but for ANY theory in science.

If by "conclusive" you mean "sufficiently supported to the point that it becomes ridiculous to deny it", then yes absolutely... There absolutely is "conclusive" evidence for evolution in that sense. And a LOT of it. So much so, that I have no problem stating that in that sense, evolution theory is one of the most conclusively supported theories in all of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Apparently it is. Guesswork is definitely needed to imagine what was the first living thing. Or how many there were *at the beginning..."

 

[YoursTrue]

Just in general, life expectancy is down again in the United States. Isn't that something? Maybe it will be inherited in the genes and lives will be shorter evolutionary-wise.

 

[YoursTrue]

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



So what?
Getting a few things right doesn't mean the rest of the book is accurate.

That's right. But the fact that the Jews wrote of things and circumstances unique to themselves as a nation, including their relationship with other nations, and fastidiously copied the scrolls (and still do), means something to me as far as reliability goes. Now Jesus died rather soon before Rome ransacked Jerusalem.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Now you got me. Please explain the basis upon which you accept common ancestry, and what might that common ancestry be? I could, after all, bring up the fact that soil contains gazillions of genes, but I don't suppose that's what you mean. Is it?

 

[Astrophile]

3800 million years ago? That's a long time. And those first procaryotic organisms weren't all that simple, were they? Plus, how do you know that is what first happened? Yes, abiogenesis is how it (evolution) came about. So while you have your definitions, I'm not convinced that the emergence from non-living matter was not necessary for the said process of evolution to get started.

Yes, 3800 million years ago is a long time, more than a quarter of the age of the universe. The first procaryotic organisms may not have been simple, by comparison with organic molecules, but they are simpler than eucaryotic unicellular organisms, and simpler still than multi-cellular organisms. Also, you are getting me confused; I would have thought that you would have welcomed the suggestion that the first organisms came into existence by an act of divine creation, but you appear to be rejecting that possibility and asserting that life can have come into existence only by a natural, physico-chemical process of abiogenesis.

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."

Wikipedia abiogenesis.

According to scientists, evolution would not, could not, have occurred without abiogenesis. Therefore it is not evolution as in living matter, but without it, evolution or life could not have occurred. Therefore, it is necessary and integral to the process of evolution. Evolution deals with living matter. Abiogenesis deals with how that all occurred from non-living matter. Abiogenesis and evolution are inexorably linked.

Which scientists are these? Although, being an atheist, I do not believe in a divine creator, I can accept that I may be wrong, that there may a god or gods, and that the first life may have been specially created by one or more of these gods, and I suppose that other scientists would say the same thing. Since there is no well-established theory of abiogenesis, divine creation of the first primitive life-forms remains a possibility, even though (in my opinion) a very improbable one.

Your reasoning appears to be: (1) divine creation of the first primitive life-forms is impossible, therefore life must have arisen from non-living matter by a natural process of abiogenesis; (2) there is no well-established theory of abiogenesis, therefore (3) abiogenesis is impossible; (4) 'evolution ... could not have occurred without abiogenesis'; therefore (5) evolution cannot have occurred; therefore (6) God must have created all living things, including the simplest procaryotic micro-organisms, in essentially their present state. The conclusion (6) appears to contradict the initial premise (1), and (3) does not follow from (2). I look forward to seeing you explain how my analysis of your reasoning is wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

May I ask you a question, based on your post above? Do you have any knowledge of the beliefs of those who claim to believe in God while also believing in evolution, can you tell me how they view the relationship of God with life (or evolution)?

No, I don't. However, you should be able to find information on these matters by googling 'Theistic evolution'; Theistic evolution - Wikipedia provides 55 references, and Theistic evolution - RationalWiki has an article on the subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I don't. However, you should be able to find information on these matters by googling 'Theistic evolution'; Theistic evolution - Wikipedia provides 55 references, and Theistic evolution - RationalWiki has an article on the subject.

I have seen a couple of views in that category recently. Thanks. Can't say I agree.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, 3800 million years ago is a long time, more than a quarter of the age of the universe. The first procaryotic organisms may not have been simple, by comparison with organic molecules, but they are simpler than eucaryotic unicellular organisms, and simpler still than multi-cellular organisms. Also, you are getting me confused; I would have thought that you would have welcomed the suggestion that the first organisms came into existence by an act of divine creation, but you appear to be rejecting that possibility and asserting that life can have come into existence only by a natural, physico-chemical process of abiogenesis.



Which scientists are these? Although, being an atheist, I do not believe in a divine creator, I can accept that I may be wrong, that there may a god or gods, and that the first life may have been specially created by one or more of these gods, and I suppose that other scientists would say the same thing. Since there is no well-established theory of abiogenesis, divine creation of the first primitive life-forms remains a possibility, even though (in my opinion) a very improbable one.

Your reasoning appears to be: (1) divine creation of the first primitive life-forms is impossible, therefore life must have arisen from non-living matter by a natural process of abiogenesis; (2) there is no well-established theory of abiogenesis, therefore (3) abiogenesis is impossible; (4) 'evolution ... could not have occurred without abiogenesis'; therefore (5) evolution cannot have occurred; therefore (6) God must have created all living things, including the simplest procaryotic micro-organisms, in essentially their present state. The conclusion (6) appears to contradict the initial premise (1), and (3) does not follow from (2). I look forward to seeing you explain how my analysis of your reasoning is wrong.

I can't say how old the universe is until I understand the dating premise. I can't say how long humans have been here for a few reasons. One is that I believe the unfolding of dates in the Bible and the other is that I cannot agree to the dates evolutionists or archaeologists give if I don't understand the process of how they attribute dates.

 

[gnostic]

One is that I believe the unfolding of dates in the Bible and the other is that I cannot agree to the dates evolutionists or archaeologists give if I don't understand the process of how they attribute dates.

Excuse me, but there are only some verifiable accounts in the Old Testament that are considered “historical”, but only in the books of Kings.

From Adam in Genesis, to Solomon’s death are nothing more than unsubstantiated myths.

And the years (ages of named patriarchs) given in Genesis 5 and 11, are clearly exaggerated. There are absolutely no evidence to support these men lived over 150 years, let alone 900-plus years.

And just because you don’t have understanding of how archaeologists, paleontologists or geologists arrived at these dates, don’t mean they don’t know what they are doing.

And since you are not qualified or experienced as scientists, your not understanding science behind how they arrived at these dates, you are not really qualified anything more than expressing your opinions.

Don’t get me wrong, your personal opinions are your to express how ever you see fit, and you are entitled to hold such opinions, but it doesn’t mean your opinions or your personal belief are factual, unless you have evidence to back them up.

In any case, quoting passages from the Bible isn’t fact. And just because you believe in the stories of Bible, doesn’t mean the stories themselves are factually true.

The Bible is neither a history book, nor a science book.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can't say how old the universe is until I understand the dating premise. I can't say how long humans have been here for a few reasons. One is that I believe the unfolding of dates in the Bible and the other is that I cannot agree to the dates evolutionists or archaeologists give if I don't understand the process of how they attribute dates.

If you can't say how old something is until you understand the dating premise, why do you believe the dates in the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

Excuse me, but there are only some verifiable accounts in the Old Testament that are considered “historical”, but only in the books of Kings.

From Adam in Genesis, to Solomon’s death are nothing more than unsubstantiated myths.

And the years (ages of named patriarchs) given in Genesis 5 and 11, are clearly exaggerated. There are absolutely no evidence to support these men lived over 150 years, let alone 900-plus years.

And just because you don’t have understanding of how archaeologists, paleontologists or geologists arrived at these dates, don’t mean they don’t know what they are doing.

And since you are not qualified or experienced as scientists, your not understanding science behind how they arrived at these dates, you are not really qualified anything more than expressing your opinions.

Don’t get me wrong, your personal opinions are your to express how ever you see fit, and you are entitled to hold such opinions, but it doesn’t mean your opinions or your personal belief are factual, unless you have evidence to back them up.

In any case, quoting passages from the Bible isn’t fact. And just because you believe in the stories of Bible, doesn’t mean the stories themselves are factually true.

The Bible is neither a history book, nor a science book.

A while ago I was discussing the water canopy that was over the earth as described in the Bible. And while it was argued that it would have been impossible for humans to have existed in such an atmosphere, I would like to say that the living elements were different at that time, and the age of those living was drastically reduced after the flood.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you can't say how old something is until you understand the dating premise, why do you believe the dates in the Bible?

Because of the way the Bible scrolls were preserved. I didn't read all the posts but do you understand in depth how scientists date fossils and rocks? I am not asking for names of processes, but in depth. You may want to put it against my belief in the Bible, but really, I am asking for your belief and trust in what scientists say about dates of fossils for starters. I can look things up but have trouble understanding them. Can you? I can understand, for instance, that there is usually a date in present times for the birth or death of someone, it çan be registered, but can you explain how scientists date fossils?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because of the way the Bible scrolls were preserved. I didn't read all the posts but do you understand in depth how scientists date fossils and rocks? I am not asking for names of processes, but in depth. You may want to put it against my belief in the Bible, but really, I am asking for your belief and trust in what scientists say about dates of fossils for starters. I can look things up but have trouble understanding them. Can you? I can understand, for instance, that there is usually a date in present times for the birth or death of someone, it çan be registered, but can you explain how scientists date fossils?

What makes you think that they were preserved? If you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls are old, they really are not that much older than the time of Christ. They vary in age, but the oldest would still be less than three hundred years before his time. Do you have something old that was preserved?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now you got me. Please explain the basis upon which you accept common ancestry, and what might that common ancestry be? I could, after all, bring up the fact that soil contains gazillions of genes, but I don't suppose that's what you mean. Is it?

Nested hierarchies

 

[YoursTrue]

Nested hierarchies

Ok but isn't it possible that God took similar elements and kept working on them until He accomplished man?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nested hierarchies

Wouldn't that mean branching out from what is thought of as the first cell emerging from non living matter? Jesus did say if the disciples didn't speak, the stones would. Luke 19:40.

 

[leroy]

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.

Their existence has been demonstrated, the role is currently under debate in the scientific community.

 

[dad]

It's also possible that abiogenesis continuously happens - even today. There's actually a scientific idea I think about that... it states that this newly created life would almost immediatly be consumed by already existing life..

Right, and maybe magic life appears and just vanishes or gets beamed up by Scottie?