Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

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!



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.



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.

Ok then it is your burden to show that the process of random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data we have regarding the diversity and complexity of life.

To me the fact that there is controversy in the scientific community on whether if random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data + the fact that no single PR article that concludes that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data has ever been written strongly suggest that the door is open and the evidence can con ether way.

Non random mechanisms like NGE, epigenetics, transposons etc. can create brand new functional and selectively positive proteins in 1 generation, this makes some scientists wonder that perhaps some of these non-random mechanism play a more important role than the process of random mutations and natural selection. Other scientists would argue that random mutations and natural selection play the most important role and that these other mechanisms provide a minor contribution.

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

yes that is what I mean by conclusive...

If that is the case, then why are there so many PR articles proposing alternative mechanisms? If the evidence is so conclusive then why aren’t these articles rejected by the process of PR?

 

[leroy]

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.

If that where true then evolution 2 (universal common ancestry) would be wrong there would be 2 universal common ancestors.

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

My intend was not to create problems, I intended to make the simple and uncontroversial statement:................ that evolution (as we understand it today) is not compatible with every single form of abiogenesis that one can imagine.

 

[leroy]

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?

I don’t understand the question, I accept universal common ancestry, there is overwalming evidence that we share a common ancestor with other species of animals, and eventhough there is no solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with bacteria or bananas, it seems to be a reasonable parsimonious and elegant conclusion.

This common ancestor was likely to be a relatively simple unicellular organism



But quite frankly I don’t know if I am answering to your question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t understand the question, I accept universal common ancestry, there is overwalming evidence that we share a common ancestor with other species of animals, and eventhough there is no solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with bacteria or bananas, it seems to be a reasonable parsimonious and elegant conclusion.

This common ancestor was likely to be a relatively simple unicellular organism



But quite frankly I don’t know if I am answering to your question.

Allow me to ask it this way. Do you believe there is a Maker and Originator of life on earth?

 

[leroy]

Allow me to ask it this way. Do you believe there is a Maker and Originator of life on earth?

Yes,

 

[YoursTrue]

If that where true then evolution 2 (universal common ancestry) would be wrong there would be 2 universal common ancestors.




My intend was not to create problems, I intended to make the simple and uncontroversial statement:................ that evolution (as we understand it today) is not compatible with every single form of abiogenesis that one can imagine.

I have been saying for a while now that what evolutionists say is the first living thing OR things is wayyy up in the air. There is simply no way to tell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes,

Thank you.

 

[gnostic]

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.

You are interest in seeking truth, aren’t you?

Then if yo ask anyone, you would find that any water found in the sky, whether it be in form of rain or water vapors, or even in ice, all of these are found in the lowest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere - Troposphere.

This Troposphere is where all our weather and climate occurred, including, rain, hail, snow, thunderstorms and tropical storms, etc.

Water vapors may rise above the Troposphere, and found in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, but there are less of waters vapors the higher attitude. And above the Mesosphere, are the Thermosphere and Exosphere, where it is completely water free, and the Exosphere is the last layer of atmosphere, before you are in space.

There are no water above the Mesosphere.

What does that in the Bible, particularly Genesis 1:6-8?

Well, it say the “water above” is ABOVE the firmament, and the other names for firmament (sometimes translated as the dome, vault or expanse, with the Hebrew word rā·qî·a‘ (רָקִ֖יעַ)) is the sky or heaven(s), which Hebrew is šā·mā·yim (שָׁמָ֑יִם).

And as I have already pointed out to you, Genesis 1:14-17 say that god created sun, moon and stars inside the firmament or sky.

But if sun and moon are inside the dome, then how can there be water canopy be above the sun, moon and stars?

Clearly, there are no water canopy above the Earth’s atmosphere.

Genesis is clearly illogical, and have no understanding of the Earth, sun, stars and space.

Also there are no evidence to support a global flood.

So why do persist in thinking that Genesis creation makes sense?

You say the world was different, and humans were different before the Flood. Can you show evidence of such belief?

Because there are techniques in science, where they can test the age of adult of when he or she die, through the examination of the skull, the teeth, the joints of bones, the fourth rib, etc. And no one in the last 10,000 years, have lived over 130-year.

Sorry, YoursTrue, but you are not thinking straight, if you really think the Bible have ALL OF THE ANSWERS.

If it does have such answers, then by all means, YoursTrue, show evidences that back up your interpretations of the Bible and what the earth was like back then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If that where true then evolution 2 (universal common ancestry) would be wrong there would be 2 universal common ancestors.

No, evolution would be as valid as ever and wouldn't have to change one bit.
And the "2 universal common ancestors" in such a scenario would be identical copies of eachoter. So there would be no way to tell the difference. It would still be a single common ancestor. Note that by "ancestor", we mean a population. Not an individual.

My intend was not to create problems, I intended to make the simple and uncontroversial statement:................ that evolution (as we understand it today) is not compatible with every single form of abiogenesis that one can imagine.

To that, I can agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Care to be a little less vague?

Which mechanisms are you talking about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No, there's nothing magical about chemical processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok then it is your burden to show that the process of random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data we have regarding the diversity and complexity of life.

No, that's not my job. I'm not a biologist. This is the mainstream science and the evidence for this science is detailed in the more then 300.000 papers on the topic.

To me the fact that there is controversy in the scientific community on whether if random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data + the fact that no single PR article that concludes that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the data has ever been written strongly suggest that the door is open and the evidence can con ether way.

Non random mechanisms like NGE, epigenetics, transposons etc. can create brand new functional and selectively positive proteins in 1 generation, this makes some scientists wonder that perhaps some of these non-random mechanism play a more important role than the process of random mutations and natural selection. Other scientists would argue that random mutations and natural selection play the most important role and that these other mechanisms provide a minor contribution.

Sure, there is debate about details. Obviously we don't know everything about everything concerning biology. That's why we still train biologists.

yes that is what I mean by conclusive...
If that is the case, then why are there so many PR articles proposing alternative mechanisms? If the evidence is so conclusive then why aren’t these articles rejected by the process of PR?

Again, these are details. There is no controversy about the core / main mechanisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and eventhough there is no solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with bacteria or bananas, it seems to be a reasonable parsimonious and elegant conclusion.

There is very solid genetic evidence of common ancestry with banana's etc.

This common ancestor was likely to be a relatively simple unicellular organism

Yup.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes,

Why?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because of the way the Bible scrolls were preserved.

How does that make the dates IN the Bible reliable?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

For a designer, god or otherwise, to have a "productline" end up in a nested hierarchical pattern, that entity would have to go extremely out of its way to accomplish that. It's an extremely inneficient, stupid, resource wasting way of accomplishing things. Any engineer who would do such things would be instantly fired.

Conversly, such a pattern is the ONLY pattern that the process of evolution can result in.


So, on the one hand we have an existing process that can ONLY result in such a pattern.

On the other hand, we have a mysterious, undemonstrable, unsupportable, magical entity that would have to go extremely out of its way to accomplish such a pattern to the point that he'ld have to pretty much do it on purpose - as if he is trying to make it look as if it was the result of a process like evolution instead. And not only that.... because this is just speaking about nested hierarchies in genetics and comparative anatomy. This entity furthermore would also have to be tricking us further still, but putting fossils in the ground with geological formation that ALSO look as if life evolved from common ancestors. Same with the geographic distribution of species. So it would have been quite a devious and deceptive epic undertaking. Like a conspiracy of unimaginable scale.


It seems rather stupid to go with the "god dun it" option.


Is it "possible"? Sure. It's also "possible" that this entity created everything that exists, including us with our memories of having lived our entire lives, just last thursday. But why on earth would you prefer that "explanation"?

 

[gnostic]

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

I thought you were just a misinformed fool, but now you are being annoying clown.

Stop confusing science with science fiction.

 

[ecco]

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.

I have heard most people argue that abiogenesis is not currently happening. Like you, I see no reason for that belief.

The problem will always be that there is no "line" between non-life and life.

 

[ecco]

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

Can you define a living thing? Science has not yet agreed on an all-encompassing definition.

 

[ecco]

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.

Do you realize that you are making up nonsensical stories to try to support the nonsensical stories in the Bible?