Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[Shad]

Which abiogenesis theory do most evolutionists accept now?

None as there isn't one. Look up the subject before talking about said subject.

 

[Shad]

They haven't agreed on the basic evolution part yet- how to account for the gaping holes , missing transitions, punctuated equilibrium or lost evidence?

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Try again son.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Life goes through changes and nature favors the best suited

just as gravity makes apples fall from trees and produced a solar system which harbors that life

My argument being that just as the latter- the former was determined by deeper underlying specific instructions, not chance.

Very true. There is a large similarity between classical physics and classical evolution. Much of what was thought about each was misunderstood.

In classical physics it didn't account for many mechanisms that held together the micro world or high speed or high energy world. It also didn't touch on light or any non-matter particle. So we found the theory of relativity, special relativity and QM to help us understand those.

LIkewise in evolution we knew that things changed over time but did not figure out how. But later we discovered these deeper underlying specific instructions. DNA and the advanced behavior of genetics was the major stepping stone. Later we found out about epigenetics and ways that the environment can shape your DNA. We learned where these changes came from. We learned how they come to be and where they start on these micro levels and work their way back up to observable effects.

So yes you are right that there are deeper underlying specific instructions. What you don't know is that we have already found many. And it wasn't god.

 

[First Baseman]

None as there isn't one. Look up the subject before talking about said subject.

Okay then. How and where did the first life form come from?

 

[First Baseman]

None as there isn't one. Look up the subject before talking about said subject.

And for your information there are several abiogenesis theories out there. Did you not know that?

 

[leibowde84]

NITPICK!

The idea that bio-evolution is about "advancement"; i.e., a species evolving from a "primitive" species into an "advanced" one, is long outdated and largely based on imperialist, colonialist, and homo-centric (specifically Euro-centric) thought. As I understand it, this sort of language hasn't been used in the scientific community in decades, for that reason. A species is neither primitive nor advanced; it's suited to whatever environment it lives in, and goes extinct (whether by evolution or not) when that environment inevitably changes.

In regards to single-celled vs multi-celled life, the terms used are "simple" and "complex", and this is also the same when comparing things like jellyfish to ... fish.

Seems minor, but I feel like this kind of language doesn't help matters, since it's not reflective of how bio-evolution works, and thus perpetuates misconceptions. When peoples' everyday observations don't line up with these misconceptions, I can't really be all that surprised that they're so skeptical.

By "evolutionarily advanced" I simply mean later in time.

 

[First Baseman]

By "evolutionarily advanced" I simply mean later in time.

Time is what the evolutionist sticks into an argument when he's got nothing else to put there.

 

[Parsimony]

significant enough to endow a significant enough advantage to reproduce significantly more often, otherwise natural selection is not occurring due to that mutation, the more advanced the design, the more difficult this becomes- because any random mutation becomes increasingly likely to be a significant disadvantage, rather than improve further on an already highly evolved design.

And those particular mutations are selected against.

I.e. What if a car manufacturer used the same logic- tried to save on R+D by following this method, simply make random changes and let the best be naturally selected- because this simple algorithm inevitably leads to improvements right?

It's been used for things kind of like that before. I recall a genetic algorithm being used to reduce the drag of a P-51's wing, for example.

Natural selection works of course, the best design will be favored, but 'best' does not equate to 'better'- I think that's often an erroneous assumption.

I'd say it's the other way around, that evolution makes things better (fitness-wise), but doesn't necessarily arrive at the best solution. I think we're both saying the same thing, though.

The car with the broken seat warmer will be chosen over the car with the broken engine and so on. the design will quickly regress back to the simplest homogenous form that satisfies the fitness function- that it moves. No more no less.

In a population of cars where one gets a mutation that causes the engine or seat warmer to break, both will be selected against because there are many other cars which do not have those broken parts. Unless those mutations also carry some kind of benefit, they will disappear from the population due to natural selection (though possibly cropping up every now and then due to random mutations in the future). Presumably, a car manufacturer would use selling potential as the fitness function: a car that sells better is more desirable for them so such a genetic algorithm would be what they would need to program in. A car that simply moves and does nothing else would be very poor at sales, not fitting the fitness function at all.

Time is what the evolutionist sticks into an argument when he's got nothing else to put there.

I think you misunderstand what he was saying. Advanced and primitive, in evolutionary terms, simply mean things that occur early or later on in a lineage. Descendants are considered more advanced than their ancestors, particularly if there are differences in traits between them. Hence why crocodiles and sharks are considered primitive, because they haven't changed much in a while.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Time is what the evolutionist sticks into an argument when he's got nothing else to put there.

Can you give me an example of how time is used by evolution in a way that is not legitimate?

 

[leibowde84]

Time is what the evolutionist sticks into an argument when he's got nothing else to put there.

What is this supposed to mean? What is wrong with "time"? Time is a crucial factor in evolution. It is completely dependant on vast amounts of time.

 

[First Baseman]

Can you give me an example of how time is used by evolution in a way that is not legitimate?

Well, you certainly can't prove how much time has passed since creation. You can look at your rocks and do your dating but that is in no way to be considered 100% accurate. How do you know whether or not those rocks did or didn't experience outside radioactive influences that would dramatically affect test results?

Billions of years is all just based on assumption, there is no hard evidence of billions of years.

 

[First Baseman]

What is this supposed to mean? What is wrong with "time"? Time is a crucial factor in evolution. It is completely dependant on vast amounts of time.

Which is/was my point. Something that supposedly take billions of years to happen certainly can't be tested. If you need another billion years or so to explain something away, just throw it in there, no problem.

 

[outhouse]

Well, you certainly can't prove how much time has passed since creation

Creation is mythology. Its been about 2500 years since the jewish creation mythology was created.

Billions of years is all just based on assumption,

Factually false.

The date of the earth is not up for debate. It is fact.

there is no hard evidence of billions of years.

Factually false. It would be great if you knew the first thing about a topic your debating.

 

[outhouse]

Which is/was my point. Something that supposedly take billions of years to happen certainly can't be tested.

YOU don't have a credible point. YOU just refuse education and knowledge and academia in favor of mythology.

Your quite lost here. What took billions of years exactly?

 

[First Baseman]

Creation is mythology. Its been about 2500 years since the jewish creation mythology was created.



Factually false.

The date of the earth is not up for debate. It is fact.



Factually false. It would be great if you knew the first thing about a topic your debating.

You are quite wrong, sir.

Prove the earth is 4.5 billions years old without making or using any assumptions. You can't do it.

 

[First Baseman]

YOU don't have a credible point. YOU just refuse education and knowledge and academia in favor of mythology.

Your quite lost here. What took billions of years exactly?

No, I listen to hard factual evidence, which you billions of years people do not have. Billions of years is mythology as far as I am concerned.

You tell me what took billions of years since you are the one harping it.

 

[outhouse]

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


This is a credible source. Start using credible sources to support your claims or you will be reported


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

No, I listen to hard factual evidence

You factually do not.

You replace knowledge with mythology. You have not provided a hard facts since you joined this site

 

[leibowde84]

Which is/was my point. Something that supposedly take billions of years to happen certainly can't be tested. If you need another billion years or so to explain something away, just throw it in there, no problem.

Why would a test like that be necessary? It is supported by an amazing amount of evidence, and everything seems to point to evolution being the case. What I'd your alternative theory? Are you able to test it in this way?

 

[Yorutenchi]

Well, you certainly can't prove how much time has passed since creation. You can look at your rocks and do your dating but that is in no way to be considered 100% accurate. How do you know whether or not those rocks did or didn't experience outside radioactive influences that would dramatically affect test results?

Billions of years is all just based on assumption, there is no hard evidence of billions of years.

There is substantial evidence that the universe is billions of years old. Geological evidences are the strongest case for Earth and this has nothing to do with evolution. Secondly the distance that light has traveled and our ability to peer back in time through looking at the far ends of the universe also matches with us the timeline of billions of years. The universe is not new and neither is the Earth. Perhaps some of the exact measurements are not perfect but they are close. To say otherwise is simply wrong.