Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Aasimar]

These are some pukka questions for both creationists and evolutionists if you can supply the definite factual answers i would be both amazed and grateful.
The first starts at the beggining of life on Earth some billions of years ago,what was the first creature and how did it come into being from nothing to what ever it was.
The second is,my freind had a greyhound ***** who died whilegiving birth to her litter so we all pitched in and i took one of the pups home and nursed it and she survived.
After all her innoculations were done i took her out walking and i let her off for the run around when she saw a rabbit which darted for its burrow she chased after it,she didt catch it as she was still very young.
As she grew she chased rabbits and hares which she did catch,why did she chase the rabbit and kill some when unlike lions etc who are taught by the parents does this mean its the information already in her genes and if it is why not in other species.
If natural selection is the driving force of evolution how does it work to produce new species and why is'nt it seen working now.

I'm only going to address the first question because it's so important, and I dont' know why this comes up so often.

Abiogenesis (That being the beginning of life) is not covered by the Theory of Evolution. I recommend reading the Wikipedia article here

Origin of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


for a quick overview of abiogenesis, there are attempts at uncovering it, but it is completely seperate.

Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life, not the fact that life exists.

 

[England my lionheart]

You're failing to make a distinction between the fact of evolution, and the theory that explains how that fact happens.

There is simply no rational doubt that evolution happens. The fossil record is conclusive proof that evolution happens.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is not factual. No theory is. All theories are tentative, and subject to falsification. At this point, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is so utterly overwhelming that no one who understands it doubts it, except for religious reasons.

If you stay with this thread, you will eventually learn enough about the theory of evolution that you would have to be insane not to believe it is an accurate explanation for observation.

OK i said this to autodidact but she said that theorys were fact which i obviously disagreed with,the evidence is there for evolution but there are so many unopened envelopes that it is'nt fact which has been my point al along.
I am not religious and so i'm not bothered whether we come from the phlegm of a passing alien or a chemical accident what does bother me is people say fact when its still a maybe.

 

[ericmurphy]

Why then have the mutated fruit flies in the experiment remained as fruit flies.

Because macroevolution does not happen on a timescale humans can observe. It took three million years to get from Australopithecus, which was an anatomically modern human being from the neck down, to modern humans. How much evolution would you expect in fruit flies in less than a hundred years.

I don't get why creationists have such a hard time understanding this. A species appears to generally last for a million years or more without much change. Why would creationists expect to see major morphological change in a single human generation?

Let me ask you, England: what would you expect a fruit fly to mutate into? It's not going to mutate into anything that isn't an insect. Common descent guarantees that an insect isn't going to mutate into a bird, or a giraffe, or even a crustacean.

 

[painted wolf]

what kind am I?

again I'm not expecting you to understand, mutations, frameshifts and duplications of genetics.. I'm asking you as an engineer to look at this fossil and deny the fact that it is between a bird and a dinosaur just going by its features.

Or that Tiktallik isn't between an amphibian and a fish.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

You are mixing up the usages of the word theory:

theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. See Note at hypothesis.

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.


​

That is how the Science community uses the term theory.
Here is how the every day Joe uses the term theory:

n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Source
​

 

[ericmurphy]

OK i said this to autodidact but she said that theorys were fact which i obviously disagreed with,the evidence is there for evolution but there are so many unopened envelopes that it is'nt fact which has been my point al along.

No, you're still not getting it. You're still failing to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution.

All evolution is is change over time. There is absolutely no question that living organisms have changed over time. Do you see any dinosaurs walking around these days, England? Dinosaurs only lived between the Tirassic and the Cretaceous, a period of from 230 million to 65 million years ago. Humans have only existed for about the last 200,000 years.

Thus, there is simply no question that evolution is happened. It is a fact. To deny the fact of evolution is literally to deny reality.

Now, if you want an understanding or explanation for how evolution happened, then you get into the theory of evolution. It's a theory, not fact. But it is an extremely well-supported theory, supported by evidence as conclusive as the evidence for any other theory in science. It's still possible (although astronomically unlikely) that the theory of evolution will turn out to be fundamentally wrong.

But there is zero likelihood that it will ever be found out that life does not evolve.

Do you now understand the distinction?

One further point. You say you enjoy science, but you have one major and fundamental misunderstanding about it: scientific theories are not amenable to proof. No scientific theory is ever proven: not quantum theory, not the theory of general relativity, and not the theory of evolution. The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that it has withstood all tests it has been subjected to so far. This is true of all three of the theories just mentioned. While evolutionary theory is certainly subject to falsification, it has so far passed every single legitimate test it has ever been given. As long as that remains the case, it will be regarded as the best, and only, explanation for the origin of the observed biodiversity.

It doesn't even have any competition.

 

[England my lionheart]

Because macroevolution does not happen on a timescale humans can observe. It took three million years to get from Australopithecus, which was an anatomically modern human being from the neck down, to modern humans. How much evolution would you expect in fruit flies in less than a hundred years.

I don't get why creationists have such a hard time understanding this. A species appears to generally last for a million years or more without much change. Why would creationists expect to see major morphological change in a single human generation?

Let me ask you, England: what would you expect a fruit fly to mutate into? It's not going to mutate into anything that isn't an insect. Common descent guarantees that an insect isn't going to mutate into a bird, or a giraffe, or even a crustacean.

OK the fruit fly was chosen because it only has a life span of 10 days and breeds rapidly,the experiment started in 1902 i think and the mutated produced no new dna information.
Mutation and natural selection are a basis for toe which is why the experiment was conducted,and no i would'nt expect it to change into another species, however,because the fruit fly lives for just ten days timescale is different than humans in that amount of time if new information came from mutatons tere should be even a tiny change but nothing occured.

 

[McBell]

OK the fruit fly was chosen because it only has a life span of 10 days and breeds rapidly,the experiment started in 1902 i think and the mutated produced no new dna information.
Mutation and natural selection are a basis for toe which is why the experiment was conducted,and no i would'nt expect it to change into another species, however,because the fruit fly lives for just ten days timescale is different than humans in that amount of time if new information came from mutatons tere should be even a tiny change but nothing occured.

And what exactly does the radiation do to the fruit flies?
Does this radiation treatment threaten their survival in some way or is it merely assumed that the radiation has to cause mutations?
If no change is needed for the survival of the fly, then why would there be a change?

 

[camanintx]

Why then have the mutated fruit flies in the experiment remained as fruit flies.

Because a species is not defined by its name. Until you provide a rational definition of species, how can you say what is and is not in a species?

 

[camanintx]

OK the fruit fly was chosen because it only has a life span of 10 days and breeds rapidly,the experiment started in 1902 i think and the mutated produced no new dna information.

Since there is no record of the original fruit fly DNA, how can you say what the experiment did or did not add?

 

[McBell]

Since there is no record of the original fruit fly DNA, how can you say what the experiment did or did not add?

{sarcasm}
What?
I thought everyone knew that fruit flies grow to one million times their original size when hit enough radiation.
Sheesh.
where have you been?!
{/sarcasm}

 

[painted wolf]

OK the fruit fly was chosen because it only has a life span of 10 days and breeds rapidly,the experiment started in 1902 i think and the mutated produced no new dna information.
Mutation and natural selection are a basis for toe which is why the experiment was conducted,and no i would'nt expect it to change into another species, however,because the fruit fly lives for just ten days timescale is different than humans in that amount of time if new information came from mutatons tere should be even a tiny change but nothing occured.

you have admited you don't know about genetics, DNA and the like. Why are you making such a silly claim as "no new information". Would you know "new information" if you saw it?
What is "new information"?

Why haven't you answered any of my previous questions by the way?

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

OK the fruit fly was chosen because it only has a life span of 10 days and breeds rapidly,the experiment started in 1902 i think and the mutated produced no new dna information.

Incorrect. It absolutely produced mutated genes which did not exist before. Hence, genetic information increased; not in an individual fly, of course, but in the total gene pool of the population.

Second, as I said, macroevolution does not happen on a human-observable timescale, even when using organisms with short lifespans such as fruit flies or even bacteria. Do you understand the difference in magnitude between a hundred years and a million years? Major morphological change, like that from primitive dinosaurs to birds, takes hundreds of millions of years.

The idea that humans could observe macroevolution in the lab is just silly.

Fortunately, we don't have to. All the evidence anyone could ever want of major morphological change is contained in the fossil record. There is simply no dispute that macroevolution has happened.

Mutation and natural selection are a basis for toe which is why the experiment was conducted,and no i would'nt expect it to change into another species, however,because the fruit fly lives for just ten days timescale is different than humans in that amount of time if new information came from mutatons tere should be even a tiny change but nothing occured.

That's absolutely untrue. There are numerous instances of speciation observed among wild populations. If you believe speciation doesn't happen, prepare to be proven wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

sadly england will ignore your evidence as much as mine. IMHO.

shame.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Mutations cannot provide new information they only become worse ie a fruit fly mutation can only produce more mutations but they are still flies.

1. Define "information." If you are stating that a mutation cannot produce more of it, you must know what it is, and how to measure it.
2. Can you provide a single scientific source in support of this meaningless assertion?

 

[Autodidact]

These are some pukka questions for both creationists and evolutionists if you can supply the definite factual answers i would be both amazed and grateful.
The first starts at the beggining of life on Earth some billions of years ago,what was the first creature and how did it come into being from nothing to what ever it was.

This is an interesting and challenging question but outside of the scope of evolution and my knowledge.

The second is,my freind had a greyhound ***** who died whilegiving birth to her litter so we all pitched in and i took one of the pups home and nursed it and she survived.
After all her innoculations were done i took her out walking and i let her off for the run around when she saw a rabbit which darted for its burrow she chased after it,she didt catch it as she was still very young.
As she grew she chased rabbits and hares which she did catch,why did she chase the rabbit and kill some when unlike lions etc who are taught by the parents does this mean its the information already in her genes and if it is why not in other species.

Yes. Because greyhounds have been bred/selected for rabbit chasing. That is, the greyhounds that do chase rabbits are bred, so their offspring are rabbit-chasing greyhounds.

If natural selection is the driving force of evolution how does it work to produce new species and why is'nt it seen working now.

Did you read my posts quite a ways back where I explained it? It is working now. It will never stop as long as there is life on earth. It is fundamental to life, and so to biology, the study of life.

 

[Autodidact]

No i don't think it is false as Thomas Hunt Morgan a zoologist began an experiment with fruit flies witch were treated with radiation to create mutations and as yet not new species has appeared only more fruit flies.

Speciation in fruit flies.
Speciation (new species) has been observed in the lab many times. It is common daily fare for bacteria, because they reproduce quickly.

 

[ericmurphy]

sadly england will ignore your evidence as much as mine. IMHO.

shame.

wa:do

Undoubtedly. But lurkers might not.

 

[Autodidact]

It does'nt really matter does it,i read an interesting article by steven hawking about the universe and toe,i think this man is quite well respected.
I thought that if toe is actual fact then he would say so but like most scientists in this field he uses words like probably or perhaps where if something is fact then normally speaking you would use fact instead of perhaps,maybe, possibly.

Are you referring to this article?
If so, I think you will see that Dr. Hawking accepts and assumes ToE, he is speculating about:

'What is the probability of life existing else where in the universe?' and, 'How may life develop in the future?'

If you are referring to some other article, please tell us. btw, Hawking is a physicist, so any expertise he has in Biology is self-taught, much like mine.

From his article it is clear that toe is'nt fact at all,from the big bang to us being here it was probably ,perhaps,about the first creature to live on Earth this may have happened and there may have been circumstances that caused it.
Come on, i love science and if somebody can tell me for sure how we got here from nothing to something i would love to here from you.

Well these are very interesting questions, but irrelevant to the issue of evolution, so perhaps you should start a thread to explore them. I am only teaching myself all this science stuff now, and do not even know what the current scientific understanding is, let alone whether it is correct.

 

[Autodidact]

Why then have the mutated fruit flies in the experiment remained as fruit flies.

Because ToE predicts that they will. Have you read the thread? I have the patience to explain it once, but not repeatedly in the same thread.