Some questions about evolution.

[ScottySatan]

VitaminA is an amino acid.....

Vitamin A is not an amino acid.
http://www.websters-online-dictiona...structure.svg/360px-Retinol_structure.svg.png

 

[painted wolf]

Vitamin A is not an amino acid.
http://www.websters-online-dictiona...structure.svg/360px-Retinol_structure.svg.png

Woopsie... :bonk:

But the point remains that it is a basic chemical structure. Not a magical thing.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

You will no doubt provide us with references to those scientists' publications.

Cue Answers in Genesis.

 

[Alceste]

It has been proven the earth is round, that viruses can sicken a person, and that the Holocaust took place. These are facts. Comparing the ToE to these facts does not make the ToE a fact.

True - the fact that evolution is a fact is what makes it a fact.

Saying over and over again that something is a fact when it is not a fact is fraud, pure and simple. Pertinent is the following quote from

g87 7/22 p. 10
"A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.​

Saying over and over again that something is a fact when it IS a fact is calling a spade a spade, and that's what we're doing.

Evolution exists beyond question, it is an actuality, an objective reality, and it is established by more solid evidence than any other scientific theory in the history of mankind. According to your own definition, what does that make it, rusra02?

A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory."

All scientists do not agree that the ToE is a fact. In fact, many scientists believe the evidence does not support this theory. These men and women are neither ignorant, stupid, or insane. Millions of other intelligent people also do not believe the evidence supports this theory. And they are neither ignorant, stupid or insane. And calling them that is contemptible, arrogant, and shows the weakness of the ToE. ToE proponents know their pet is not accepted as fact and try to bully opposers of the theory by calling them stupid, insane, or ignorant (and other things as well).

Please name one professional biologist who has published research in a peer-reviewed journal that does not support evolution.

Calling people who don't accept evolution ignorant, stupid or insane is not an insult. One of these three things provides you with an exit. You couldn't do much about it if you were stupid or insane, but ignorant? That is entirely your own choice. You can learn about modern biology. Anybody can.

 

[Acim]

Evolution exists beyond question, it is an actuality, an objective reality, and it is established by more solid evidence than any other scientific theory in the history of mankind.

It's weird that this would be the case since we don't have a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species. No one does.

 

[Valjean]

Species was always understood to be an arbitrary pigeonhole. There's no mysterious, absolute discontinuity. We understand given individuals and the mechanisms whereby they came about. How we classify them is a mere convenience.

Like colors on a spectrum, the boundary between yellow and orange is pretty much arbitrary. Anyone could argue it should be a few angstroms this way or that, but the actual light and the frequency of a given specimen is clear-cut, as you say.

 

[Commoner]

It's weird that this would be the case since we don't have a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species. No one does.

It's a made up concept, what's to understand?

 

[Commoner]

Species was always understood to be an arbitrary pigeonhole. There's no mysterious, absolute discontinuity. We understand given individuals and the mechanisms whereby they came about. How we classify them is a mere convenience.

Like colors on a spectrum, the boundary between yellow and orange is pretty much arbitrary. Anyone could argue it should be a few angstroms this way or that, but the actual light and the frequency of a given specimen is clear-cut, as you say.

Exactly...

 

[painted wolf]

It's weird that this would be the case since we don't have a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species. No one does.

This is where evolution is happening... if we had clear cut understandings of what species are it would be evidence against evolution.

The concept of species was invented by a creationist, long before Darwin was born after all.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Cue Answers in Genesis.

Send in the clowns.

 

[Matthew78]

Archer,

I would like to take a stab at this. If you are honestly curious, I will be happy to do my best to explain to you in as much detail, as you would like, about how eyes, ears, and the brains developed. I could be wrong, but, I suspect that this isn't what you want. Nevertheless, I would be willing to try to go into as much detail as you would like to if you give me the time. However, there are some statements that you made in your opening post and subsequent posts which cause me to doubt that you are really looking for honest answers. Please read my comments carefully...

How did sensory organs develop?

Just the eye for example? Can someone please explain to me in exacting detail how the eye developed?

Before I do this, I'm curious, how much reading on the evolution of sensory organs have you done? Some here, who may know quite a lot about evolution, have given you links. You seemed to dismiss the links. I'm curious; why did you do this?

Here's the problem as I see it so far; you really don't want answers. I have the strong impression that you're simply looking for a fight, plain and simple. You're looking to prove that most evolutionists do not have the slightest clue as to what they believe so you can turn the tables on them. I get the impression that you think that evolutionists have been very snobbish and condescending towards creationists and you would like to turn the tables, to show them up!

Many here probably do not know about evolution in enough detail that you desire. They know the basics of the theory and the general outline of the theory and what arguments make the theory compelling. This is why you will be given links, suggested books, and articles; it's to fill the gap and allow you to explore in much greater detail. Some here think that if you were honestly interested in knowing about evolution of sensory organs, you could consult sources written by experts and then discuss, here, what you don't understand or find confusing.

Heck start off easy: do the ear?

But why though? What does it matter if people here don't know in exact, full detail how the eyes or ears evolved. Do they need to?

Please consider this: many Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, divinely inspired and infallibly produced by the Holy Spirit working with human authors. Yet many Christians don't know biblical Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Even you would agree that they need not know these languages or a detailed, exhausive knowledge of ANE cultures and context to believe the stories in the Bible. Right? So, then, applying your reasoning, they have no clue as to what they believe.

I want exacting detail or nothing. I mean people believe in no divine guidance but I have yet to see empirical evidence of how the eye developed on its own.

I'm a bit confused. Do you want a comprehensive, detailed explanation, or do you want an explanation with supporting empirical evidence (i.e. you also have to define what you mean by "empirical")? I suspect that you just want a fight. I suspect that it's your goal to prove that evolutionists have nothing but "blind faith" in evolution and are guilty of it more than creationists and hypocritically accuse them of having blind faith.

Sure different cells can form a symbiotic relationship but if nothing had eyes in the beginning how did they decide they was light? They never saw it.

It seems that you have an odd notion of how evolution works. You seem to think that evolution is goal-directed and organisms can consciously decide on some need and organs evolve, deliberately, to meet these needs. I have sad news for you; no professional, reputable biologists believes this happened.

So I suppose that vibrations were felt by cells and they decided to form the inner workings of the ear? Perhaps the first hearing apparatus were were similar to a diaphram that picked up noise? Where did the bone come from?

Again, evolution is not goal-directed. Cells didn't decide anything. Cells cannot decide anything because cells are not conscious and deliberate agents.

Make me a believer in the unguided development of life.

No one can "make" you a believer in "unguided development". People like me can try to give you sources and explanations that will help make sense of evolution. But I'm not out to try to convince you that evolution is true. I can do my best to help you understand evolution better but I'm not out to convert you.

But, you might want to stop suggesting that evolutionists have no clue about what they believe. Your comments lead me to believe that you have no clue about what evolutionary theory explains. In fact, your comments in this thread lead me to believe that you're being quite hypocritical; you argue that evolutionists don't have any real clue as to what they believe and you don't have the slightest clue as to what evolutionary biologists accept about evolution. I could be wrong and I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong.

 

[Acim]

if we had clear cut understandings of what species are it would be evidence against evolution.

Would you mind if I used this gem as my signature?

 

[fantome profane]

Would you mind if I used this gem as my signature?

Nice, most creationists don’t ask permission before they quote mine someone.

 

[johnhanks]

It's weird that this would be the case since we don't have a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species. No one does.

Look, it's been explained to you several times: the fuzzy-edged nature of species is not a reflection of biology's inability to resolve them; it's intrinsic to their very nature.

Others have also pointed out that the species concept is a man-made one. In the real world living organisms exist in populations, which differ from each other genetically to varying degrees. As a rough rule of thumb, we say that if the members of two such populations can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, they are the same species; if they can't, they're not. But the process of divergence from the first state to the second has an infinite number of gradations, and none of these constitutes a sharp boundary.

A prediction: Acim will completely ignore the above, and continue to proclaim that biologists lack 'a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species', and that this shortfall invalidates their claims about evolution.

 

[cottage]

Reading something and being able to repeat it shows me you can read and regurgitate. It does not explain the concepts. It does not explain cellular bonds.

Lunakilo gave an excellent summary that explained the fundamental concept of the theory in simple terms.

"If a creature has a mutation which makes slightly different from the rest of the creatures of that type, and this difference increases its chances of surviving long enough to have children, that mutation is passed on to its children.

Its children again has a higher probability of making it than the children of the creatures without the mutation. So slowly the chreatures without the mutation die off and the mutation becomes the norm.

An eye if usefull. Creatures with eyes can see preditors thus giving them the chance to escape leaving the blind creatures to be eaten. It also helps in localising food and mates.

So having an eye increases a creatures ability to survive, and any mutation which makes the eye better increases a creatures ability to survive."

The above isn't an outlandish or improbable claim, and a biological analysis isn't necessary to understand or underwrite its plausibility.

 

[painted wolf]

Would you mind if I used this gem as my signature?

My very own quote mine... I'm moving up in the world!

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Look, it's been explained to you several times: the fuzzy-edged nature of species is not a reflection of biology's inability to resolve them; it's intrinsic to their very nature.

And there in lies the problem.

creationist ignorant to science trying to STUFF god into the gaps of their knowledge

 

[Commoner]

My very own quote mine... I'm moving up in the world!

wa:do

Next: "Painted-Wolf-ians say cats and dogs disprove evolution!"

 

[rusra02]

Here you have shown your ignorance of Scientific Theories by putting forth the colloquial use of the word theory.

Scientific Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Scientific Theory v. Hypothesis v. Scientific Law - The Scientific Method


There. If you choose to learn from the above, you will no longer be ignorant of what a Scientific Theory is.
If you choose to ignore it, you will be guilty of willful ignorance.

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

 

[rusra02]

You will no doubt provide us with references to those scientists' publications.

There are long published lists of these scientists. Surely you knew that, didn't you?