What can evolution really do?

[Man of Faith]

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat? We see bats in the fossil record with no known ancestry and they look just like the bats of today. Could it be that scientists so accept evolution to be true that they don’t even test or verify it? There is suspicion that evolution cannot do two things at one time and multiple things would need to be done at the same time to go from fish to amphibian or reptile. Scientists see micro-evolution, such as evolution of anti-biotic resistance and resistance to pesticides, so they infer macro-evolution, such as the larger things, the large leaps, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal, “if you take a lot of small steps you get a long way”. However there is no direct evidence for that. To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution, the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow, because multiple things have to happen before you can produce any useful cellular machines. Richard Lenski’s long term e. Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and they are still e-coli with no fins or arms, no legs or fingers, no limbs, no eyes, no heart, etc…

“And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.”

“When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
http://www.discovery.org/v/341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First, ToE helps us to better understand and interpret ourselves and the world as far as we can observe evidence in the natural world.

Secondly, it helps is to understand the physiology of bacteria and other sources of illness so we can better treat and prevent disease.

 

[sandandfoam]

Could it be that you've anthropomorphised evolution?
I don't think it actively does anything.

 

[Man of Faith]

First, ToE helps us to better understand and interpret ourselves and the world as far as we can observe evidence in the natural world.

Secondly, it helps is to understand the physiology of bacteria and other sources of illness so we can better treat and prevent disease.

Non-controversial. Can evolution produce a human?

 

[Man of Faith]

Could it be that you've anthropomorphised evolution?
I don't think it actively does anything.

No I haven't, your question has nothing to do with the OP. It looks like you read the title and ignored the rest.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Non-controversial. Can evolution produce a human?

That question doesn't make sense.

Evolution is not an entity that can create or produce. It is a theory that is used to describe - among other things - how humans came to be. Or we can say that evolution is the process itself. But evolution can produce nothing, and more importantly, no one is claiming that it does.

 

[Man of Faith]

That question doesn't make sense.

Evolution is not an entity that can create or produce. It is a theory that is used to describe - among other things - how humans came to be. Or we can say that evolution is the process itself. But evolution can produce nothing, and more importantly, no one is claiming that it does.

You would rather play word games than debate, that's fine.

 

[sandandfoam]

No I haven't, your question has nothing to do with the OP. It looks like you read the title and ignored the rest.

No I read it all
In your own words

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat

There is suspicion that evolution cannot do two things at one time

Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done

 

[Man of Faith]

No I read it all
In your own words

Seriously people, evolution is how we are supposed to have gotten here, now people say it can't do anything, wow. I'm stunned.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You would rather play word games than debate, that's fine.

It's not a word game. You're asking a question that doesn't make sense, and I told you why.

You asked if evolution can produce something, and I point out that no one claims that evolution produces anything. That's not semantics.

The question is irrelevant as it stands, but perhaps you can find a better way to ask it that more closely relates to what evolution actually is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Seriously people, evolution is how we are supposed to have gotten here, now people say it can't do anything, wow. I'm stunned.

That's because you refuse to approach the theory on its own terms.

 

[sandandfoam]

Seriously people, evolution is how we are supposed to have gotten here, now people say it can't do anything, wow. I'm stunned.

You're easily stunned.
As I said at the outset I believe that if you conceive of evolution as actively doing then you are mis-conceiving it.

 

[sandandfoam]

That's because you refuse to approach the theory on its own terms.

And that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're easily stunned.
As I said at the outset I believe that if you conceive of evolution as actively doing then you are mis-conceiving it.

I said the same thing and he accused me of playing word games. :biglaugh:

 

[David M]

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat? We see bats in the fossil record with no known ancestry and they look just like the bats of today.

Bats such as Onychincteris finneryi you mean, which is so like a bat of today that it needed to be placed in a new taxonomic family? The bat without echolocation?

Could it be that scientists so accept evolution to be true that they don’t even test or verify it?

No, scientists accept evolution because it can be tested and verified.

There is suspicion that evolution cannot do two things at one time and multiple things would need to be done at the same time to go from fish to amphibian or reptile.

Suspicion by whom? What are these multiple things?

Scientists see micro-evolution, such as evolution of anti-biotic resistance and resistance to pesticides, so they infer macro-evolution, such as the larger things, the large leaps, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal, “if you take a lot of small steps you get a long way”. However there is no direct evidence for that.

And there is zero evidence that the magic barrier that creationists insist on exists, and how is this proposal testable and verifiable?

To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution, the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow, because multiple things have to happen before you can produce any useful cellular machines.

What multiple things and why can't "micro-evolution" produce them?

Richard Lenski’s long term e. Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and they are still e-coli with no fins or arms, no legs or fingers, no limbs, no eyes, no heart, etc…

Yeah, because ToE predicts you would see such things occur within a human lifetime. Oh wait, it doesn't, that would be creationism not evolution.

“And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far.

What we see is evolution happening.

It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.”

Whoever said this is lying. Lenski's experiment involved no tweaks when it comes to the ability to metabolise citrate.

“When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans.

Well they were manifestly wrong when it comes to evolution producing new species and new organs. And now that we are learning more about the genes that control body plans it seems certain that they were wrong about that. Of course the biologists during Darwin's time knew nothing about genes so we can forgive them that error.

All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”

Myostatin gene mutations that result in increased muscle mass. Thats a beneficial morphological mutation.

http://<a href="http://www.plosgene...s Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs</a>PLoS Genetics: A Mutation in the Myostatin Gene Increases Muscle Mass and Enhances Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs
Those professional liars at the DI really should keep up with the progress of science.

So no evidence against ToE then? Just a lot of "but this is impossible because we want it to be".

 

[tumbleweed41]

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat?

Not consciously, but biological evolution has resulted in the aforementioned species.

We see bats in the fossil record with no known ancestry and they look just like the bats of today.

A change to a single gene allowed bats to grow wings and take to the air, a development that may explain why bats appeared so suddenly in the fossil record some 50 million years ago.
Bats have been an evolutionary enigma. That&#8217;s because the oldest fossil bats look remarkably like modern ones, each having wings formed from membranes stretched between long fingers, and ear structures designed for echolocation. No fossils of an animal intermediate between bats and their non-flying mammal ancestors have been found.
Now Karen Sears, at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, has discovered why intermediate forms may be missing in the fossil record. In a bid to understand where bats&#8217; specialised finger digits evolved from, Sears compared their embryological development with that of the finger digits of mice. &#8230; Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms.

(SOURCE)


​

To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution, the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow,

Knowledge is often hard to swallow for the uneducated. The cure is be informed on the subject rather than misrepresenting "micro" and "macro" evolution.

Richard Lenski&#8217;s long term e. Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and they are still e-coli with no fins or arms, no legs or fingers, no limbs, no eyes, no heart, etc&#8230;

If they did, it would turn evolutionary theory on its head.
Kinda like expecting a cat to give birth to puppies.
Or "crocoduck".

&#8220;And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.&#8221;

What the Chemist Edward Peltzer is discussing here is Abiogenesis. Of interest is that in his testimony for the Kansas School board hearings, Peltzer made the following statement about biological evolution.

"Chemical evolution is-- is what happens-- it's the natural chemistry that happens on the earth before life begins. Biological evolution is what happens after life begins. Biological evolution is subject to-- to natural selection. Chemical evolution because the-- the compounds are not living are-- are not subject to natural selection."

Even Peltzer understands the difference between Abiogeneses and Biological Evolution.

&#8220;When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.&#8221;

Here, you, and the Discovery Institute, quote mine natural history author Peter J. Bowler. If you actually read the entire book, Evolution, The History of an Idea, you would see consistent objective evidence for biological evolution and highlights of the non-scientific nature of creationism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith
To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution, the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow, because multiple things have to happen before you can produce any useful cellular machines.

Don't flatter yourself here.

Critical thinkers try to avoid logical fallacies, and the seperation between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is artificial and intellectually dishonest. '

If micro- could be seperated from macro-, then micro- would absolutely be the best proof that macro-evolution was a sound theory. It would serve as indisputable proof.

But micro-evolution is macro-evolution - there is no distinction. If it happens on the micro level then it must happen on the macro level.

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution is the sum of many natural processes, not a single actor.

Mutation
Recombination
Differential survival
Differential reproduction
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Heterozygosity
Phenotypic plasticity

These among other things add up to evolution... Just like many forces act in sum to produce mountaians. You wouldn't ask if Geology intends to make the Himalayas.

Also, evolution can only address the how aspect of species origins.... it can't address the why. Science will never be able to say why Humans evolved, just the physical path that evolution took to get us here.
It's up to religion and philosophy to address the why part.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat?

Clearly, yes.

We see bats in the fossil record with no known ancestry and they look just like the bats of today.

Really? Have you made an extensive study of bat paleontology? Here's a fossil bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, about 52.5 million years old. The bat's surprising features-unlike modern bats, this one has claws on every finger, and its limb proportions are more like those of climbing mammals that hang under branches than other bats. Nancy B. Simmons; Kevin L. Seymour; Jorg Habersetzer; Gregg F. Gunnell (2008). "Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation". Nature 451 (7180): 818–21

Here is a modern bat skeleton. See the differences?

But I don't suppose being wrong about your facts will have the slightest effect on your belief system, since it's not based in facts, it's based on myth.

Could it be that scientists so accept evolution to be true that they don’t even test or verify it?

No, exactly the opposite. It was extensively tested over 100 years ago, and passed with flying colors. That's how it got accepted. We don't need to go back and do it over.

There is suspicion that evolution cannot do two things at one time and multiple things would need to be done at the same time to go from fish to amphibian or reptile.

Really? Biologists suspect that? Or only people who know almost nothing about Biology? Why on earth couldn't evolution "do two things at once?" What prevents this?

Scientists see micro-evolution, such as evolution of anti-biotic resistance and resistance to pesticides, so they infer macro-evolution, such as the larger things, the large leaps, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal, “if you take a lot of small steps you get a long way”. However there is no direct evidence for that.

There's tons of extremely direct evidence? Want to review it, or do you prefer to refuse to look at it and then claim to have done so?

To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution, the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow, because multiple things have to happen before you can produce any useful cellular machines.

You mean to people who have no idea how evolution works?

Richard Lenski’s long term e. Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and they are still e-coli with no fins or arms, no legs or fingers, no limbs, no eyes, no heart, etc…

Yeah, ten years is almost exactly like 3 billion years, no significant difference there.

“When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”

Wow, who is this? It's simply false. Who wrote this?

 

[Autodidact]

Non-controversial. Can evolution produce a human?

Clearly, it can and did.