Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 8:04 PM
117 online now:
14174dm, frako, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 111 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,171 Year: 13,777/21,208 Month: 3,259/3,605 Week: 45/556 Day: 45/54 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6325
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 16 of 106 (486893)
10-25-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


My favorite piece of evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical pattern that produces the phylogenic tree. There is no process known (including "common designers") that explains this except evolution.

Now, the theory of evolution is a theory about the mechanism for this evolution. The appearance of new variations (no called "genetic mutations") has been observed. That, based on physical and inheritable characteristics, some organisms will reproduce more than other has also been observed. And the analogy of animal and plant breeding shows that such selection can produce large differences from the original ancestral population. In fact, there is no known mechanism that would prevent very large changes from occurring. Now this may be "foundational" in the sense that this was a large part of Darwin's reasoning.

So, we have evidence that evolution has occurred (like the phylogenic tree), and we have evidence that there is a workable mechanism.

This to me is the best evidence for evolution.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 2967 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 17 of 106 (486899)
10-25-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
10-25-2008 11:05 AM


Through genetics, one can track the point where the current creature branched off from it's common ancestor with another creature.

Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)

What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.

Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.

So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.

(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 11:05 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 10-25-2008 11:47 AM wardog25 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 11:56 AM wardog25 has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 10-25-2008 1:24 PM wardog25 has responded
 Message 28 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 6:03 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4752
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 106 (486902)
10-25-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by wardog25
10-25-2008 11:38 AM


I suggest that you take this to another thread
Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.

This is not on topic here. It is such an interesting question that I suggest you start a new thread for it.

You'd have to define your terms fairly carefully to get it started. Are you interested in it actually?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 11:38 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 106 (486904)
10-25-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by wardog25
10-25-2008 11:38 AM


Off topic reply hidden.

wardog25 writes:

Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism?


No I can't, for the very simple fact that there are no "scientific procedures" that add new genetic material. These are all NATURAL processes.

(not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)

If a gene changes, it becomes a different gene, no? So, if a gene that's there changes into a gene that wasn't there, that's a NEW gene.
By the way, all DNA is made up of only 4 different nucleotides. A, T, C and G.(these stand for adenine, thymine, cytosine and Guanine) That's ALL that's needed to get all the difference we see today.

What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.

The problem with making up words for stuff that are generally referred to by other words, is that it can make it hard to see what you are talking about.

So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new.

As pointed out above, a change of a gene into a gene that wasn't there before, IS new material.

This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

Since you are wrong about it, I don't think it does.

We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material.

Once again: If a gene changes into a gene that wasn't there before, you have NEW material.

So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.

The Theory of evolution is a description of the evolutionary mechanism. So I would say it doesn't support creation in ANY way.

(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)

No problem, however it would be nice if you would define what a kind is. It'll make it a lot clearer when you state things like: "animals can only evolve within their kind". If we don't know what exactly a kind is, it's a bit hard for us to test that statement.

Edited by AdminNosy, : hide off topic


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 11:38 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 20 of 106 (486910)
10-25-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by wardog25
10-25-2008 11:38 AM


Wardog25, please see Message 3. As AdminNosy indicated in Message 18, if the origin of new genetic material is what you really want to talk about then you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

A caution to other participants:

The possibility exists that wardog25 is not really interested in what people believe to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution. I was concerned that this might be the case, so before discussion started I issued the advisory in Message 3 that this thread is not for discussion of the validity of the offered evidence, but only about whether it was truly foundational. We would never promote a thread where any and all evidences for evolution would be on the table at the same time. We try very hard to avoid such confusion here.

Based upon wardog25's Message 17 members may want to be circumspect about further participation.

Edited by Admin, : Totally new content.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 11:38 AM wardog25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 5:01 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 21 of 106 (486916)
10-25-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
10-25-2008 7:29 AM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
"What does RAZD believe is the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution?" for which I would have no answer.

I guess that's NOT a potm nomination ... curiously the subtitle was intentionally chosen to alleviate that problem. I've edited to make this more evident in the post.

For me the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution comes from its foundational book, Origin of Species. A huge amount of evidence is described there, so if I were asked to choose just one it would be where Darwin describes how both animal breeding and evolution in the wild draw upon the same principles.

And yet even the "huge amount" of evidence presented in that book is less by orders of magnetude than is shown by the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.

Darwin did not include all the evidence he had observed that lead him to his conclusions. The evidence, observations and conclusions of Wallace are not included in that book. Nor did Darwin include all the mechanisms whereby change occurs or is selected, things that were not known then, but have been discovered since. Nor did (could) Darwin include the mountains of fossil and genetic information we have discovered since, evidence that all conforms to the pattern of descent with modification from common ancestors.

Thus it is the total body of evidence that is foundational to the ongoing study of the process of evolution. But then, that is how science works.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-25-2008 7:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2008 3:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 10-25-2008 5:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5787
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 22 of 106 (486917)
10-25-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-25-2008 3:19 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
Thus it is the total body of evidence that is foundational to the ongoing study of the process of evolution. But then, that is how science works.

Creationists often ask for the single best piece of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. They are disappointed when one is not forthcoming.

The evidence is housed in thousands of libraries and in tens of thousands of journals, in tens of thousands of books, and in many hundred museums.

Distilling all of this down into one bit of evidence is a fool's errand. In reality there is no "best" evidence, if you are looking for a single fact, such as a date or a fossil.

The "best" evidence we have is that the theory of evolution works, and it is internally consistent; it accounts for all of the known facts, it is not contradicted by any significant facts, and it makes predictions leading to the discovery of previously unknown facts.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2008 3:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2008 3:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1057 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 23 of 106 (486918)
10-25-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
10-25-2008 3:35 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
The "best" evidence we have is that the theory of evolution works, and it is internally consistent; it accounts for all of the known facts, it is not contradicted by any significant facts, and it makes predictions leading to the discovery of previously unknown facts.

Exactly - what more can you want from a succssful theory? This is why I can never understand these bizarre accusations that evolution is not science.

Oh, and RAZD was spot on as well :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2008 3:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 24 of 106 (486923)
10-25-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wardog25
10-25-2008 10:46 AM


please go to another thread for this ...
Hello again wardog25,

But this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species, yet evolutionists insist it is possible and even (as you mentioned) define the terms to support their side.
Message 17: What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.

Actually they are not "free to call it whatever they like" because then they aren't talking about the science with the terms used in the science, and thus they end up talking nonsense based on an incomplete understanding of the basics of that science.

Curious isn't it - that scientists in any field get to define the terms used in the science and non-scientists don't. It's how communication works. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for further comments (and any replies).

So it is a matter of interpretation whether microevolution demonstrates evolution or not. Creationists completely affirm that animals change within species (or kind). We just know that there are limits. Evolutionists know there are limits too, they just insist there aren't any limits in certain areas.

For example: Say I'm breeding dogs and I get a dog that is 1 foot taller. Could we keep breeding for millions of years (provided we could stay alive that long) and get a dog that is 200 feet tall? No, there are limits.

So if you can't breed indefinitely and get a 200 foot tall dog, why can you breed indefinitely and get a completely different kind of animal?

Changes within a species do not demonstrate that the species can change to something else entirely. Therefore microevolution is not foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.

see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? - where you can tell us what you think MACROevolution is and what would be evidence for it, or

see Evolution and Increased Diversity - where we can discuss how diversity occurs and what it means.

Message 17 : Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.
So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

See "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? - perhaps you can answer what "kind" is when no-one else has.

Once we get to some common understanding of terms, then we can move on to discussions of what will and will not occur through evolution.

But this is not the thread for it. (see Message 3)

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : other threads to go to


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 10:46 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 2967 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 25 of 106 (486929)
10-25-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Admin
10-25-2008 1:24 PM


Wardog25, please see Message 3. As AdminNosy indicated in Message 18, if the origin of new genetic material is what you really want to talk about then you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

A caution to other participants:

The possibility exists that wardog25 is not really interested in what people believe to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution. I was concerned that this might be the case, so before discussion started I issued the advisory in Message 3 that this thread is not for discussion of the validity of the offered evidence, but only about whether it was truly foundational. We would never promote a thread where any and all evidences for evolution would be on the table at the same time. We try very hard to avoid such confusion here.

Based upon wardog25's Message 17 members may want to be circumspect about further participation.

Wow. Very tightly moderated board. I guess that's a good thing with these topics.

Sorry about getting off track. I am interested in hearing what people think is foundational for evolution. It's very telling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 10-25-2008 1:24 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 106 (486933)
10-25-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-25-2008 3:19 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
I don't think we're interpreting "foundational" the same way.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2008 3:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2008 7:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 27 of 106 (486937)
10-25-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
10-25-2008 5:47 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
Hey percy,

I don't think we're interpreting "foundational" the same way.

Always a possibility.

One interpretation would be the foundation for the theory today, and that would be the evidence the theory is founded on, post synthesis. This includes the genetic science side as well as the field science side and fossils.

Another interpretation would be the foundation for the theory when originally formulated, what lead Darwin to his conclusions that founded the theory. It is interesting that you referred to the link with breeding:

... so if I were asked to choose just one it would be where Darwin describes how both animal breeding and evolution in the wild draw upon the same principles.

To my mind, it was not just that this was a parallel process, but that Darwin's insight, his epiphany, his inspiration, the realization that took it to a level above and beyond the other scientists at the time (including Wallace), was that this process did not just apply to some organisms some times, that it was more than just a mechanism that could explain some of the evidence, but that it could explain all of the evidence. He realized that descent with modification, from common ancestors, through the process of variation and selection, could explain the diversity of life known at the time.

When we look at the scientific process we start with evidence and observations, from those observations and evidence we draw conclusions and formulate several hypotheses, then we combine these hypotheses into an inclusive theory that (hopefully) explains all the evidence and is concordant with all the observations and conclusions, and then we test that theory by making predictions and seeing if they are correct or not.

Generally, only when the predicted results are not correct do we change the theory or replace it with a new one, and then move on to the next test.

But when the theory passes the prediction test it doesn't end there either, for a new prediction and a new test are generated, and generally the evidence from the previous test result is added to the previous evidence, and all the current evidence, observations, conclusions and hypothesis are reviewed in formulating a new test.

Thus as time passes, and a theory keeps passing test after test after test, the amount of evidence that the theory is based on grows with each passed test.

How do you interpret it?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 10-25-2008 5:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2944 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 28 of 106 (486950)
10-26-2008 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by wardog25
10-25-2008 11:38 AM


wardog25 writes:

So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

So would a pekingese still be considered a wolf? People have been trying for several millenia to get the wolf out of the dog, with great success. Do you think a dog has the predatory instincts of a wolf? My pekingese lacks severly in this department. It has evolved into a dog in a very very short time(10 000 years). What percent of a pekingese is wolf, in your opinion? He still thinks my family is his wolf pack at times, but he's not a wolf. He has evolved into something quite different. Have seen dogs guarding a flock of sheep from wolves? How is that not evolution? I've never heard of a dog eat a sheep, now have you?

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 11:38 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 10-26-2008 7:14 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15632
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 106 (486952)
10-26-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Agobot
10-26-2008 6:03 AM


Agobot writes:

I've never heard of a dog eat a sheep, now have you?

Dogs do kill and eat sheep.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 6:03 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 2596 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 30 of 106 (486961)
10-26-2008 9:51 AM


Foundational Evidence for Evolution
Wouldn't the foundational evidence for evolution simply be the observation that some animals appear to share similar features? This simple observation leads to a series of questions, conjectures and inquiry that lead to the current modern synthesis.

People look more like monkeys than they look like squirrels, they look more like squirrels than they look like fish and they look more like fish than they look like spiders. It's all downhill from there.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 9:53 AM Tanndarr has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017