Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 1:26 PM
351 online now:
DrJones*, granpa, halibut, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,042 Year: 25,648/21,208 Month: 1,275/2,338 Week: 32/364 Day: 32/57 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 453 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 91 of 106 (740500)
11-05-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2014 11:43 AM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
Also, the fact that nothing to do with biological diversity makes sense without evolution.

Yep, that is what results from a "multitude of derived characters."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2014 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19093
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 92 of 106 (740505)
11-05-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
10-06-2014 10:06 AM


Re: Nested Hierarchies -- more evidence sapiens\neander\denisovan
Adding to the mix on recent human evolution and mixing\interbreeding with neanderthals:

http://www.livescience.com/...reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

quote:
Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity

The oldest known human DNA found yet reveals human evolution was even more confusing than thought, researchers say.

The DNA, which dates back some 400,000 years, may belong to an unknown human ancestor, say scientists. These new findings could shed light on a mysterious extinct branch of humanity known as Denisovans, who were close relatives of Neanderthals, scientists added.

Genetic analysis suggests the ancestors of modern humans interbred with both these extinct lineages. Neanderthal DNA makes up 1 to 4 percent of modern Eurasian genomes, and Denisovan DNA makes up 4 to 6 percent of modern New Guinean and Bougainville Islander genomes in the Melanesian islands.

"This is the oldest human genetic material that has been sequenced so far," said study lead author Matthias Meyer, a molecular biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. ...

Surprisingly, the mitochondrial DNA reveals this fossil shared a common ancestor not with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, splitting from them about 700,000 years ago. This is odd, since research currently suggests the Denisovans lived in eastern Asia, not in western Europe, where this fossil was uncovered. The only known Denisovan fossils so far are a finger bone and a molar found in Siberia. (Denisovan Gallery: Tracing the Genetics of Human Ancestors)


I expect some new information will or has become available since this article is a year old.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 88 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2014 10:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by deerbreh, posted 11-25-2014 1:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 453 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(1)
Message 93 of 106 (742922)
11-25-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
11-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchies -- more evidence sapiens\neander\denisovan
Hmm. Brings new meaning to the question, "Who's your Daddy?
On edit: Actually, that should be "Who' s your Momma" given that the DNA was mitochondrial DNA

Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2014 1:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 730 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 94 of 106 (763411)
07-24-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2014 11:43 AM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
How do you figure that?

I see Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. We see no evolution through mutation nor any imaginary missing links between the three of them.

We observe Husky mating with Mastiff producing the Chinook - again with no evolution or missing links between them.

All we observe is breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits.

We observe no evolution by mutation anywhere in the natural world. They have simply misclassified 95% of the fossil records as separate species, when they are in reality breeds of one species or another.

These:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTulI5Kd1LKklC79...

Are no different than these:

http://www.alegoo.com/...-dog-breeds/small-dog-breeds-17.jpg

Just as they incorrectly classified Darwin's Finches as separate species before even studying them. Then when we do study them we find they have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands. But as usual, evolutionists refuse to correct their mistakes.

And so babies and adults of the same species also gets incorrectly classified as separate species.

https://www.ted.com/.../jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs

And fossils belonging to man.

http://www.theguardian.com/...l-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Once you clear up all those mistakes and wipe half of them from the books, you will be left with nothing to theorize upon except Kind after Kind.

EDIT: We agree the preponderance of the evidence should be the deciding factor, and all of nature declares it is breed mating with breed creating new breeds within the species that causes variation. Not evolution.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light.

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2014 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by caffeine, posted 07-24-2015 4:25 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2015 4:53 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 95 of 106 (763421)
07-24-2015 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by justatruthseeker
07-24-2015 2:43 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
We observe no evolution by mutation anywhere in the natural world.

There is a clear example of evolution by mutation in one of the very next examples you posted - dog breeds. Several annoying yappy little breeds of dog have bizarre little stumpy legs, and researchers have identified the gene responsible for this condition. It's caused by a duplication of the FGF4 gene on chromosone 18. The important thing here, is that this is a dominant allele. A dog which inherits the FGF4 retrogene from either parent will have stupid little daschund legs, regardless of what it inherits from the other parent.

This is not a trait we have created in dogs by a novel shuffling of alleles. It's a trait not present in wild wolves, and since the allele is dominant the allele cannot be present in wild wolves either. It's presence in modern domesticated dogs means either that there were, once upon a time, a wild population of stumpy-legged little canines that interbred with domestic dogs but left no trace or, much more reasonably, that this duplication emerged by mutation somewhere along the domestic dog lineage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by justatruthseeker, posted 07-24-2015 2:43 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 07-24-2015 4:57 PM caffeine has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 96 of 106 (763423)
07-24-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by justatruthseeker
07-24-2015 2:43 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
We observe no evolution by mutation anywhere in the natural world.

Well, you don't. But biologists do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by justatruthseeker, posted 07-24-2015 2:43 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26450
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 97 of 106 (763425)
07-24-2015 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by caffeine
07-24-2015 4:25 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
Seems to me those "bizarre little stumpy legs" should be identified as a case of the negative kinds of results to be expected from mutation, not an example of the novel traits that according to current theory are the fuel for the evolution of useful traits. There's lots of evidence for undesirable results of mutation, and for those supposedly "neutral" results for which there is no discernible phenotypic change, and for outright deleterious results, but the beneficial results one would assume would dominate if mutations really were the source of evolution-worthy traits are extremely rare and in most cases questionable (sickle cell/malaria).

The theory goes on optimistically asserting that mutation is the source of useful novel traits nevertheless, without any credible evidence for it.

The fact that all you thought worthy of mention was this one hardly-beneficial trait is typical evidence of the falseness of this theory of mutation, mere imaginary threads of the emperor's new clothes. Of course we'll be assured that there's no way to judge if a trait is beneficial or not, won't we, we're to leave that up to natural selection and other natural processes, cuz Nature works in mysterious ways. The mere fact that this trait has been passed on is considered some kind of evidence. I wonder how long it will take before the fraud is generally recognized.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by caffeine, posted 07-24-2015 4:25 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by caffeine, posted 07-24-2015 5:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2015 5:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 98 of 106 (763427)
07-24-2015 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
07-24-2015 4:57 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
The fact that all you thought worthy of mention was this one hardly-beneficial trait is typical evidence of the falseness of this theory of mutation, mere imaginary threads of the emperor's new clothes.

The reason this was the trait I thought worthy of mention was the fact that it was so unlikely to be adaptive in a wild population. That, coupled with its dominance, is the reason it's easy to establish that it is, in fact, a novel genetic change which arose in a domesticated population.

By the way,

quote:
the beneficial results one would assume would dominate if mutations really were the source of evolution

is not, in fact, what we would assume. The more beneficial a mutation is, the faster we would expect it to be driven to fixation. This means that an allele with clear, obvious and uncontroversial selective benefiit would be one of those least likely to show any variation in an existing population - meaning its one not suited to a quick example of adaptive mutation.

But this is all irrelevant. Once you've accepted the existence of deleterious mutations, you've accepted the possibility of adaptive mutations. If changing an A to a C is deleterious, then a mutation which changed a C back to an A in the suceeding generation would be advantageous. Problem solved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 07-24-2015 4:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2015 5:24 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 99 of 106 (763432)
07-24-2015 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by caffeine
07-24-2015 5:10 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
The reason this was the trait I thought worthy of mention was the fact that it was so unlikely to be adaptive in a wild population.

Not to mention that it is just an example used at the end of this thread. In other threads examples of other dominant, not present in the base population mutations for dogs, cats, and humans have been discussed. The entire question about why only one example is chosen is completely bogus.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by caffeine, posted 07-24-2015 5:10 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 100 of 106 (763433)
07-24-2015 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
07-24-2015 4:57 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
The theory goes on optimistically asserting that mutation is the source of useful novel traits nevertheless, without any credible evidence for it.

... except direct observation. But what does observable reality count to when compared with the things creationists make up in their heads?

Of course we'll be assured that there's no way to judge if a trait is beneficial or not, won't we ...

No.

I wonder how long it will take before the fraud is generally recognized.

You are Faith and I claim my five pounds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 07-24-2015 4:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 101 of 106 (763436)
07-24-2015 5:45 PM


This thread has been inactive for eight months, so with discussion for some reason resuming this would be a good time to reintroduce the parameters of discussion.

This thread is a companion thread to the Best evidence for Creation thread. Just as that thread was for creating a foundational list of the evidence for creation, this thread is for creating a list of the foundational evidence for evolution. Discussion of that evidence should not take place in this thread. Anyone wishing to discuss this evidence, it's relevance, validity, etc., should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(8)
Message 102 of 106 (763463)
07-25-2015 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Jack
02-15-2009 10:34 AM


I don't believe there is anything I could identify as "the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution", what makes it compelling is not any individual factor but the overwhelming spread and depth of the available evidence and the startling simplicity yet astonishing explanatory power of its key feature: natural selection.

I wrote this six and a half years ago now, since then I've graduated from my BSc in Life Sciences, completed an MSc in Molecular Genetics, working on the evolution and molecular mechanisms of the double sperm cell production in plants, and carried out almost three years of PhD research on Campylobacter.

And I came into this thread to post something almost identical to what I wrote back then. Evolution is not evidenced by any one thing. It's the extraordinary weight of evidence from so many independent sources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 02-15-2009 10:34 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 9:18 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 103 of 106 (763501)
07-25-2015 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Jack
07-25-2015 5:57 AM


And I came into this thread to post something almost identical to what I wrote back then. Evolution is not evidenced by any one thing. It's the extraordinary weight of evidence from so many independent sources.

I don't have much problem with this answer. But accepting that this form of answer is okay, should we be surprised when a creationist fails to focus on one answer when we ask them a the corresponding question about the best evidence against evolution?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 07-25-2015 5:57 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2015 10:41 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15962
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 104 of 106 (763506)
07-25-2015 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 9:18 PM


No, 'cos of the asymmetry between confirmation and falsification. If we want to argue that no pigs have wings, it would be fatuous to focus on just one pig: that wouldn't prove anything. But if someone wanted to disprove the proposition, one winged pig would be sufficient.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 9:18 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 105 of 106 (763522)
07-26-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
07-25-2015 10:41 PM


If we want to argue that no pigs have wings, it would be fatuous to focus on just one pig: that wouldn't prove anything. But if someone wanted to disprove the proposition, one winged pig would be sufficient.

While that is true, arguments about the best evidence against evolution need not rise to the level of proof, they might just point to situations where the evolution explanation seems the most troublesome or questionable.

For example, if I were to be asked about the best evidence that general relativity was not correct, I'd probably point to the need to point to dark matter to explain things that are not beyond the realm in which Newtonian gravity should apply. Of course that would not be proof, just an argument. I might next talk about dark energy and then about whatever my pet theory was regarding red shift quantization.

I would not then have one killer piece of evidence, just a bunch of stuff about which I was highly suspicious.

Similarly, there might well be questions for which evolution proponents have answers, but for which the answers are speculative or weak. It might well take a large number of such arguments to constitute a substantial argument against evolution.

Now admittedly, the last person to react to the one best argument question spouted a bunch of Bible verses and PRATTs, but maybe someone else could do better.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2015 10:41 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2015 5:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017