1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..

Zealot,

quote:

---

I suppose for evolution (ignoring the Big Bang theory) to be fact, I would have to see either life on another planet, or evolution from 'essentialy nothing'.

---

Thanks for being honest. I guess your username should have told me how closed you are to any exchange of relevant information. Several people here have gone out of their way to clarify certain points you raised, and you've basically proven yourself incapable of understanding any of their valid responses.I wrongly assumed you wanted information about the theory of evolution by natural selection. I have no idea what you're looking for except to continue believing whatever it is you believe, regardless of whether it has any scientific basis. In your latest post alone you've introduced absolutely irrelevant, erroneous information such as:

• All scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory is based on the assumption that Darwin's theory is true.
• Mathematicians and Einstein don't believe in chaos theory.
• Animals usually have two eyes.
• There are no intermediate microbes.
• Avian evolution doesn't have enough fossils.
• Only 90% of the human genome has been mapped.
• Flats and houses are different but are made of 97% similar materials.
• There's no reason the moon should revolve around the earth.

I don't know or care where these bizarre notions came from, I don't know how to begin to answer them, and I doubt you would take the time to understand the answers. There are plenty of books and websites with information on natural history, but you'll continue to depend on your considerable lack of imagination to keep you from grasping any of it. If any other participants here feel that further responses to your posts would be useful, fine. I see no indication that such effort would be anything more than a waste of time.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-17-2003]

I feel you're dangerously close to bringing up the tornado-in-a-junkyard analogy. Let's hope not, but I just wanted to say... How do you know we're alone? There is no evidence that we are or are not. The Universe is thought to be about that age. The Earth is much younger. Yes, we live in exciting times. You can be sure that over the next 150 years, our knowledge of the natural world will increase exponentially just as it has for the last 150 years.And I'm sure you're aware of the fact that over the past few centuries, our knowledge of the natural world was *hindered* in many areas because of good ol' religion. When there are 10-20 billion years of time and thousands of billions* of stars to work with, it's hardly surprising that one star (at least) has a planet where life evolved and you were born to wonder about that question.*According to a July 2003 article, 70 thousand million million million (7 followed by 22 zeros).------------------
o--greyline--o[This message has been edited by greyline, 08-17-2003][This message has been edited by greyline, 08-17-2003]

Where your analogy fails is that you didn't make the legos. (I forget who invented legos, but I assume it wasn't you.)See, your mother "made" you, in a sense - but she didn't design the blueprint. She just followed the instructions, if you will. Likewise if you build #121212 Average Lego House you didn't really make it, the design process did.So the fact that your lego house and your lego rocket ship are composed of the same components is significant, because you didn't really make them. They're both decendants of the same prior lego designs.All life is made of protiens. As far as we know it didn't have to be this way. specifically all life is apparently composed of (largely) left-handed protiens, but random chemical reactions tend to generate protiens in equal measures of right- and left-handed. That life on earth is composed largely of the same type of protien is great evidence for common descent. Because the earth is bigger. Basic Newtonian mechanics. Actually, to be most accurate, the moon and Earth both orbit around a point in between them. It's just that the earth is so much more massive than the moon that the point they orbit is located within the surface of the earth (but not at the center).If the earth and moon were of the same mass, they'd orbit around a point halfway between them.

Well it's pretty clear that you don't have any sort of scientific background - or even the basic knowledge that could be picked up from the popular scientific literature. Managing to confuse chaos theory with Quantum Mechanics AND then asserting that one of them is "essentially that there wasn't a 'creator' to start off with" (which NEITHER says) - well it says that you know very little about science. So does your idea that evolution includes the Big Bang.So when you say that you beleived in evolution "to a certain degree" it doesn't even mean that you even had a clear idea of what evolution is.So how can you talk about a "lack of fossils" as being an important point when you probably don't even know about the fossils that do exist ? (How about microraptor gui to name a recent one ?) And what about the other evidence that evolution iss based on ? Why put it all on the fossil record which has a some serious limitiations on what it can show us. ?

Hi again, Zealot.There have been a number of folks who've addressed certain aspects of your reply to me, so I'll just touch on a few points, if that's okay. In spite of my attempt at explaning how this works, which may have led to more confusion rather than less, you appear to still be getting wrapped around the axle between what people mean by "speculation" in common usage and what scientists mean by "hypothesis". There is a fundamental difference - it isn't just semantical quibbling.A speculation, the way most of us use the term, is basically equivalent to "wild ass guess". IOW, it would be quite consistent with a bunch of folks sitting around a table in a bar and coming up with the most off-the-wall ideas, whether they had any basis in fact or not.A hypothesis, OTOH, is an attempt to find a thread that links different observations - in other words, based on observed facts. It's often framed as a question to which people are seeking an answer. The most important difference between this and a speculation is that scientists, as part of the "speculation" process, design ways to test the idea, and moreover, describe ways in which the hypothesis could be shown to be wrong. Testing doesn't mean they're trying to prove it right. They are in fact attempting to show that it isn't wrong. Avian evolution or the evolution of complex structures like the eye are cases in point. I would suggest reading about what the scientists who study these two things - or other evolutionary pathways - actually have to say about them. And more importantly, why they say it. Don't take my word for it - the raw data is available for anyone who feels like looking at it. For my part, based on a lot of reading of both popular and primary sources, I'm convinced we have the gross outline correct (on avian evolution), but unconvinced as to the specific details. On your legos analogy. Tell ya what, you show me a lego set that: a) self assembles; b) can reproduce and replicate itself; c) can change a building block naturally from one form to another (say, from one of those single pip pieces to a double pip); and d) can coopt pieces not only from other lego sets, but even from lincoln logs or erector sets. If you can do that, then I'll accept that your lego analogy holds some validity. "Utterly simplistic" is right. Simple analogies are okay, except when they are misleading, as in this case. Hmm, it sounds like you haven't actually read Origin of Species. It doesn't talk about abiogenesis because that wasn't the purpose of the book. It actually had little to do with species origins, either, if that makes you feel any better. It was really a treatise on natural selection. Darwin spent a great deal of time describing the results of breeder's artificial selection, then drawing quite appropriate parallels between that and observations from nature. I think you'll find that we're back on the "speculation" vs "hypothesis" thingy again. Darwin made huge numbers of observations, and then drew them together with the evolutionary hypothesis (passing through Malthus and geological uniformitarianism and a few others). What to me is truly amazing about what Darwin accomplished is the fact that the broad framework he came up with 150 years ago still has tremendous explanatory power today. Oh, sure, we've learned a lot about the details of how it all works in reality, and we still have wondrous arguments about the specifics, but the framework - the Theory of Evolution - is just about as rock-solid as you can ask for. No, Darwin didn't know about DNA, or genetics. He thought inheritance was particulate, and somewhat Lamarckian. He was wrong. No big deal. As far as not knowing about instinct and symbiosis, I think you are sadly mistaken. He knew as much about animal behavior as any other Victorian naturalist, and more than some. As to symbiosis, he was completely aware of it - and documented many instances of it in Origin and other works as key examples of what he was talking about. In fact, one of his most famous predictions concerned an orchid with a 22 cm nectary. He predicted that an insect would be found with a tongue adapted for this - otherwise there would be no point in the flower evolving it. He died without ever knowing whether he was right. Some 20 years AFTER his death, a scientist did in fact discover a moth with a 22 cm tongue that lived exclusively on the nectar from this flower - and that the flower relied on for reproduction. So yeah, Darwin knew quite a bit about symbiosis. It was a major evidence in favor of evolution.

Proven myself incapable ? Is that actual proof or just assumption based on your observations ?You get upset when I have difficulty in understanding but you say'It would certainly be difficult for us to assert that one species evolved from a previous one if every species had its own genetic code, but this is not the case. All organisms share the DNA code. The mountain of molecular data that we currently have is well explained by the idea of common descent: that modern forms all share common ancestors.'and then I read up in CNN ..'Living organisms are divided in three domains, based on their genetic makeup and cell structure. People, plants and animals are in the Eukaryotic domain, and most germs are in the Eubacteria domain. The third domain, Archaea, are microorganisms that generally live in extreme conditions of heat, cold, pressures or acidity and have a DNA structure unlike the other two. 'So.. again.. my appologies for getting confused. Well, I suppose these forums are thus meant only for the scientific educated ? My appologies if my scientific knowledge extends only to A level biology, so perhaps we should all go back, get a decent working knowlege of DNA and mutation before we ask 'stupid' questions such as why do spiders have 8 eyes or how did the moon come to rotate around the earth.Either way, please feel free to ignore my posts.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-18-2003]

Zealot, Are you aware of the fact that most creatures with eyes are on a twig of a branche of another branche (forgive me if I don't have the exact number of forkings) of the tree of evolution? Almost all creatures are eye-less. (Most of them are bacteria.) What you call 'significant' creatures make up only a few percent of all creatures. I get the impression that you think ants have no eyes. If so, you're wrong. You need to brush up on your basic biology.Cheers.

'DNA structure' could mean almost anything, most likely it refers to the role of various DNA associated proteins in packing the DNA and doesn't contradict what was said about the genetic 'code' which is a different thing altogethter.You seem to be able to grasp the simple distinction between differences in the larger scale organisation of the DNA molecule and differences in the fundamental nature of the code such as the nucleotide bases or the specific amino acids which codons correspond to, admittedly there is some slight variation in codons between the archaea and mitochondrial genomes compared to the normal code, but these are very minor discrepancies. DNA structure is not the genetic code, if you don't know that after doing A level biology then I am really worried about the English school system.

Well, I just assumed that for organisms to evolve from one another, they would at the bare minimum have the same DNA structure, or am I again mistaken ? I think you insulted me in there somewhere, but due to the fact that half those words I didn't understand, I will have to just accept your answer BTW, Biology was one of 6 subjects of mine and I did it around 10 years ago, so forgive me if its a bit rusty.

Sorry, its the easiest way I can explain my confusion. Yes I was referring to significant creatures. Of these I would have assumed that there would have existed some 'optimum' number of eyes for all creatures, however spiders differ. Another example is the way in which not all spiders are poinonous. Yes I know, they dont all NEED to be poisonous, however surely poisonous spiders would have been better suited to survival ? I mean thats what the 'survival of the fittest' is all about surely ? We look at black men in africa, believed to be 'survival fo the fittest' that people with darker pigment will be more suited to survive in warm sunny climates, thus eventually the only people that remain are dark skinned. Its not as if people with light skin cant survive the sun, merely that they are not as suited. Surely this argument would pass for any new species ? If its mutation is beneficial, not only will it be better suited than what its mutated from, but will eventually replace the other species ? Sorry yes I know they have 'eyes' however from my understanding they were virtually useless."Burchelli ants stage colossal raids in search of invertebrate prey. During these raids, up to 200,000 near-blind ants stream out of their nest and form multiple freeway-like trails that are up to 20 meters (65 feet) wide and 100 meters (330 feet) long. In a raid the ants can attack and kill as many as 30,000 prey items. "from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...030224_anttraffic.htmlHaving looked up on the net, I see that there are infact ants with functional eyes, however again I dont see why these ants haven't replaced those that dont have functional eyes.cheerscheers

No, because evolution doesn't create the optimum organism. The results of evolution are just good enough. (This is why you have a body that isn't quite suited to bipedal walking.)So, survival of the fittest is about which organism wins when there's competition for resources like food and mates. But not all spiders are in competition with each other - they inhabit different areas or eat different things - so competition hasn't driven a need for venom in all spiders. No, there's light-skinned Africans. And by and large the peoples of the Middle East are light-skinned - as light-skinned as a white guy would be if he lived in that area. So the data bears out exactly what you said we should expect. Again, it depends on how benefical the mutation is, and how competitive the environment is. If the species aren't in great competition the individuals without the mutation may do very well for themselves. Because evolution doesn't optimize. If near-blind ants are good enough to reproduce (and looking at my kitchen, this is clearly the case) then they survive.And it's not like they lack senses. Their sense of smell is quite acute, as it's their primary means of communication. And adjusted for scale they may very well see as far as you.

Since the NFL season will soon be upon us, I guess it wouldn't be inappropriate to say, "Personal foul, 15 yards, automatic first down."Sticking with football analogies, I think the discussion often feels like having someone say "What's the big deal?" after showing them a replay of the fieldgoal in a blizzard in the Patriot/Oakland game of the 2001 playoffs, or, going back further in time, of the immaculate reception in the Pittsburgh/Oakland game of the 1972 playoffs.How long it takes someone to be persuaded to a point of view, if ever, depends upon many factors independent of the persuasiveness of the evidence and not necessarily a function of their sincerity or intelligence. Just my opinion, of course, but viewing it in this way helps me violate the Forum Guidelines less often.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

From the sidelines: Sorry coach!

By the same logic one might reason that all life should converge toward one super species that out-competes all other species and replaces them. This super species would have the optimum of everything and a plethora of features: all kinds of poisons, and weapons like stings, claws, teeth, scissors, electric stunning extensions, armored plating of different kinds. It would swim, fly, run, burrow and climb. It would eat whatever crossed its path, unless it wasn't hungry, then it would try to mate with it. It would be impossible to catch. Unfortunately, everything else would be impossible to catch as well, on account of being the same species. And that would be the end of evolution.In reality however, we observe the opposite: life diverges into ever more branches of differing species. That's because evolution tends to fill every niche there is.Cheers.

Just what I was thinking!I remember reading/hearing that the only 2 species capable of destroying their environment are Elephants and Humans. Elephants as they have no natural predators (except man!) and clearly man for the same reason. Elephants in turn are able to destroy their environment, by for instance destroying the very trees they depend on for food.For all purpose the T-Rex could have been this super species , eventually multiplied beyond containment, causing general extinction of many other species. Basically this just remind me of a movie 'Reign of Fire'. Eventually though this super species would probably die out due to lack of prey I assume though (due to over- population), but nevertheless it would happen surely.Imagine this. Super Species reigns over all, kills many species. Only very swift 'prey' survive, thus eventually the 'super species' becomes extinct and so it all starts over again. Prey continues its survival, due to low numbers, there is inbreeding, leading to move diverse organisms, eventually becoming a new super species.This however we will dismiss because of the fossil record correct ? That would imply that there would seem to be a cyclical record in the fossil table. But why is that ? If we take the example of cancer in the human body, it ends up killing the host and itself in the process. Surely this is just an example of an organism becoming too strong, which could exist in nature ?cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-18-2003]