Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

Apparently, his reasoning is:* Only eukaryotic cells have been observed to do what eukaryotic cells are claimed to have done.* This makes it hard to believe that eukaryotic cells have in fact done what we have in fact observed them doing.He seems a little confused. Maybe he doesn't realize that there are other biological differences between eukaryotes, archaea and bacteria besides the fact that the former practice endosymbiosis. A eukaryote is not simply an archaean or a bacterium which happens to have mitochondria.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

reply Dr. adequate This is the part of the quote from Lane & Martin that I have a problem understanding.I understand this to mean that the TRANSITION TO COMPLEX LIFE was a unique event that did not rely on natural selection.
Was the transition from prokaroyte to eukaroyte an example of macro evolution?

I don't like the expression "rely on natural selection." However, natural selection would be as much involved here as with anything else.I don't have a time machine to go back and see what happened. And I'm not even a biologist. However, assuming that symbiosis was involved, it is most likely that there were casual symbiotic unions that formed. At some stage a change occurred which might have been a relatively small DNA change, such as allowed the two components of such a symbiotic union to synchronize their reproductive activity, so that the next generation inherited a similar symbiotic structure.We see a big change, in terms of the effect on the biosphere. But we cannot rule out that it might well have occurred in small genetic steps.You can't even conclude that it was a unique event. Something similar might have happened on many occasion, with only one line surviving through the background of natural selection.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I only have one question, my pain-suffering, good-intentioned fellow. Why the bloody hell is the theory still accepted?But thanks anyway - but rest assured I will worry about how much I do or do not know. For there are ones that know much more than I and much less, and that can be said of everyone.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Because those who know the field(s) find it the best explanation for the data.It is only those who have accepted certain beliefs for religious reasons who can't then accept the theory of evolution. But that is not based on the evidence--it is based on belief. And, as Heinlein has noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."There is no better demonstration of this than creationists and the theory of evolution.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Evolution is also a belief, together with atheism.I can reverse your reasoning because it doesn't prove anything. Example; It is only those who have accepted certain beliefs for religious reasons who can't then accept creationAfterall you only need to look at the comments of famous evolutionists. In many, many books they admitt that evolution, to them, is much, much more than just a scientific theory.Afterall Coyote, I recall showing you ad nauseum that evidence is something that follows as the consequent in a conditional implication.Therefore, you religiously believe that static fossil designs should NOT follow of creation is true.i.e. You religiously believe that if a fossilized frog is pretty much the same as a modern from apart from superficial differences such as size, that this should NOT follow if creation was true.So then - answer me NOT religiously, what SHOULD follow? Are you saying that CHANGE is what should follow, if creation is true, that is, special creation?Now if this mass preservation of evidence did not favour creation, then I would, as you say, religiouslly wilfully not learn. But you're all wrong my friend, I actually have learnt evolution, it simply does not follow logically that if you are creationist you cannot learn.You conflated learning with truth. Even learning the hypothetics of evolution does not mean that evolution is true, nore a majority consensus of religious materialist naturalists.

Evolution is a theory, supported by evidence. It is the single best explanation for that body of evidence. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Nor does "belief." We are not dealing with "truth," "Truth," "TRUTH," or even "TRVTH" in science. We are dealing with what the evidence shows.And you have not "learned" evolution. You have accepted a specific set of beliefs for religious reasons--these beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. In fact, they are contradicted by the evidence. But, because your beliefs are not based on evidence you won't change them because of any evidence.That is not the way science works. It is in fact the exact opposite.So don't tell us you have "learned" evolution. Spend six years in graduate school studying the field, as I have, and maybe you will learn something. But given your a priori beliefs, that is doubtful. We have seen this over and over--once you accept the religious beliefs you have, you can't accept the evidence for evolution no matter how convincing it is. And you can't do science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, I think you're reading it wrong. They say that it wasn't produced by natural selection acting on mutations accumulated gradually. But obviously natural selection favored the endosymbionts, or they wouldn't be here. (I assume here that the change was not merely neutral in its effects.)As to whether they are right about the mutations, it depends on how you look at things. If you conceive of the pre-endosymbiosis eukaryote and the mitochondria as being and remaining two organisms, then you have a fairly normal case of the evolution of symbiosis. If you look at them as becoming one organism, the post-endosymbiosis eukaryote, then the eukaryote received a whole lot of genes suddenly by an unusual form of lateral gene transfer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How astonishingly arrogant that you claim I have not learnt evolution theory. I have. I have learnt many things. Believe it or not the argument that you haven't got any credentials is a fallacious appeal to authority.My father for example, has no qualifications in medicine, but has the most extensive knowledge of it imaginable because he wanted to be a doctor. No, logically that is not a sound assertion because it does not follow that I need to spend six years in graduate school to learn things, it is quite possible to learn on your own.You're under the belief that education = evolutionist.I'm afraid it is simply not the case. One can know stuff without believing it.It's like if I tell you a joke, and you don't laugh, you don't get the joke, right? Wrong! You simply don't find it funny.It's the same with evolution - I get the joke, I just don't find it funny. Even if I was the best authority on earth on evolution, and knew more than the most ardent scientific evolutionist, I would still not find evolution to be true.Here are some quotes pertaining to the evolution-belief system; By the way, you chose to religiously ignore me. If I am so unworthy, oh superior one, then tell me all about the evidence I was talking about, and tell me what would "count" as creation evidence.But no, instead you repeat the same old indoctrinated evolutionist-jargon; So the pre-cambrian lack of intermediates was not considered evidence by Gould? What about the cambrian explosion, this is what was expected should evolution be true, and wasn't a problem for evolutionists?Are fossils, the majority, that show the same basic forms, something that should NOT follow if creation was true? Are you saying CHANGE morphologically, SHOULD evidence creation, rather than fixity?They are simple requests and yet you have never answered me before, yet you bleet things about me when you don't even know me. Here I am discussing evidence, or trying to show it's definition to you, and yet you seem to want to say things about me, rather than the facts.You are the one being religious, because all of your assertion do not come with any sound logical inferences, as I have shown them to be empty and fallacious. But by all means bleet that I am an ignorant, stupid creationist that knows nothing compared to Coyote superior, I'm sure atleast you will believe it.(p.s. Coyote, please go back and read your posts to me in the past. They are all the same. You put your fingers in your ears and shout dogmatic things at nasty, ignorant mikey.)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Mike, Not quite. I would say it's more "education+understanding+open mindedness=evolution". It only takes a little religious fundamentalism though and the whole equation goes out of whack.You keep seeking to equate belief in evolution with atheism. That is a reflection of your religious beliefs only. Here in the real world, scientists of many different religions and of no religion are perfectly content to accept evolution. And there is your problem. You admit that no conceivable evidence could change your mind. That essentially leaves you unable to approach the subject rationally. It's a shame. The interesting thing here is not what a dead man thought about the evidence of his day, but why you continue to ignore the evidence of today. The Ediacaran and Doushantuo fauna represent a rich record of pre-Cambrian life. The life of the Cambrian "explosion" was not without predecessors. This is not secret information. You insist upon ignoring it though. I love the way you throw that around as a damning insult. A moment of clarity!Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Mike, quote mines? I know this is Free For All, but still, after all your time here, quote mines? And you don't even bother to restore the "[Emphasis added]" portions that you lost via the cut-n-paste.Incredible that on this first day of the new year we're once again treated to a list of quotes of evolutionists supposedly denying evolution. Why not go all the way and include a Darwin quote, say this one: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."--Percy

Well, you never know until you try.The fact that knowledge of biology is strongly correlated with acceptance of evolution suggests that you might, in fact, find evolution to be true if you knew more biology.It's as though you said: "Well, if I was the tallest man in the world, I'd have no trouble finding clothes that fit". But the experience of actual very tall men suggests the contrary.

That's like saying, "One can eat stuff without wearing it." The two concepts are mostly unrelated.I don't "believe" that evolution is true, nor do I "know" that evolution is true. I accept that evolution is true because of what (little) I do know about evolution.I don't let what I "believe" negate what I know. Beliefs can influence how you interact with reality but they don't effect how reality works.In general, you can't wear your cake and eat it too. If you claim to know about evolution but you still believe it isn't true, it's probably because it's on your face instead of in your stomach.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

You misunderstand.I say I can know the information about the ToE, without coming to believe it to be true, and also, this in itself (learning it), does not make it true.The common allusion is that a creationist doesn't know that evolution is true or factual, because of a lack of knowledge. It's begging the question because it assumes the correctness or truth of a theory, where science makes no such claim of theories, because of the nature of the method, guided by logical rules. (The induction build-up versus the power of the tollens falsification deduction.) You're stating the obvious. I accept that evolution is false (or atleast the major conclusions) because of the little mankind knows about the universe, and because of the powerful evidence of design I have studied. (A good beginning for such study is Werner Gitt's "in the beginning was information")and I have learnt where, why, and when the evolution theory began, and the purposes behind it, which are not driven by merely a search for facts.So I accept design because of facts. I have not been led to any genuine reasons as to why these are not facts and evidences of a designer, only the ad nauseam assertions that they are not.But like you, I know evolution is true mostly, I agree with most of the findings of the scientists.I believe in many of the following;Genetic drift
natural selection
mutations
isolated population
the homo genus
all of the fossils
speciation
micro-evolution
adaptation
allele frequencies
normalised selection etc,I only disagree with the very final conclusions inferred from such facts. So, I accept probably atleast 90% of the work of evolutionists over the centuries. I do disagree with poor beliefs such as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and the ridiculous gill-slits inferred from the branchial folds in the developing foetus, but I think this is generally not held as good science anymore.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Let's try another test of your scientific prowess:Do you accept the scientific evidence for an old earth?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.