Always talking about micro-evolution?

quote:

---

I may sound absurd, but the question is still valid: "How did you determine when evolution started?"

---

You sound curious, not absurd. You WOULD sound absurd if you started throwing around crazy theories and expect everyone to accept them just on your word. Curiosity, though, is not absurd.To get to your question, we go by the fossil record which leads us to bacteria like organisms in pre-Cambrian rock. This is the earliest fossil evidence of life. However, self replicating reactions could have been occurring before this and would not have left a fossil record because of their size (molecules do not leave fossils). Of course, self replicating chemical reactions are just theoretical. The simplest life we have evidence for is bacteria. I think current dating puts the first fossils at 3.5 billion years ago (this is by memory, I can get a better number if you want one).But just remember, there is scant evidence for the origin of life, but there is very strong evidence of when it appeared. How those early organisms evolved into the species today is well supported. Evolution starts with the first life, Abiogenesis theory deals with how life started. They are separate theories for very good reasons, they deal with different mechanisms.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-03-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-03-2004]

quote:

---

The rocks to humans example comes from public school text books. Life originated after it rained on the rocksfor millions of years, is what we're taught.

---

In other words it's a misrepresentation - nobody taught "rocks to humans". And the origin of life is hardly "basic stuff" for evolution at all - not only for reasons of the scope as I explain below but because it is the focus of advanced research and we do not currently have a good explanation for all of it.Just to show how important the origin of life REALLY is to evolution I have a University level textbook on evolution. The origin of life occupies one page out of more than 660 (NOT counting the glossary, references or index). And it doesn't even mention rocks playing any signficant role.SO where do we draw the line - it's not a case of arbitrarily stopping anywhere. Evolution is what happens to life - one of the features of life - replication is needed for the basic mechanisms of evolution. So that is where you stop - the origin of replicators is outside the scope of evolution since the theory does not apply. The scope of evolution is how replicators can change and diversify over time. Your approach amounts to "lets lump together everything that ever happened and call it evolution" which is really not very useful.

I don't think any scientists can give you some definite time when evolution started. What you will probably here is that evolution started when an individual who varied in their heritable traits within a population was able to produce offspring. That these offspring also varied in their heritable traits and had the potential to produce more offspring than the environment could support. This overpopulation led to a struggle for existence among the variant memebrs of the population. Those offspring whos traits better helped them to survive and reproduce in thier environment were able to leave a disproportionately larger number of viable offspring. This differential reproductive success of some offspring over others meant that those traits passed down were more likely to appear in subsequent populations.The TOE is not concerned with how or where the first organism came about. The [i]evolution[/] of the universe via the big bang is not concerned with the evolution of life. They both may hint at possible causes or relationships but they are seperate theories. You may wish to peruse a biology textbook again. We might at that time be able to answer any questions you have more succinctly, and you, as well as we, may understand more about what we are discussing.

Well, it's like this. When we're doing work on modern or fossil organisms, we have a set of tools at our disposal that answer questions related to evolution - population genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.But if you look back far enough, a lot of those tools stop working. Population genetics only make sense when you have a population with genetics. Eventually, the study of life ceases to be biology and starts to be organic chemistry. That's about where the theory of evolution starts to not apply.Evolution is a biological theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. It's not a blanket attempt to construct a history of the universe. Therefore evolution can't apply until you have a biology to apply it to.

I think you've approached it from the wrong direction. It's not that there's an observable barrier; it's that there is no observable connection that would allow for a casual walk to the destination. To say it's possible for an amoeba to evolve into an elephant simply because there's no observable barrier smacks of mild absurdity. The burden of proof is on the scientist who wants to show there is a connection. The gene, chromosome, and DNA "evidence" that you may present is flawed and changing every year, so please don't bother; even the atheist scientist community is in disagreement with itself over that constantly changing controversial "evidence." But let me be more specific in describing Macro-evolution. An amoeba to an elephant is really more like walking from Chicago to the moon; it would take ALOT of architecture and intelligence to achieve the goal. Certainly not an accident.

In other words you don't like the evidence so you don't bother. Too bad.You might need to show just how it is flawed, what the changes are and why the changes are a problem. Otherwise it looks a lot like you both don't know what you are talking about and are rejecting something before you have actually examined any evidence.It might be an idea to start with smaller changes and work from there to your micro to elephant issue.Do you agree at all that new species and genera arise and, according to many creationists arise in a few centuries.

---

Common sense isn't

I never thought of the Chicago-to-the-moon analogy before, but it strikes me as a very good parallel to the forensic evidence we use to establish patterns of ancestry.Let me put it this way. DNA analysis can establish paternity beyond any shadow of a doubt. I'm not sure who told you that this evidence is constantly changing, but in fact it's one of the most incontrovertible aspects of the evolution debate. Our understanding of mutation rates and DNA recombination also allows us to form family trees from analyzing the similarities and differences in the "letters" contained in certain spots of separate species' genomes. The funny thing is, that no matter what common molecule we use for our comparison, the ancestral trees that result agree within a very close margin.So it's like you're seeing human artifacts on the moon and denying that humans could have possibly traveled there from Earth. Maybe the exact route taken isn't yet known, but saying it's impossible goes against our available evidence.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Sure there is. It's the fact that there's never been an observed limit to species change except for time.It's you who's approaching this from the wrong direction. You claim there's a barrier? Prove it. Otherwise, I claim that since 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. Small genetic changes can add up to big ones. Don't believe it? Prove me wrong. I don't find it absurd in the least. The fact that there's no observed barrier is not why I conclude that it did happen. For that, the fossil record. But the lack of a barrier is why I conclude that it could happen. No flaws that I'm familiar with. I think you're making them up. Ah, I see. You've confused the continual advance of scientific knowledge with some kind of vascilation on the issue. Your error, not science's. Says who? You? I'm just supposed to take your word for it? By analogy you've proposed a barrier. Now it's up to you to support that claim or withdraw.

Absolutely not the case. It's because there documented inaccuracies and inconsistencies with DNA evidence. As to genes and chromosomes, an off-the-record scientists will freely admit that, even after many decades of research, we still don't understand it all. I recent quote by the scientific community detailed that fact that we probably haven't only identified only 10% of the microbes that exist just on the exterior of the human skin. Now how does that make you feel about the accuracy of modern microbiology? As to evidence of DNA evidence it flawed, see my response to a similar question by MrHambre below.

Well, so document them. Go to PubMed.com and search around. Let's see some peer-reviewed primary literature. Are you going to be able to find any "inconsistencies" that can't be explained by procedural error? DNA doesn't type itself, you know. Like any scientific test you get bad data if you do it wrong. Hell, they'll admit that on the record. What's your point? We don't know everything, so we know nothing? I'm not impressed. You're not really living up to your username. I'm surprised that they're able to give an estimate. Do you know that the microbes in and on just your body - just you - outnumber the total number of human beings 10 to 1?That doesn't sound like microbiology is dropping the ball. That sounds like they're at the tip of an astronomically large iceberg. Honestly, what's your thought process here? "I don't understand how microbiology is done, so it must be easy."

Um, beyond the shadow of a doubt? Scientists would squirm at that statement. Actually, the best defendable probability of DNA accuracy is just over a million-to-one. With six billion people on the planet, you would find 6,000 people that would appear identical. Hardly beyond any shadow. The trillion to one numbers that you've heard have been mathematically refuted many times.But further:
crashfrog wrote in post 38: Really, I suppose neither of you have heard of Raymond Easton of Swindon, a severely disabled man, was arrested for a burglary that was committed over 200 miles away. Why was he arrested for a crime that he couldn't possbily have committed? Yep, DNA evidence placed him at the scene of the crime.Or perhaps you've heard of Peter Hamkin of Liverpool who, in March 2003 was arrested for a murder that occurred 1000 miles away when he was nowhere near it. Again, DNA evidence placed him at the scene.Or the poor individual in Goettingen, Germany who, back in May of 2003, was placed at the scene of a murder by DNA results. The only problem? He was behind bars at the time of the murder.Oh, yes, of course when a full SGM+ profile is referred to, the random match statistic supposedly improves to 1:1 billion. That's a suspiciously round number; I would like to see their math on that one. (of course, anyone can produce math that supports their point. Figures don't lie, but you-know-who figures). But see if you can found out how often full SGM+ profiles are done. Please note that a DNA expert had to admit under oath that, the way the DNA matching was done, OJ's DNA evidence was accurate to 1 and 38,000. Or, uh, 1 in 300,000. No, wait; 1 in 600,000. Er, no; actually it was 1 in 6 million. Um, also a trillion was quoted. LOL. The testimony changed over and over depending on the different assumptions. My goodness. Of course, no photographs of actual DNA was ever presented into evidence. But I suggest we nevermind all that because it would force this topic into another one of the many furiously debated DNA discussions that already exist on the web, and I've seen some wild arguing going on (join the forum of your choice). I don't think this forum should be reduced to teaching everyone terms like "loci" and "allele frequency tables".
But to just keep it simple: Even the DNA experts insist that DNA is not 100% flawless and ..."must be coorborated with other evidence..." and tested in court. So much for DNA accuracy.If you have a sense of humor, trying researching DNA topics. You'll find the in-fighting of the scientific community quite amusing. I'm sure a number of erroneously convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, but I also wonder how many convicted criminals we've erroneously let back onto the street because of DNA evidence (while ignoring all other hard evidence). You can't can't convict anyone solely on DNA evidence, you can easily get 'em sprung.But if you're really interested; check on the transcripts of the OJ trial for the dates 6-22, 6-23, and 6-26 or so. There's too much to cut and paste, but much of the testimony is quite humorous (sort of Clintonesqe). For example, in one exchange: LOL! Oh, my ribs hurt! The entire DNA/genetics related testimony as a whole (I won't provide unfair sound bites of actual information) shows that the RFLP frequency estimations depend on amazing assumptions for both the numerator as well as the demoninator in ratios. I didn't ask to avoid DNA arguments because I wasn't interested or afraid of them; it was to keep this forum topic from morphing into an out-of-control monster. I promise, I won't be responding to any more DNA or genetics posts.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-04-2004]

This is all well and good Skeptic, but what does this have to do with genom similarities between monkeys abd humans?Not to mention the whole of evolutionary genetic research. DNA as evidence for evolution relies on the similiarities in the Genome between related species, as opposed to the relationship between human DNA.

Um, I don't recall bringing up this issue. Do you have me mixed up with someone else?

Bzzt! Procedural error. Analysts didn't type enough of his DNA. You'll notice that it was DNA evidence that ultimately cleared his name. Procedural error again. The DNA database didn't store an in-depth enough profile to determine if the match was actually positive or negative. Without a name, we can hardly verify your story, now can we? Of course, the standard for evidence in the courtroom and in the field of science are vastly different. In the courtroom, the "theory" of innocent is assumed until the "theory" of guilty is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the field of science every theory must be supported by a sufficient weight of evidence. One more example of the fact that a courtroom is a bad place to do science. Too many ulterior motives.I'm not really impressed. There's far too much genetic data linking us to apes (for instance) to ascribe to simple procedural error or bias. It may be easy to mistake one human for another if your test is based on few enough genetic markers but surely you don't think it's possible to mistake human and ape genetics?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-04-2004]

quote:

---

Or the poor individual in Goettingen, Germany who, back in May of 2003, was placed at the scene of a murder by DNA results. The only problem? He was behind bars at the time of the murder.

---

You mean the guy who had his sperm smuggled out of prison by his wife to plant at a crime scene in an attempt to "prove his innocence"? This hardly damages DNA evidence.Your million to one estimate seems to have also materialed from nothing. With a panel of 10 variable microsatellite loci, the chance of a false positive is almost zero. It is certainly more reliable than eye witness accounts or other more traditional forms of data gathering.Funny that you refer to RFLP's at the end of your post...appears you have not actually "researched" DNA based forensics at all.For a guy who calls himself a skeptic, relying on newspaper reports and anecdote is hardly the markings of a skeptic...