Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Johndcal stated
"1. The scientific community would not accept evolution unless it were soundly proved. As a theory, evolution (Darwin) is on par with plate tectonics and the Big Bang. If origins of species were not understood, science would say so, just as it does concerning black hole singularities, time before the Big Bang, and life on other planets. Science is not scheming against Christians."Johndcal,
The problem is the scientific community has not soundly proved macro-evolution; the more scientists try to stack up the evidence the more the foundation of the theory crumbles. The fossil record actually shows change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. There is no evidence of gradual change from one species to the next. The struggle to prove it with the fossil record, 1859 tons of them by 1982, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct evolution.One can breed fruit flies through thousands of generations while changing the environment and watch them go through micro-evolution or adapt to a better "fit" but at the end of the day you still have a fruit fly.Quote: Tom Bethell (1976) concludes, "Darwin's theory [of natural selection] I believe is on the verge of collapse. . . . Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago."Quote from a paleontologist:
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)I agree that the Big Bang and Darwin's evolution theory are on roughly equal footing.....and that neither will hold up in the inquiryPlate tectonics theory has more of a basis and aligns with general geological studies.We certainly hope that scientists evaluate the evidence and abandon the postulates when they are unsupported, or accept them when they hold sound. One of the main issues with evolution is that micro-evolution is a valid and provable theory but macro-evolution has not and likely will not be provable. Understanding the difference between the various evolution theories is important to properly evaluating their soundness.Thure

29 years is a sadly long time for science to make a seemingly obvious clarification. Look at Galileo and how long it took for his very provable theories to be accepted! Unfortunately sometimes it takes generations to change the paradigm.

I think I would find a confirmable linage more of a satisfying proof then evaluating one creature and concluding it is a missing link based on it similarities to other creatures.
Thure

Rahvin writes, (sorry people I do not know how to do the quotes boxes yet)"This is simply not true. Evolution does not rest on the fossil record - it never has. The primary evidence for evolution is the observation of small changes over generations via mutations (an easily observed occurrance in the laboratory) and the similarity of features over multiple species. There is, in fact, abundant evidence for the gradual change of one species into another. The fact is, every feature of every species in existance is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species. The similarities are stronger and more frequent the closer related the species are. It is these similarities, and the gradual flow from, say, the cecum of the alimentary canal of many mammals to the appendix of humans that provides evidence of common ancestry. . . . Ahh the crux of the problem. I contend the small observable changes are adaptability not gradual evolution. It is amazing how far a species can be pushed and changed, but I contend you will eventually reach an end. And the end is a very unhealthy, mutated what-ever-you-started-with thing that is not the budding of something new, but a gene pool stretched to it’s limits. I can envision a dog bred to some limit like size, big or small, after some number of generations you could have a rather large or small dog but in the process you would also discover your useful gene pool has been much decreased and genetic problems would start. Eventually the inability to get rebreedalbe stock would stop the process. One could attempt to increase the gene pool by simultaneously breeding several sets of dogs through this process, but any genealogical fault that follows size selection would still be the problem. (Have you ever wondered why Goliath had such a weak forehead?) I see the gene pool for a species at its best when the most diversity is abundant and most adaptation causes a reduction in the gene pool not an increase! (I wonder what the most statistically genetically middle dog would look like surely not a poodle. )Can you really use similarity as evidence for common ancestry? I think the pots look the same because they were made by the same potter.Rahvin,
Thanks for your well thought out and prolific reply, I wish I had the time to converse more completely, but I will respond as I can.Thure

Ringo316,
I knew what you meant, but saw it as, . . . . awh come on guys the evolution theory was given up years ago.Ringo316 writes
"In fact, it was the creationists who opposed Galileo's theories - using the same arguments that today's Biblical literalists use to oppose evolution."And shame on anyone who suppresses someone else’s beliefs just because they don't like them, which is why we have this nifty forum.

Nuggin,If it is a lineage, from what did it come from and what did it evolve into? The small steps are missing.I am personally not aware of the fossil you are talking about. I would be curious as to the quality of the verifiability of the fossils. I can assume we are not talking about an entire creature theorized off of some pigs tooth.Thure

Rahvin
You are prolific to say the least, I could only dream of keeping up with you, so on to the disscussion.
The intellegent designer argument is circlar, a Creator could do anything he darn well pleases and if you were the creator clearly you would do them differently, Sorry such a tart answer for such a well written responce.Rahvin writes
"The example I gave:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------demonstrates exactly that. The descendants of Mimululs guttatus flowers who had developed a tolerance to copper could no longer breed with emmbers of the original population. A new species, by the previous definition, had been formed."Sorry Rahvin it does not demonstrate exactly that, it demonstrates the reduction of the gene pool with an interesting sterility side effect. The copper resistant plant now has a smaller diversity, which is the opposite of what you are claiming. It is not a new diversity. To truly validate this study you would need to do a full genetic map of the Mimululs guttatus flower of both the copper resistant and non copper resistant plants and you would find the copper resistant plants fall with in the genetic genealogy of the regular plants. As far as the non rebreedability of the copper resistant plant it is obvious that when this set of genes comes up (1 in 1000 . .. 1 in 100,000???) it is sterile to all but the small set of genetically similar plants, a phenomenon we would not normally notice in our gardens but obviously occurs. What is important here is to keep in mind here is that the resistant plants are a subset of the normal plants that is to say the gene pattern of the copper resistant plants would normally come up every so often.
I live in farmland USA where the crop duster flies often. They dust cornfields for certain bugs one year and a small percentage of them live. And if they were to dust the next year with the same pesticide a much lager percentage of them live, obviously offspring from the previous years survivors. You might say, “they have adapted”, and I say ” poppycock”! The genes that allow the resistance existed before the dusting, and now the bugs have a much narrow set of genes (all of the none resistant types are gone). So to eliminate this problem the dusters alternate pesticides each year. And luckily for them if there are bugs resistant to both types of pesticide they are not enough in population to be rebreedableThrue

I guess I sound kind of ignorant jumping in the middle of a creation/ evolution disscussion with a remark like that but I have been getting my input from creationest sources reciently and that is the impression I have been getting. But I will curb my 'tude for now.Thure

Thanks for the welcome Chiroptera,
You guys can write more in an hour than I can write in a week.
I found the link you provided ( fossil transitions ) interesting so I replied to that first I will try to address other stuff time permitting.The problem I have with documents like this is that they are built with more conjecture then the authors would care to admit or then they might even know, as many different people are likely involved in its development over several years of time. For an example of ambiguity lets go to a recent article in National Geographic, titled Human Fossil Adds Fuel to Evolution Debate by Hillary Mayell, March 25, 2002, they were discussing the possible age of “Java Man”, originally thought to be million years old then his age was changed to 1.5 million years. Oh really, he got 3 time older overnight, maybe they went the wrong way and he is actually 3 time younger. In the same article paleoanthropologist Tim White, used a newly found skull from Ethiopia to confirm that the hominid distribution (species) is a count of one at 1 mill years old. The skull he was using comprised of a few bone fragments from seven different people, I can see lots of room for conjecture here. How come such extreme differences of age or the solidarity of a skull is hardly noticed and the presented material is considered fact when it clearly contains only a small fraction of easily reinterpreted information. Obviously theoretical license is allowed when evaluating fossil material. But the way it should be presented is; “We have a few bone fragments thought to be 1000 to 1 trillion years old, they seem to be human skull parts and they were found in Ethiopia.” Instead of “We found Arthur Godfrey’s Great XXCIIXXII Grandfather who was a well liked corn farmer”. (Sarcasm intended).
Humans are one of the most looked at and debated areas of evolution and if such room for ambiguity lies in human remains fossil examinations I can only imagine how much deviation is taken in the “lesser” fossils. The discrepancies are likely to be overlooked for long periods of time due to the fact a much smaller group of people examines and debates them. The point is the factual sounding information is highly suspect given the past history of such information.Thure

I would rephrase #2 the plant it's self did not develop a tolerance to copper, only the plants with the copper resistant set genes survived. You might say the species as a whole is now copper resistant
But all you really did was eliminate the non-resistant types. Think about how the copper resistant came to be. You have a population of plants and you expose them to copper, most of the plants die, but some, with a particular set of genes, live. These genealogically similar plants existed before exposing them to copper, the copper exposure just eliminated the all of the non resistant gene types. Thus a reduction in the gene pool! What I meant was the resistant types are sterile with the non-resistant types, not with other resistant plants. So if you were to take copper resistant plant and rebreed it back to the general population no offspring would be produced except in a case where the plant in the normal population had the copper resistant gene type (Statistically some percentage of the normal population.) Then an offspring of resistant type (both parents are resistant) is produced.What do you think?Thure

Graculus,
I was quoting others not because they had particular qualifications but because they can state things more eloquently then I.

Good point!
But since the parent population can produce this sub set of plants at any time are they really a new species? And if the parents are eliminated then we just say the species adapted to be copper tolerant. An interesting set of semantics when you stop and think about it.
In the larger scheme of things, speciation aside, what diversification has occurred here? Aren’t the copper tolerant just a subset of the parent population?
Please keep the venom in the answers to a minimum or I will just stick my fingers in my ears and run away saying “na na na na. “

Actually I am barking up a different tree.
What I am trying to point out is a speciation event does not increase genealogical diversity. To defend evolution we/you must find events that actually increase genealogical diversity. Otherwise we would all just be sub sets of the same one celled thing.From a creationist point of view speciation event works just fine, our most intelligent God put very genome diverse birds, spiders, humans or what have you on the earth. And as time went on speciation, separation and adaptation events occurred further subdividing the species, (possibly all the way up to the Genus level). So now we have a nice diversity of ever changing (through subdivision) set of plants and animals.Of course one of the logical arguments to actual increase in genetic diversity is going to be mutation. I am assembling my thoughts on this so I can present some intelligent discussion. I just wanted to say the word first.Thure

Rahvin you missed something here
A small portion of the plants survived after being exposed to copper because they were geneitcaly able to do so. Why? Because the resitant genes were some portion of the normal population, unless you are suggesting all of the plants died and some portion sprung back to life with the the resistent gene. Nothing new just elimanation of the non-resistant genes. Is this really nessessary? I am happy to discuss anything you want but if you feel it is needed to insult me to somehow support your point of view count me out.Thure

I agree, the time scale factor is the only reason there is any wiggle room left in this debate. An explaination can be considered valid if there is no direct proof against it.
Again I am looking for a reasonable but very specific explainiation of the mechanisim for actual EXPANSION of the gene pool.Thure