What i can't understand about evolution....

In the same post Peg also claimed you said that evolution is random. You might want to address that point as well.

Yes when I find which post I apparently said that.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

so we become very certain that abiogenesis never happened. How would that invalidate the evolution that you have already acknowledged takes place within what you call "kinds"?

i do see that

but, if each species arose from a previous species by gradual change, then this implies that if we were to trace the steps right back, we would be right back at abiogenesis and life would have to have arose from non living matter

i will try and find it...its in this thread i think...probably early pages, i jsut remember it because it was a reply to one of my comments about why evolution happens sometimes but not all the time and you said that its not purposeful or directional...

of course i could be wrong... but i'll try and find it

but first i have to go to bed and sleep... its almost 1am here and i cant think straight anymore.

Peg writes: but, if each species arose from a previous species by gradual change, then this implies that if we were to trace the steps right back, we would be right back at abiogenesis and life would have to have arose from non living matter

Exactly. And it doesn't matter to evolution at all whether the first life arose through abiogenesis or through an act of God.

Let's assume the first life was created by God. Then since the reproductive mechanisms he put in place are imperfect and almost always generate the genetic errors (mutations) that are one of the driving forces behind evolution (the others being allele remixing and natural selection), evolution was inevitable.

You see, evolution doesn't need abiogenesis. That's why Darwin's book was titled Origin of Species, not Origin of the Very First Species and not Origin of Life.

--Percy

Percy writes: Evolution and abiogenesis are related, but they are not the same thing. Let's say that in some way it is demonstrated that the first life arose by a miracle and not by abiogenesis, so we become very certain that abiogenesis never happened. How would that invalidate the evolution that you have already acknowledged takes place within what you call "kinds"? It doesn't invalidate it, right? Now can you see how independent evolution and abiogenesis are? --Percy

I just had a "déjà-vu" of truly monumental proportions and magnitude! :D

... evolution happens sometimes but not all the time ...

But evolution does happen all the time. Both when a population changes to better adapt to a different or changing environment and also when a population resists changing in order to remain well adapted to an environment that isn't changing.

Peg writes: if evolution is to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how it originally developed to show how it originally developed, they need to create it... they need to create molecules and chemicals that produced life and then watch how it evolves but if they cannot reproduce it, then how can they say we've proved it via experiments???

Let me predict what will happen once these demands will have been fulfilled: you will NOT concede the point, but instead you will claim that obviously an "intelligence" was needed to "artificially create" life from non-life.

And we will be back to square one.

Why not just admit that no observation will ever convince you, and save other people a lot of time?

i will try and find it...its in this thread i think...probably early pages, i jsut remember it because it was a reply to one of my comments about why evolution happens sometimes but not all the time and you said that its not purposeful or directional...

That isn't quite the same as saying it is random. After all what you were replying to with this example was Helper saying ...

Evolution is not random. It has no ultimate goal but natural selection gives a short term direction to the process.

I'm pretty sure that the extent of Bluescat48's statement was that 'There is no direction in evolution', see Message 265.

He then went on to say 'Changes that make a species more likely to survive will be passed on to future generations.' which is the sort of short term directionality Helper was describing.

TTFN,

WK

Pasteur’s experiments of nearly a hundred years ago demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. We should still see spontaneous generation of life from non living matter but it just doesnt happen.

Did Pasteur's experiments prove that abiogenesis did not occur around hidrothemal vents though some slow process? How so? By slow I mean a process that could have taken 10 million years or more. Would it be reasonable to expect scientists to be able to reproduce in a lab some process that may have taken millions of years?

its been mentioned by another poster (bluescat48) that evolution IS random

Evolution like other historical events is not completely random and yet cannot be predicted os repeated. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was not a random event. I was a direct consequence of the actions taken by people at the time. Still, it was not possible to predict the outcome of the battle beforehand. Also, it cannot be reproduced in a lab. That does not prove the battle didn't happen.

I know people keep saying that evolution and 'origin of life' are completely separate issues, and evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, but the logical deduction is that if all life arose by chance and evolved gradually from one form to another, then logically it takes it all back to an original source so if that original source was not God, then I want evidence for what it was... i dont want theories and speculation

Why don't you open a new thread about abiogenesis where we could properly address your concerns without going off topic?

Here I'm just going to point out that gaps in the scientific knowlege make for a very poor base for a theology. Religions have burned their thingers before that way.

Greetings Peg,

Thanks for your reply.

Peg writes: so they have 'proved' evolution by experiments?

Why did you use the word 'proved' in quotes Peg?
I did not use the word prove, and the confusion over this word has been explained to you.

My post was quite clear :

* millions of tests CONFIRM evolution
* ZERO tests disprove evolution

All it would take is ONE SINGLE test to disprove evolution (well, in practice it would take many repeated tests carefully observed and checked over and over.)

(Evolution has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt - in loose popular terms, some would say it HAS been 'proved', but a scientist would be wary of using that word.)

Peg writes: what sort of experiments are you talking about???

Many many tests of many different types - Tiktaalik is a famous example. Millions of them probably.

We have observed :
* mutations
* new base-pairs
* new genes
* new proteins
* new features
* new species descending from others
All of that has been OBSERVED.

Peg writes: have they produced life from non living matter?

Peg - you really should try to grasp this concept.
Evolution and abiogenesis are different things entirely.
* Abiogenesis = ONCE a very long time ago, life STARTED
* Evolution = CONTINUOUSLY to this day, life CHANGES

Is there some reason that this is hard for you to grasp this idea? Please let us know if we can explain it more clearly.

Peg writes: because if they do that, then i'll believe that life arose by chance

Evolution does not say 'life arose by chance.'
Evolution says EXISTING life CHANGES according to well known principles.

Furthermore,
nor does abiogenesis say that life arose by chance. The laws of chemistry make atoms and molecules act in certain ways - NOT chance at all.

Kapyong

Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

Gday,

Peg writes: if evolution is to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how it originally developed

The various processes of Evolution have been observed.
It is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
I thought you said you accepted evolution?

Peg writes: to show how it originally developed, they need to create it... they need to create molecules and chemicals that produced life and then watch how it evolves

Your word "it" is very slippery there.
You seem to have slipped from evolution to abiogenesis again.

Abiogenesis happened once a long time ago, we do not understand it that well. (Although some expermients have confirmed some of the processes.)

Evolution happens to this day, we can observe it in action.
Evolution is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kapyong

There are certain evidences that Colonel Mustard committed murder with a lead pipe in the conservatory. It is unknown whether the Colonel was the product of natural or artificial insemination. Are we therefore to conclude that, without regard to the certain evidences, the Colonel is to go free?

Accept the point that origin has nothing to do with evolution and stop applying it to you argument against evolution or explain why it must be taken into account. You've been repeating the same course in twenty word posts for the better half of this thread. maybe if you tried to condense you thoughts into a single four hundred word post you'd recognize that the bits don't fit together.

A bit of my family lore: I've an aunt whom made these two statements within five minutes of each other:

quote:

---

The world is 1982 years old. (Can you guess when she said this?)

---

And:

quote:

---

Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

---

Hours passed before anyone could get her to understand the contradiction in these two statements but it was eventually done. The argument then turned to the error of the first statement. That too was resolved. But to this day, without updating either statement to reflect the passage of time — 65,000,027 years ago — she still insisted that both statements are true for the first few minutes of the argument.

You're doing the same thing, though admittedly less blatantly.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Hello again Peg,

Peg writes: its been mentioned by another poster (bluescat48) that evolution IS random

I'll try to clear this up. Mutations are random and create the variation within populations. The alleles are then acted upon by genetic drift (again random) and natural selection (not random). Natural selection is the driving force of evolution and therefore in the short term - that is from one generation to the next - evolution is not random. The long term effects of natural selection are however unpredictable.

Hopefully that clears up the situation. Aspects of evolution are random however aspects are controlled. It is incorrect to say it is a completely random process.

Peg writes: hence why the crocodile is a remarkable example because how is it that in a world where all things evolve, this one species has not? That indicates that evolution is NOT random...it also implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow, or the current explanation is flawed and the reading of the fossil record is inaccurate

As I mentioned in the case of crocodile species a form of natural selection (not random) - stabilising selection - has almost certainly occured. It is not random that crocodiles have remained largely similar after a large period of time and it is perfectly in line with evolution. The implication of direction is correct - the direction given by natural selection.

Now here is my question to you Peg. Do you understand how stabilising selection would be able to maintain crocodiles as phenotypically similar species over a vast period of time? If not I will explain in more detail.