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

i accept diversification thru genetics...thats a little different to the evolution of one species into a new kind of species...i dont believe that at all because if that were true, then we should be able to replicate it or we should see itand, it would also lead us back to an original source of production where the evolution first took place

No, tracing back the steps of gradual change across generations could potentially lead us to the first lifeform i.e. the first common ancestor. However the ToE can't describe the transition from non-life to life since, as others have pointed out, the ToE is the change in allele frequency in species over time. In other words for the ToE to function there must be transmissible genetic material e.g. DNA or RNA.
Now I've never kept up to date on abiogenesis research, so I'm just going to remark on two examples I can remember off hand: the polymerisation of RNA and the formation of phospholipid bilayers. It has been shown that clays will catalyse the formation of RNA polymers, potentially giving rise to short-chain RNAs with biological activity. This is important since its found throughout modern cells (mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes), it can replicate, catalyse reactions, and may have been a precursor to DNA-based life. Phospholipid bilayers are the main constituent of the membranes of all modern and will form vesicles due to the polar head and non-polar tail of these molecules. You will notice that neither of these processes occur due to transfer of genetic material, so can't be described by the ToE, but is a spontaneous process based on the chemical properties of the molecules involved. Other areas of research include understanding the composition of the early atmosphere, since which molecules will form will depend on if it is oxidising or reducing. I think various metabolic pathways have also been identified which do not require the protein based machinery of modern cells. In other words abiogenesis involves chemistry, not biology.By the way, you keep on saying you accept the ToE so far (in fact all of it if you didn't conflate it with abiogenesis), for example for speciation, but it would be really helpful if you would identify where you think the ToE stops i.e. can't take it back any further. This would make it a lot easier to discuss the specific issues you have because, after all, there is a huge gulf between the formation of the first life and the speciation of modern organisms. In other words please define a kind. Is it the family level, phyla, domain etc.Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

There you go again with that word 'kind'. Without a clear definition of that word it's really hard to know what is it you are looking for. That's not good enough Peg. Do you really think it reasonable to expect us to be able to see or replicate a process that may take millions of years to happen? Do you only believe things that you can observe directly? Really? I'm not entirely clear about what you mean here

No. We have. But don't take my word for it, ask a creationist. According to the well-known creationist ministry "Answers in Genesis":New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.Say, I've a great idea. Why don't you argue it out with your fellow-creationists while we just sit back, eat popcorn, and watch? I can attach no meaning to this phrase. How about you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.

Crocodilians are not a species. And they have evolved.As you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in them. Of course evolution is not random. This is what we keep trying to explain to you people. N
A
T
U
R
A
L

​

S
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
You might as well say: "The fact that raindrops always fall down implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow."Yes. They are being directed by gravity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why would you believe that?You seem very confused.You say that if an experiment proves that life arose from non-living matter, you will believe that life arose "by chance"?Why?Would you say: "If an experiment proves that a tree can arise from a seed, then I will believe that a tree arose by chance?"Where does "chance" come into it?

It did no such thing. It mearly proved that such things as maggots don't spontaneously form from rotting meat, which was the accepted idea at the time. It doe not have anything to do with abiogenesis.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Compare your statements with the following statements:if the rings of saturn are to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how they originally developed

​

to show how they originally developed, they need to create them...Or how about:if the pyramids of egypt are to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how they originally developed

​

to show how they originally developed, they need to create them...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You've contradicted yourself again.First you say you accept evolution within "kinds", such as the cat "kind", which includes many species. This means you accept the evolution of one species into another, since creationists say an original species of the cat "kind" fresh off Noah's ark evolved into the lions, tigers and housecats that are different species of the same cat "kind".But now you say you reject evolution of one species into another.Were you trying to say that you reject evolution of one "kind" into another? If so, we already knew that. For the sake of discussion, let's say the first life was the creation of God, no abiogenesis. How does that invalidate evolution? It doesn't, right?Since it makes no difference to evolution whether the first life arose through abiogenesis or through an act of God, evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis.--Percy

Can you replicate the Industrial Revolution, the Battle of Hastings or The Great Leap Forward? Do courts replicate murders or road traffic accidents or rapes?I assume not but I also assume that you believe that the statement 'these things have happened' is true.So how do we know they have if the only criteria for truth is that we can should see it or be able to replicate it? I can not see the Industrial Revolution or the Battle of Hastings, nor can I replicate it so there must be other reasons to accept things that have happened in the past as being at least provisionally true.We look for supporting evidence. To do that, we ask the questions 'If the event really happened, what evidence might there be to support it? What evidence is there very likely to be if it did happen? What evidence might exist that would show that it did not happen?'For example, we would expect that somebody would have mentioned the Battle of Hastings in writings since humans like to record battles and it is meant to have happened during a time of somewhat decent record keeping (though not necessarily reliable...). Any financial accounts would support the existence of at least one army on both sides. We might expect to find arrow heads and other battle detritus on the proposed battlefield roughly corresponding to the location the battle as described. We probably would never find every single arrowhead, nor every bit of jewellery or all belt buckles, swords, stirrups and so on but if we found a decent amount that would imply that a battle occurred.So what would be true if all species are related via a common ancestor?I'd say that we would probably be able to compose, at least in broad strokes, a fairly consistent family tree of current life based on shared/inherited characteristics. We should find that genetic testing would give almost identical results. We may find remains of previous species and they should fit into the family tree. We may find that if we work out average mutation rates that we can use this to approximate at least some dates for when two lineages split apart based on their genetic differences and we should find that any fossils for the proposed close relatives of the common ancestors for these two lineages that we manage to find that they date to a similar age to that uncovered by the genetic dating methods. If we find species that are significantly out of sync with this, then universal common descent may be falsified (rabbit fossils in the Cambrian might be a good start for example)Maybe you can think of more things that might expect, that we should almost certainly find, and things that would falsify common ancestry and the relatedness of all life forms.I certainly can't replicate my grandfather, but with genetic testing and looking at records I might be able to determine who my distant cousins are. The further back I go, the harder it gets of course since written records eventually get patchy, inaccurate and then stop altogether - but I'm sure you can see that the relatedness of two people can be estimated based on various pieces of evidence and that if evolution is true we should be able to extend this to the relatedness of other organisms.It is all about consistency of the evidence and its quantity. If we worked out that the probability that all the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence was consistent under the assumption that the fossil record (and currently living organisms) was just a random jumble was 1 in a trillion, would you accept that the fossil record (and currently living organisms) isn't just a random jumble of unrelated life. Ask five world war II historians why the second world war began and you will get five different answers with some significant overlap. Ask five biochemists how life originated and you will get likewise (though with probably less overlap).If you can come to accept the relatedness of all living things, then and only then, is it a good idea to tackle the origin of life. It is a simple matter of walking before running - the origin of life is much easier to discuss when there aren't objections about the relatedness of all life hanging over us.I am perfectly happy to discuss with you the details of the kinds of evidence that we should expect to see if all living things are related, and how that lines up with what we find when we go looking - though the thread is coming to a close and the last time I tried to go into it you decided to concentrate on the points that other posters were raising. I had hoped we could have a good conversation, but I appreciate the problems associated with 'piling on'. One is tempted to tackle the easiest to tackle posts - those with incomplete arguments that you can find wiggle room for argument in, those that are shorter and require less attention and the like. It is a fair problem of economy and I don't envy you the task. Once more, and for the last time on this thread, I extend my offer to explore the evidence one step at a time in a constructive and friendly fashion.

That's not ALL evolution is though, again you forget natural selection, that's a very big part of the whole. No it isn't. Speciation has been observed. We can't replicate everything that ever happened, as others have pointed out quite well.Peg, if you want my advice, take Modulous's offer. I think you'll learn a lot from him. Just remember, that evolution happening and being true has NOTHING to do with there being a god or not. It is only contradictory to a literal reading of the bible, which you don't do anyway.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi Modulous,
i apologize, i missed this post earlier.About Dawkins, i have to say that i completely and utterly dislike that man. He is the most arrogant and angry individual ever! i agree with you, but there is one small problem with this. Many of the scientists who do present a different view also happen to be creationists. and because they are creationists, they are not considered 'real' scientists. this is a very sad state of affairs for science. Im sure what will happen is less and less creationists will be in the field of science and this could lead to unbridled and unchallenged ideas.interestingly The science journal 'Nature' reported in 1997 that almost 40percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God. So where does that put the research of these individuals? Does the fact that they believe in God make their research any less accurate then an athiest/evolutionary scientist??I'd be interested to know what you think of these statements...these scientists hold doubts over evolution and some could be creationists...

quote:

---

Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

---

quote:

---

astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation

---

quote:

---

Astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. ... so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”

---

quote:

---

Chemist Richard Dickerson comments on the chance that molecules could have formed in a primoridal soup: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”

---

quote:

---

Biochemist George Wald states: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]

---

quote:

---

About DNA and proteins and DNA Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. They must have developed in parallel”

---

quote:

---

Leslie Orgel of Salk Institute in California has indicated nucleotides to be “one of the major problems in prebiotic synthesis.”9 They are needed to make the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), also called an overwhelming difficulty. Incidentally, proteins cannot be assembled without the nucleic acids, nor can nucleic acids form without proteins.

---

quote:

---

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment:

​

“Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.”

---

quote:

---

Expressing doubts over a 'simple begining' Michael Denton, specialist in molecular biology said
“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10’12gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world...the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”

---

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros.

quote:

---

“This number is so large, that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books. Scientists committed to the chemical evolution of lifehave chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.”

---

What can be logically deducted from all this evidence, and the scientists invaluable research into the mechanisms of 'life'?
1. without the right atmosphere there would be no organic soup.2.Without the organic soup there would have been no amino acids.
3. Without amino acids we would not have proteins.
4. Without proteins there would be no nucleotides.
5. Without nucleotides there would be no DNA and without DNA there are no cells that can reproduce themselves.
6. Without a covering membrane, no living cell. Meaning NO LIFE7. without life on earth, no evolution of the species.it all must come back to where it all began, otherwise its pointless isnt it? we must be honest here. Evolution alone tracks the changes in species. I accept that. But evolution also discounts an intelligent designer by its very nature. According to evolution, a designer/creator had no hand in the species on earthaccording to evolution, the species on earth evolved from each other and this evolution began with simple celled organisms and progressed to all the species we see on earth today. With this in mind, evolution must by necessity be able to explain the origin of the first living cell and how that cell became a living organism, and how that organism developed and what it developed into ectObviously some evolutionary scientists see the need to offer such an explanation because many theories over the origin of life have been formulated by them.

a kind as in a species that can reproduce together.eg, various breeds of chickens can reproduce together, but a chicken and a duck cannot, therefore they are different 'kinds' or 'species'im sure i have explained this previously.

what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species?in 1999 a brochure by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in America says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”these finche's were studied in the 70's by Peter and Rosemary Grant who discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived better than those with smaller beaks. these findings were assumed to be significant apparently because the size and shape of the beaks is a primary way of determining the 13 species of finches.
they estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.ok so it seems that evolution might have a point with this exampleExcept that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again began to dominate the population. In the science Journal Nature 1987 a Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.”So it seems the finch's were not becoming a new species at all but rather the population was being affected by the climate changes.