Evolution

[Dre89]

The only reason to believe in the devil is Christian theology. If God isn't good then the theology is bogus, so the idea of a devil is too.


Random question about evolution. I know we didn't evolve from chimpanzees and apes, they evolved with us, but weren't the apes we evolved from physically superior to us? If they were, I don't understand why we evolved to be physically inferior. I don't see how random adaption which lead to physical inferiority are favourable for survival.

Someone educate me.

 

[rvkevin]

Random question about evolution. I know we didn't evolve from chimpanzees and apes, they evolved with us, but weren't the apes we evolved from physically superior to us? If they were, I don't understand why we evolved to be physically inferior. I don't see how random adaption which lead to physical inferiority are favourable for survival.

Some aspects such as size and strength come with disadvantages such as lack of mobility and agility. When we aren't overweight, we have a surprisingly good endurance for long-distance running, which has served us well in the past. Also, a species with a lower age to maturity will have an advantage since it will be able to replenish its numbers/reproduce more quickly. Intelligence (e.g. manipulating fire) has its advantages. Also, it requires more calories to sustain a higher weight so a smaller being is better adapted to an environment with scarce food sources. If you are talking about apes that occupy a different niche, then they wouldn't be competition with each other so comparing strengths would be irrelevant. Everything doesn't boil down to physical strength. If it did, we wouldn't even be close to the top of the food chain since we are embarrassingly outmatched compared to most mammals in the animal kingdom.

 

[Dre89]

Some aspects such as size and strength come with disadvantages such as lack of mobility and agility. When we aren't overweight, we have a surprisingly good endurance for long-distance running, which has served us well in the past. Also, a species with a lower age to maturity will have an advantage since it will be able to replenish its numbers/reproduce more quickly. Intelligence (e.g. manipulating fire) has its advantages. Also, it requires more calories to sustain a higher weight so a smaller being is better adapted to an environment with scarce food sources. If you are talking about apes that occupy a different niche, then they wouldn't be competition with each other so comparing strengths would be irrelevant. Everything doesn't boil down to physical strength. If it did, we wouldn't even be close to the top of the food chain since we are embarrassingly outmatched compared to most mammals in the animal kingdom.

Some of the things you say here seem to assume that we have to trade intelligence for physical superiority. Which isn't the case. Gorllas or chimpanzees with human brains would be superior to us. So things such as a fast maturity are irrelevant because that doesn't necessitate physical inferiority, yet there appears to be no reason why physical inferiority would be favourable, especially at the time when we didn't have the intelligence to compensate.

According to my understanding of evolution, which admittedly isn't the best, random adaptions which are favourable are preserved through natural selection. So even though physical inferiority hasn't stopped us from being the dominant species on the planet, that doesn't answer why this trait survived in the first place, and considering how different we are physically to old kingdom apes, this trait originated millions of years ago, and has apparently been favourable enough all the time.

If we had the minds of other apes, we'd get dominated in ecosystems. If anything, it seems like we needed to evolve our intelligence to compensate for our physical inferiority.

Also, wouldn't transitional fossils outnumber regular fossils by astronomical numbers? Take archeopt- however you spell it for example. Prior to that stage, there would have been millions of years of version of arch where the reptile traits outweighed the bird traits, then after that millions of years where the bird traits outweighed the reptile ones. Considering that this happended for most species, shouldn't pretty much every fossil we find be transitional?

Another thing, organisms only evolve when they are currently not well adapated to surviving in their environment. This is evidenced by the lack of comparative evolution in organisms such as crocodiles and jellyfish, who were initially successful in their ecosystems. What I don't understand is, how could all those 'unfit' species survive and reproduce all the millions of years at the same success of crocodiles and jellyfish if they weren't fit for survival?

I'm trying to learn more about evolution theory, but I just can't seem to get past these questions.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Some of the things you say here seem to assume that we have to trade intelligence for physical superiority. Which isn't the case. Gorllas or chimpanzees with human brains would be superior to us. So things such as a fast maturity are irrelevant because that doesn't necessitate physical inferiority, yet there appears to be no reason why physical inferiority would be favourable, especially at the time when we didn't have the intelligence to compensate.

According to my understanding of evolution, which admittedly isn't the best, random adaptions which are favourable are preserved through natural selection. So even though physical inferiority hasn't stopped us from being the dominant species on the planet, that doesn't answer why this trait survived in the first place, and considering how different we are physically to old kingdom apes, this trait originated millions of years ago, and has apparently been favourable enough all the time.

If we had the minds of other apes, we'd get dominated in ecosystems. If anything, it seems like we needed to evolve our intelligence to compensate for our physical inferiority.

What you don't seem to realize is physical inferiority is not an absolute good, everything in evolution comes with costs and benefits.

For example, greater muscle mass comes automatically with considerably higher upkeep costs.


But if you want the precise things that human bodies evolved for, distance running.

Seriously, our bodies are perfectly evolved for endurance activities in general and specifically running long distances. This gave us a massive edge in long-term hunting and stalking which created our evolutionary niche.


That's the dividing point really, some common ancestors of the ape developed more bulky and muscular and found a niche that supported this, others developed for endurance running and found a niche that supported that. Intelligence evolved as a result of supporting that niche.

Also, wouldn't transitional fossils outnumber regular fossils by astronomical numbers? Take archeopt- however you spell it for example. Prior to that stage, there would have been millions of years of version of arch where the reptile traits outweighed the bird traits, then after that millions of years where the bird traits outweighed the reptile ones. Considering that this happended for most species, shouldn't pretty much every fossil we find be transitional?

Another thing, organisms only evolve when they are currently not well adapated to surviving in their environment. This is evidenced by the lack of comparative evolution in organisms such as crocodiles and jellyfish, who were initially successful in their ecosystems. What I don't understand is, how could all those 'unfit' species survive and reproduce all the millions of years at the same success of crocodiles and jellyfish if they weren't fit for survival?

All fossils are transitional fossils. Period.

Evolution 101.

 

[Dre89]

Long distance running only aids hunting. However, seeing as this started developing at time when we didn't have the intelligence to create tools to help us hunt, the trade off would have been bad for us because we wouldn't have had the speed or power to catch our prey, so I don't understand how we could have survived all that time.

Add to that the fact that most apes are omnivores, whose diet consists mostly of fruits instead of meat.

The other thing I don't get is that if we evolved from the same apes as chimps and rangas, why we'd end up evolving completely different traits if they all originated in similar environments.

I'm still waiting on an answer to the question of how species which needed to evolve were capable of reproducing just as successfully for millions of years.

Even if every fossil is transitional, wouldn't the majority of fossils we find still be crosses between two types of animal eg. reptile and bird?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Also, wouldn't transitional fossils outnumber regular fossils by astronomical numbers? Take archeopt- however you spell it for example. Prior to that stage, there would have been millions of years of version of arch where the reptile traits outweighed the bird traits, then after that millions of years where the bird traits outweighed the reptile ones. Considering that this happended for most species, shouldn't pretty much every fossil we find be transitional?

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil. But now ask yourself this: what's the difference between Archeopteryx and any other dinosaur? It's not like they stopped evolving but Archeopteryx kept going. The only difference is that Archeopteryx is a very blatant example of a cross-domain transition: a clear-cut common ancestor of both modern birds and former dinosaurs. Every fossil is "transitional"; even very successful species such as the great apes had very different skeletal structures millions of years ago (well, their ancestors did, anyways).

Now, if by "transitional fossil" you mean to point specifically to those obvious cases like Archeopteryx; the clear-cut "here's a species which is a direct link to both major group X and major group Y"; I honestly don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say that it probably has something to do with the fact that those particular species are but a few of many millions, and that fossilization is such a rare occurrence...

Another thing, organisms only evolve when they are currently not well adapated to surviving in their environment. This is evidenced by the lack of comparative evolution in organisms such as crocodiles and jellyfish, who were initially successful in their ecosystems. What I don't understand is, how could all those 'unfit' species survive and reproduce all the millions of years at the same success of crocodiles and jellyfish if they weren't fit for survival?

This I'm also kinda wondering about.

 

[AltF4]

Adumbrodeus hit one of those issues right on the head. There's no such thing as a "transitional" fossil. (Or they all are, depending on how you want to think about it) "Transitional fossil" is one of those terms concocted by deniers to try to imply a whole range of false conclusions.

Why don't we find many half-bird / half-crocodile fossils? For one, fossils are actually quite rare if you think about it. They require an organism to die in a very precise set of circumstances. I couldn't possibly speculate as to a percentage chance that any given organism will eventually become a fossil, but it is very very low.

If a species is not around on the Earth for very long before becoming extinct or evolving beyond recognition, then there may not be any (many) fossils of it.

Also take into account that not every species fossilizes equally. Organisms with large, thick, and hard bones will fossilize best. Or shells. But creatures with thin bones, or lots of cartilage will fossilize at even lower rates than normal.

Then take into account that fossils are regularly destroyed by normal Earthly events. The ground a fossil is in can be subducted deep below the surface, where it can be melted by magma. Or it can be brought up to the surface where it is destroyed by weather. The older a fossil is, the more likely it is to have been destroyed by natural events.

Despite this, we have fossils representing a very fine continuum of essentially every evolutionary path that we know exists. There are no "gaps" that need to be filled. Certainly not in the human timeline.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Dre's point is that if evolution were to be true, you'd expect a lot more fossils that aren't of species that have survived to the present point. Play word games with the definitions of macro evolution and transitionary forms all you want, but if evolution is true, there should be plenty of fossils for each link in the evolutionary chain, or else you're stuck with "This species somehow got multiple random major beneficial mutations in a relatively short time period", which is simply not how natural selection is theorized to work.

And as far as the transitionary forms you already have, I personally am quite skeptical of them in the same way you'd be skeptical of a miracle. There's already been well known and highly touted "examples" of evolution in action that were later proven to be fake.

Also, one other thing I want to know is why there aren't laboratory examples of reproducing macro-evolution. "But there's no difference", I hear you claim. Well, take a specific example of what theists claim as macro-evolution, and reproduce that. And difficulty shouldn't be an objection, considering the various accomplishments made completely for science (moon landings, the large hadron collider, etc.) Would it be a long and tricky process? Sure, but alt just claimed we have a very good fossil record of how it all happened. Additionally, with a controlled environment and other wonders of modern science, you even get to cheat a little to aid random chance, removing pesky factors like the whole species dying out because it was badly adapted, or inducing some of those mutations yourself.

Amusing note:
When you think about it, there's a surprising similarity to the demands on each side here.

Atheist demand a miracle.
Are highly skeptical of claimed ones due to past hoaxes.
Want to see it in action and subjected to the scientific method.

I'm demanding an example of evolution in action.
I'm pretty skeptical of transitional forms because there have been past high profile hoaxes unrevealed until much later.
And I want to see a reproducible example in action.

I'm sure at least one person is going to start yelling about how wrong I am and how their position has all the backing and mine has none, but I found it interesting to think about.

 

[Aesir]

I am now dumber after reading that.

Dre's not a biologist so his inquiry is reasonable, yours on the other hand is like Behe nonsense.

 

[Dre89]

What were the examples of evolution that were proven to be false?

Also, a miracle is different to evolution. Evidence is about probability. A miracle (as an isolated event) is by definition the least probable explanation of an event, for it defies the laws of nature. The only reason why miracles aren't impossible is because the laws of nature are contingent.

This is why the Alexander the Great argument for Biblical historicism that every Protestant and his dog uses is so misguided. The Bible's historical truth is not on the same level as AtG's because the Bible invokes the supernatural, which then greatly reduces the probability of it occuring.

So my point is that evolution is not on the same scale as miracles because evolution does not require the defiance of the laws of nature, so it is more probable. This means that the evidence required for its proof, whilst it still must be fairly substantial ,because it is nowehere near self-evident, it isn't as much as is needed to prove the historical reliability of the Bible.

 

[Aesir]

anyway I can't speak for fossils but there was a very good video on youtube about DNA and our link to the great ape's ect..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

that should be it.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I am now dumber after reading that.

Dre's not a biologist so his inquiry is reasonable, yours on the other hand is like Behe nonsense.

Atheist reply #1: Rather than address the actual argument at hand, insult the person presenting it and claim without evidence that the argument is crap.

We're off to a good start.

@Dre
Seriously, I recognize that you want a higher standard of proof for a supernatural explanation over a natural one, and the Alexander the great argument reflects that, the Bible's historic backing is not only as good as, but an order of magnitude BETTER than anything comparable. However, there is just no other reasonable explanation for the disciples behavior faced with certain death unless you either want to go to a conspiracy theory (The whole first century church was involved in a massive coverup! *gasps*), or take the BPC route and assume aliens decided to mess around with our species for kicks.

 

[Aesir]

Your whole post is an example on why I hate the US educational system, so I'm not surprised.

You came in here with a claim and didn't back it up good job.

Seriously who let you in here?

 

[rvkevin]

Some of the things you say here seem to assume that we have to trade intelligence for physical superiority. Which isn't the case. Gorillas or chimpanzees with human brains would be superior to us. So things such as a fast maturity are irrelevant because that doesn't necessitate physical inferiority, yet there appears to be no reason why physical inferiority would be favorable, especially at the time when we didn't have the intelligence to compensate.

I am merely pointing out that the characteristics that make up an organism are inter-related. You can select for a certain trait and in doing so, you can also grab one that you didn’t select for. Certain disadvantageous traits also come with other advantageous traits. For example, sickle cell anemia in humans would be negative if it didn’t also give the individual malaria resistance. If a mutation give rise to a negative trait that also gives rise to a positive trait, then the cost-benefit of those traits will determine if they are selected for or not. The framework that natural selection and mutation deals with doesn’t allow the singling out of traits or planning, it can only pick out from what is expressed from the genome and single point mutations can lead to changes in more than one trait. As I said before, being smaller makes the individual require less food to survive which makes them more efficient. For example, a liger can eat 2-4 times as much food per sitting than either of its counterparts, which would be hard to sustain in the wild. Also, our hunting methods required endurance running, which would be hard for a gorilla to duplicate; another advantage to being lean.

Another thing, organisms only evolve when they are currently not well adapated to surviving in their environment. This is evidenced by the lack of comparative evolution in organisms such as crocodiles and jellyfish, who were initially successful in their ecosystems. What I don't understand is, how could all those 'unfit' species survive and reproduce all the millions of years at the same success of crocodiles and jellyfish if they weren't fit for survival?

Remember, being specifically adapted to a specific environment is only useful if that environment stays static which isn’t always the case. Also, mutations or introductions of other species can lead to the extinction of a species in that ecosystem. This is common in island ecosystems. The dodo would have been fine for many generations hadn’t us pesky humans arrived. This isn’t limited to humans; lizards can find their way onto islands by driftwood. In the same token, a predator can have a mutation that makes it much better for hunting, making the prey who was able to survive in that environment no longer able to sustain their numbers.

The other thing I don't get is that if we evolved from the same apes as chimps and rangas, why we'd end up evolving completely different traits if they all originated in similar environments.

Random mutation.

Even if every fossil is transitional, wouldn't the majority of fossils we find still be crosses between two types of animal eg. reptile and bird?

According to this, birds are a classification of a divergence from a common ancestor with reptiles. This means that traits acquired after the split on the bird side would not be present on the reptile side and vice-avers. This means that the commonality would be from what is present in the common ancestor. Remember, many of the traits that we commonly associate with reptiles today may have not have applied to the common ancestor so they would not be present in birds and vice-avers. They are crosses, except that they would look neither like a modern reptiles or a modern bird; they would only share certain common features that are present in both modern reptiles and birds.

Also, one other thing I want to know is why there aren't laboratory examples of reproducing macro-evolution. "But there's no difference", I hear you claim. Well, take a specific example of what theists claim as macro-evolution, and reproduce that. And difficulty shouldn't be an objection, considering the various accomplishments made completely for science (moon landings, the large hadron collider, etc.) Would it be a long and tricky process? Sure, but alt just claimed we have a very good fossil record of how it all happened. Additionally, with a controlled environment and other wonders of modern science, you even get to cheat a little to aid random chance, removing pesky factors like the whole species dying out because it was badly adapted, or inducing some of those mutations yourself.

Speciation (i.e. macro-evolution) has been demonstrated using drosophila. They are a common species to experiment with because of their short life-cycles. We can run an experiment with them consisting of many generations in a couple months whereas the same experiment with humans would take a couple centuries.

I wouldn’t take a specific example from theists considering that those who disagree with it usually don’t understand it and demand examples that would falsify evolution. Also, many of the things wanted to be demonstrated by theists are historical claims that can’t be “duplicated.” Even if we did duplicate the proposed mechanisms, you would always get the retort “it doesn’t mean that it happened that way.” To even use the term “reproduce” is even a stretch because ecosystems are such a chaotic system; so when you don’t get the same end result, it would only falsely validate those who think that humans are somehow special. Also, once you introduce a little aid to mutation, you will get the retort “so it requires intelligence to create life/new species?” There really is no reason to deal with these types of people. As you have characterized macro-evolution before as molecules to man, yes, it would be a very, very long process. Approximately 4 billion years in the making.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Your whole post is an example on why I hate the US educational system, so I'm not surprised.

I'm rather amused, as I didn't go through the standard public school system at all, and I highly dislike the US educational system as well.

You came in here with a claim and didn't back it up good job.

What claim? My clarification of DRE's point while agreeing with it? My personal reasons of why I'm skeptical of transitional forms? Or was it my question as to why macro-evolution hasn't been demonstrated in a lab?

Seriously who let you in here?

People with a better understanding what it means to actually debate and be civil, for one. Seriously, I could basically repeat this entire post back at you and just change "US" to whatever country you happen to live in, and it'd be perfectly applicable.

@rvkevin
First off, thank you for actually giving an argument as opposed to insults, that minor courtesy seems to be increasingly rare these days.

Secondly, I'm not asking for a demonstration of the entire evolutionary chain from molecules to man, just an example of what's deemed irreducible complexity.

Thirdly, the list of objections people would still raise, while true, aren't exactly relevant. There are a good number of scientists who disagree with evolution, and this would be a huge step (if not completely finalizing the issue) towards silencing those.

Fourthly, do you have any more information on the drosophila example?

 

[Aesir]

I'm rather amused, as I didn't go through the standard public school system at all, and I highly dislike the US educational system as well.

Oh even better........./sarcasm

What claim? My clarification of DRE's point while agreeing with it? My personal reasons of why I'm skeptical of transitional forms? Or was it my question as to why macro-evolution hasn't been demonstrated in a lab?

Because a reasonable person who does their homework wouldn't have said something that wrong? Fruit flies, there I showed it to you.

People with a better understanding what it means to actually debate and be civil, for one. Seriously, I could basically repeat this entire post back at you and just change "US" to whatever country you happen to live in, and it'd be perfectly applicable.

Why should I be civil to someone who lacks a basic scientific understanding?

Apparently it's reasonable to come into a debate without a basic scientific understanding and asking for proof. It's really not our job to prove a fact to you, if you're going to argue the merits of Evolution please don't come in here with Michael Behe Nonsense.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Oh even better........./sarcasm

I detect a slight trace of hostility.

Because a reasonable person who does their homework wouldn't have said something that wrong? Fruit flies, there I showed it to you.

What, insinuated that evolution might actually be wrong? I take it all the scientists who disagree with it haven't done their homework either.

As far as the fruit flies go, IIRC that was done by artificially maintaining several mutated breeds that could not have survived naturally, and the end result wasn't a useful mutation anyway. Not exactly an amazing example.

Why should I be civil to someone who lacks a basic scientific understanding?

First off because a good debater replies with arguments and not insults.

Secondly, because that kind of pride can often cover up a horrible mistake, the sun revolving around the earth was a "basic scientific understanding" for a long time.

And thirdly because I probably have a better scientific background than you do, having taken multiple physics courses at the graduate college level.

Apparently it's reasonable to come into a debate without a basic scientific understanding and asking for proof. It's really not our job to prove a fact to you, if you're going to argue the merits of Evolution please don't come in here with Michael Behe Nonsense.

Well, it's just as reasonable to go into a debate about the new testament without a basic historic understanding and asking for proof. (Or go into one of Dre's debates without a basic philosophical understanding.) As a debater, your job is to debate, not spew insults. Regardless of how tempting it may be, there's no reason for me to respond to every stupid question by throwing a tantrum, and if I did, I'd never actually get to debating.

 

[rvkevin]

First off, thank you for actually giving an argument as opposed to insults, that minor courtesy seems to be increasingly rare these days.

Secondly, I'm not asking for a demonstration of the entire evolutionary chain from molecules to man, just an example of what's deemed irreducible complexity.

Thirdly, the list of objections people would still raise, while true, aren't exactly relevant. There are a good number of scientists who disagree with evolution, and this would be a huge step (if not completely finalizing the issue) towards silencing those.

Fourthly, do you have any more information on the drosophila example?

1. No problem.
2. Most structures that are deemed irreducibly complex are actually not actually irreducibly complex. Choosing whether a system is irreducibly complex is akin to an argument from ignorance. We don't have a method of determining it, it can only be asserted based on our current lack of understanding, which makes its validity null. Until it is formulated better, it will be ignored.
3. They make up a very, very small percentage of the field. I would posit a guess that they make up less than one percent of the field. When we have such a consensus on these issues, the fringe gets ignored.
4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Nicholas1024]

1. No problem.
2. Most structures that are deemed irreducibly complex are actually not actually irreducibly complex. Choosing whether a system is irreducibly complex is akin to an argument from ignorance. We don't have a method of determining it, it can only be asserted based on our current lack of understanding, which makes its validity null. Until it is formulated better, it will be ignored.
3. They make up a very, very small percentage of the field. I would posit a guess that they make up less than one percent of the field. When we have such a consensus on these issues, the fringe gets ignored.
4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. Wrong, an irreducible complex argument does not have to be an argument from ignorance. Take the example of a mousetrap, there's 5 components that each have to be in working order and assembled correctly for the device to work. Without any of said components, the trap does nothing. It's a good example of "irreducibly complex", and that's not an argument from ignorance at all.

3. Where'd you get that figure? I haven't exactly researched it, but my impression was that it was about a third of the field as a whole. (IIRC one of the chapters of "A Case for a Creator" mentioned a conference objecting to evolution of around a hundred scientists objecting, some of whom were at the forefront of their field. I don't have the book with me though, so I can't check right now.)

4. I'll have to look into that later.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Long distance running only aids hunting. However, seeing as this started developing at time when we didn't have the intelligence to create tools to help us hunt, the trade off would have been bad for us because we wouldn't have had the speed or power to catch our prey, so I don't understand how we could have survived all that time.

It aids in hunting and gathering plants.


Why do you assume that it's a net negative? The human body has amazing overall endurance, to the degree we can stalk almost anything to well beyond the point of exhaustion as long as we can follow the trail. Tools ultimately changed the model by changing this from "long term stalking" to "hunting multiple targets" which allowed non-hunting roles to expand.

Add to that the fact that most apes are omnivores, whose diet consists mostly of fruits instead of meat.

Answered above, being able to cover long distances was extremely helpful in gathering edible plants.

The other thing I don't get is that if we evolved from the same apes as chimps and rangas, why we'd end up evolving completely different traits if they all originated in similar environments.

Simple, random chance. Mutations are random and primarily diverge based on populations being geologically isolated. While in two identical geologically separated the same mutations would be successful, it's incredibly unlikely the same mutation would appear at about the same time (though convergent mutation does happen).

It can also also happen when a mutation is about equally successful but in a different ecological niche. This is usually something that builds on many existing features of the species.

I'm still waiting on an answer to the question of how species which needed to evolve were capable of reproducing just as successfully for millions of years.

Heh?


I'll answer what I think you meant. It's not a matter of "needing" to evolve, it just happens. Random changes occur and the organism tries to survive and reproduce with what it has. If it succeeds, the mutation survives, if it doesn't the mutation dies.

This doesn't necessarily affect the continued existence of a

Even if every fossil is transitional, wouldn't the majority of fossils we find still be crosses between two types of animal eg. reptile and bird?

Well yea. The majority of fossils we find either look something like a cross between the current animal it evolved into and it's ancestors, minus attributes that the species lost in the process of evolution, or their line went extinct.


So what's the problem?

Dre's point is that if evolution were to be true, you'd expect a lot more fossils that aren't of species that have survived to the present point. Play word games with the definitions of macro evolution and transitionary forms all you want, but if evolution is true, there should be plenty of fossils for each link in the evolutionary chain, or else you're stuck with "This species somehow got multiple random major beneficial mutations in a relatively short time period", which is simply not how natural selection is theorized to work.

How so, if a species survived nearly unchanged from a 400 million years would have a great deal of time to leave a lot of fossils.

As far as every link in the evolutionary chain... yea we pretty much do. Seriously. The only way that you can say that we don't is if you take it down to a ridiculously stupid level of precision (ex. this individual, his father, grandfather, grandmother, son, and grandson) we have more then sufficient fossils to establish a firm chain of evolution down to the species level.

And as far as the transitionary forms you already have, I personally am quite skeptical of them in the same way you'd be skeptical of a miracle. There's already been well known and highly touted "examples" of evolution in action that were later proven to be fake.

... and?

Are you honestly saying that all those fossils that we have are fake? There are at the very least millions of unique documented fossils, and lord only knows how many have been discovered that are privately owned or ignored because of redundancy.

Also, one other thing I want to know is why there aren't laboratory examples of reproducing macro-evolution. "But there's no difference", I hear you claim. Well, take a specific example of what theists claim as macro-evolution, and reproduce that. And difficulty shouldn't be an objection, considering the various accomplishments made completely for science (moon landings, the large hadron collider, etc.) Would it be a long and tricky process? Sure, but alt just claimed we have a very good fossil record of how it all happened. Additionally, with a controlled environment and other wonders of modern science, you even get to cheat a little to aid random chance, removing pesky factors like the whole species dying out because it was badly adapted, or inducing some of those mutations yourself.

Darwin recorded macro-evolution in his initial observations, a species of finch evolving into a new species of finch. Everything beyond the species level is just a matter of successive building of differences.

 

[Nicholas1024]

How so, if a species survived nearly unchanged from a 400 million years would have a great deal of time to leave a lot of fossils.

Huh? I'm not talking about the ones that supposedly survived 400 million years unchanged, I mean the "finished" versions at the end of an evolutionary chain.

As far as every link in the evolutionary chain... yea we pretty much do. Seriously. The only way that you can say that we don't is if you take it down to a ridiculously stupid level of precision (ex. this individual, his father, grandfather, grandmother, son, and grandson) we have more then sufficient fossils to establish a firm chain of evolution down to the species level.


... and?

Are you honestly saying that all those fossils that we have are fake? There are at the very least millions of unique documented fossils, and lord only knows how many have been discovered that are privately owned or ignored because of redundancy.

Not all of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good number of fakes. Also, where are you getting your info from? The sources I've read (The case for a creator) say basically the exact opposite regarding the fossil record, that enormous gaps exist and that it's not compatible with evolution at all.

Darwin recorded macro-evolution in his initial observations, a species of finch evolving into a new species of finch. Everything beyond the species level is just a matter of successive building of differences.

...

Really?

I hate it when people play the terminology game. You know very well what I meant, basically a laboratory test disproving some highly touted example of irreducible complexity.

 

[rvkevin]

2. Wrong, an irreducible complex argument does not have to be an argument from ignorance. Take the example of a mousetrap, there's 5 components that each have to be in working order and assembled correctly for the device to work. Without any of said components, the trap does nothing. It's a good example of "irreducibly complex", and that's not an argument from ignorance at all.

3. Where'd you get that figure? I haven't exactly researched it, but my impression was that it was about a third of the field as a whole. (IIRC one of the chapters of "A Case for a Creator" mentioned a conference objecting to evolution of around a hundred scientists objecting, some of whom were at the forefront of their field. I don't have the book with me though, so I can't check right now.)

2. How do you know the mousetrap does nothing without any of said components? What if I said I know of a purpose for a mousetrap with one of the components removed? How about two of the components removed? Three? Four? If these interceding steps exist, then it can be selected for by evolution. The only way you can say there is no purpose is because you can't think of any, which is an argument from ignorance. Until you actually formulate a method to determine this without appealing to ignorance, it is invalid.

3. There was a petition signed by scientists denouncing evolution that got 800 signatures. In response to said petition, a petition (called "Project Steve") was sent around for scientists supporting evolution that got 1100 signatures. The catch is that the petition in favor of evolution was limited to people with the name Steve or derivations thereof. When compensating for the difference in sample size (only about 1% of scientists have the name Steve), the end result is a consensus in favor of evolution. This was just a quick and dirty estimate from the top of my head. I don't know of any survey specific to the field that concerns this question.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Huh? I'm not talking about the ones that supposedly survived 400 million years unchanged, I mean the "finished" versions at the end of an evolutionary chain.

Oh, so you mean evolutionary dead ends? Well literally every almost sexually immature fossil is an example because it's incredibly rare to find a fossil that doesn't have at least minor mutations.

If you're looking for small populations where an adaptation died out within a few generations? The major problem is it requires multiple fossils to tell that an attribute was present in the population and had limited success but died out in relatively short order.


The only time when mutations that significantly changed the population have a good chance of leaving fossils is when a successful species is in an environment that radically and quickly changes, this results in a large enough population of that species to result in a high chance of fossils being left while making a previously successful species not have a chance to adapt. Easy examples include trilobites, pretty much every large land dinosaur (as compared to crocodillian dinosaurs that were still perfectly adapted to their environment) during the exinction event prior to the dominance of mammals.


So yea, there's a lot.

Not all of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good number of fakes. Also, where are you getting your info from? The sources I've read (The case for a creator) say basically the exact opposite regarding the fossil record, that enormous gaps exist and that it's not compatible with evolution at all.

Already answered here:

The only way that you can say that we don't is if you take it down to a ridiculously stupid level of precision (ex. this individual, his father, grandfather, grandmother, son, and grandson) we have more then sufficient fossils to establish a firm chain of evolution down to the species level.

From the creationalist literature I've read, that is exactly the argument.

...

Really?

I hate it when people play the terminology game. You know very well what I meant, basically a laboratory test disproving some highly touted example of irreducible complexity.

Hello moving the goalpost.

Not you personally, but people keep saying "that's not sufficient, it's just another finch, equivalent to a cat evolving into a dog" and then when it's proven it's "equivalent to a mammal evolving into a reptile" and so on.

Irreducible complexity has a similar issue in that you can just say when one thing is proven that it can be reduced people say, "yeah, this can be be reduced but what about THIS THING!"

Let's not do that, instead challenge me on something you believe is irreducibly complex and I'll explain how it could develop piecemail. Ok, probably not me because I'm not a biology major, but I have a number of friends in the field who'll gladly break it down for me, k?

 

[Aesir]

As far as the fruit flies go, IIRC that was done by artificially maintaining several mutated breeds that could not have survived naturally, and the end result wasn't a useful mutation anyway. Not exactly an amazing example.

Lol, you do realize the whole purpose of the experiment was to study gradual change? Which the study proved that when you have enough gradual change you see a lot of interesting mutations. They didn't artificially change the flies them selves they left the flies in a controlled environment then after a period of time they would introduce the flies together ect... (Probably not doing the real explanation justice.) I mean it may not be amazing to you, but for the theory of evolution is pretty awesome, considering it's evidence that gradual change exists and can be documented.

I mean if that doesn't work I posted a video from 2006Ish(I think?) that documented at the time a recent finding about DNA and the human genome. Showing our common ancestry with our great ape cousins.

Secondly, because that kind of pride can often cover up a horrible mistake, the sun revolving around the earth was a "basic scientific understanding" for a long time.

"Scientific understanding" that was promoted by the church, also comparing the sun revolving around the earth to evolution is pretty silly, for starters the evidence for evolution is massive. The Evidence for the sun revolving around the earth was a sign of primitive understanding and religious thought injected into science.

As for your other things, take into account, I was doing an assignment I absolutely hated so I may have taken that frustration out on you. Because looking over your post, as silly as I find it I'm beginning to wonder why I snapped the way I did.

And thirdly because I probably have a better scientific background than you do, having taken multiple physics courses at the graduate college level.

Whether or not that's true; Physics =\= Biology.

Well, it's just as reasonable to go into a debate about the new testament without a basic historic understanding and asking for proof. (Or go into one of Dre's debates without a basic philosophical understanding.) As a debater, your job is to debate, not spew insults. Regardless of how tempting it may be, there's no reason for me to respond to every stupid question by throwing a tantrum, and if I did, I'd never actually get to debating.

Well Dre should know when I do that I'm having fun with him. I really don't care enough about the god issue to debate it. If he feels offended by that than that's his problem I guess.

 

[adumbrodeus]

"Scientific understanding" that was promoted by the church, also comparing the sun revolving around the earth to evolution is pretty silly, for starters the evidence for evolution is massive. The Evidence for the sun revolving around the earth was a sign of primitive understanding and religious thought injected into science.

Heh?


No, it was actually the scientific understanding of the Greeks that persisted.


The only objection that religion had was with it being put forth as "the only theory" as opposed to "a possible alternative theory" without better evidence and predictive power then. Granted this wasn't the place of the church, but your reading is incredibly simplistic.


Edit: why is somebody going through this topic and editing posts? I know it's a member of the staff because footprints aren't being left and I see minor changes like added punctuation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

the Bible's historic backing is not only as good as, but an order of magnitude BETTER than anything comparable.

Don't you dare make me go back to whupping your *** on that field of debate as well.

However, there is just no other reasonable explanation for the disciples behavior faced with certain death

Yes, and meanwhile, Islam is equally accurate because people were willing to put their lives on the line for it in its early year, and even today. Or any other massive cult suicide. Newsflash: people fall for dumb cults and kill themselves because they were convinced by some ridiculous swindler (in this case: Jesus). Congratulations in putting your religion on the same level as Heaven's Gate. But hey, this is off topic, and that's why I'm shoving it to the front of my post. ^_^

Now, on to the meat of your post!

2. Wrong, an irreducible complex argument does not have to be an argument from ignorance. Take the example of a mousetrap, there's 5 components that each have to be in working order and assembled correctly for the device to work. Without any of said components, the trap does nothing. It's a good example of "irreducibly complex", and that's not an argument from ignorance at all.

The mousetrap is a really bad example. Ironically, this paragraph is a really, really good example of what we're talking about when we say "argument from ignorance". You know why? Because you are dead-set in the idea that you cannot "reduce" the mousetrap... And yet you can!
First off, if you want to retain the "trap" functionality, then there's only one piece you can really get rid of, but it's still important: the base of the trap can be removed without any problem. Suddenly, the mousetrap has very different qualities... and one less part. So already, even in this case which seemed blatantly obvious, you were too ignorant to see how it could have possibly been reduced!
Secondly, you say "the trap does nothing" as if the only role certain things have is the role they are given. Newsflash: that's not how it works in nature. Let's take the classic creationist dead horse of the Bacterial Flagellum... Sure, remove a part, and the whole thing stops working as a flagellum. But does that mean that the rest of the parts are worthless? Not at all! In fact, at least one form of it (with only about half the parts!) can be shown to have a positive impact on the Bacteria's chances for survival: not as a mode of transportation, but as a way to inject toxins into the area around it. So it had every reason to be there. And, in the case of the mousetrap, remove two parts and you have a perfectly serviceable tie clip.

3. Where'd you get that figure? I haven't exactly researched it, but my impression was that it was about a third of the field as a whole. (IIRC one of the chapters of "A Case for a Creator" mentioned a conference objecting to evolution of around a hundred scientists objecting, some of whom were at the forefront of their field. I don't have the book with me though, so I can't check right now.)

There was a list of around 800 ... About 100 american biologists. Compared to Project Steve, which has over 550 signatures from biologists alone.

Dre's point is that if evolution were to be true, you'd expect a lot more fossils that aren't of species that have survived to the present point.

Like, say, all of the ****ing dinosaurs?

Play word games with the definitions of macro evolution and transitionary forms all you want, but if evolution is true, there should be plenty of fossils for each link in the evolutionary chain, or else you're stuck with "This species somehow got multiple random major beneficial mutations in a relatively short time period", which is simply not how natural selection is theorized to work.

...Two things.
1. There are.
2. You're seriously overestimating the likelihood of fossilization.

I really don't understand what you're asking for, to be honest. The transitional forms of ancient species to modern species? In a lot of cases, we have that. At least, in enough cases to excuse those where the more or less random process of fossilization couldn't help us. In the case of the line of great apes, for example, we have basically the entire lineage mapped out on a species level. What makes this incredibly difficult, of course, is that speciation is not a line break, but rather a gradient. You aren't Homo Erectus one day and Homo Habilus the next. Demanding each link in the evolutionary chain is essentially demanding a fossil for every single animal ever.

And as far as the transitionary forms you already have, I personally am quite skeptical of them in the same way you'd be skeptical of a miracle. There's already been well known and highly touted "examples" of evolution in action that were later proven to be fake.

Uh... What?

Hang on, lemme get this straight. You are skeptical of fossil evidence because... there were cases of it being faked? Like what? Piltdown man? Here's Wikipedia's take on it:

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[6] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.

In fact, I found a grand total of 3 such cases; none of which lasted particularly long. You're using this as a basis to reject the transitional fossils? Furthermore you are comparing this denialism to a doubt of written accounts of people violating the laws of physics which have essentially never been validated in any way, shape, or form? This argument is like saying, "George W. Bush lied, therefore I will never trust any human again because humans are known to lie." Come on, dude, you've got to do better than that.

Also, one other thing I want to know is why there aren't laboratory examples of reproducing macro-evolution.

This has been done many, many times, and others have pointed out the experiments to you in this thread.

Amusing note:
When you think about it, there's a surprising similarity to the demands on each side here.

Atheist demand a miracle.
Are highly skeptical of claimed ones due to past hoaxes.
Want to see it in action and subjected to the scientific method.

I'm demanding an example of evolution in action.
I'm pretty skeptical of transitional forms because there have been past high profile hoaxes unrevealed until much later.
And I want to see a reproducible example in action.

The differences that you somehow failed to mention? There has never, ever been a verified case of a miracle. EVER. They involve bending or breaking the laws of nature, providing supernatural events, and generally the kind of thing that simply doesn't happen. Meanwhile, we have validated fossils. We understand how fossilization works. We have seen reproducible examples of evolution in action.

I'm sure at least one person is going to start yelling about how wrong I am and how their position has all the backing and mine has none, but I found it interesting to think about.

Yeah, about that...

Atheist reply #1: Rather than address the actual argument at hand, insult the person presenting it and claim without evidence that the argument is crap.

We're off to a good start.

I just thought I'd address this.

Nicolas, in a politics debate, how do you respond to the person who claims that Obama is a secret muslim, that Obamacare will put grandma to death, and that every type of government expenditure beyond defense is Communism at work? Do you write out long, explanatory posts on why he's wrong? Or do you either back away and ignore them or tell them that they're stupid and move on? I do the latter, because any feedback is better than none.

That's what's going on here. Your arguments are the same rehashed creationist crap which nobody who is not either very ignorant or very dishonest should be spouting as a serious argument. When you offer childish arguments, people will tend to look down on you. And before you ask what the difference is between you and Dre., here's a tip: he's apparently somewhat ignorant on a few finer points, but he's asking, trying to honestly inform himself, and when he gets his answers, he accepts them. You? You're asserting. You're not asking "well, how does X work", you're stating "X couldn't work because of problem Y"; simply formulating it as a question does not change the tone of your devolved Gish gallop.

I'm only responding to you because I'm a very bored person with a lot of time on his hands, because I don't particularly like you, and because trouncing your poor arguments makes me look smart, at least in my own head. I'm normally interested in the potential of learning something new from the person I'm debating, but this is not as case where this would be a relevant concern by any means. I am sorry, but denying evolution is like denying Relativity and Atomic theory: sure, you can't see it on a day-to-day basis, but if you deny it, you still look really, really dumb. Evolution is a validated theory, built up of thousands of individual scientific facts. To claim otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

I invite you to stop asking these questions as if you were about to break the theory of evolution over your knee, and start asking these questions as though you were aware that your knowledge on the subject is extremely lacking, and you have very serious biases in regards to it. Until you do that, I will keep treating you like I would treat any creationist: only worth debating if I'm really, really bored.

 

[Theftz22]

I have a question about evolution. Why would the first organisms have had a will to survive? Obviously they wouldn't have a "will" since they are not yet sentient, but the question still remains why were they structured such that they moved to eat, reproduce, etc?

Clearly once you have life that has a "will" to survive, then the evolutionary advantage of that trait would ensure that they survived and prospered, but an answer like "well, all the ones that didn't have the will died off" doesn't answer the question since then you're just throwing a bunch of "non-willed" organisms in with the "willed" ones. But the whole question is how there could be willed ones in the first place. It seems incredibly improbable that a random process of abiogenesis would happen to produce beings structured towards replication. It seems that the process might happen and then the single-celled organisms would just sit there and die.

The only explanation that seems even remotely plausible is that abiogenesis was happening many times over the course of thousands of years before life structured for reproduction appeared. But I'm not in any position to assess the plausibility of that hypothesis.

I'm asking this question as genuinely curious.

 

[rvkevin]

I have a question about evolution. Why would the first organisms have had a will to survive? Obviously they wouldn't have a "will" since they are not yet sentient, but the question still remains why were they structured such that they moved to eat, reproduce, etc?

I'm not entirely clear as to what you are getting at. By most definitions of life, once you consider an organism, you are by definition talking about something that metabolizes, reproduces, etc. so you are basically asking how life started which doesn't fall into the category of evolution. As you note, "will" doesn't enter the picture here since it is largely just chemical reactions. This would mean that the first life form would be just a random event.

As for the importance of a will for a species to survive, trees reproduce without a will. They take nutrients from their environment without a will. The same applies at the level of the cell. These are more like chemical processes rather than neurological ones so it is almost nonsensical to ask "why" these things happen as they are dictated by physics rather than some decision making process. It's not like a cell can randomly decide to kill itself. This is simply a case of where neurology boils down to biology, which boils down to chemistry, which boils down to physics.

 

[Dre89]

Some more questions-

How did marine organisms ever make it onto land? They were soft-skinned organisms who absorbed oxygen through their skin to survive. The downside to this is their skin dries out when not exposed to water, so they'd die pretty quickly on land.

I just don't see how any organism could have survived long enough to be able to reproduce. The other problem is how marine mating rituals were transferred to land, because the most evolved organisms at this point in time were sexual.

Back to transitional/intermediate fossils. I was under the impression that fossil findings were rather limited, and isolated events. But this isn't the case at all, some rock formations that were previously seabeds house sometimes hundreds if not thousands of fossils. Yet most of these fossils are complete organisms that look comepletely different to each other. Seeing as so many fossils have been preserved at the one place, surely the vast majority of them would be intermediate organisms, all looking very similar to each other.

Soz to be annoying but I'm fixated on evolution theory. I'm kind of in a strange position in which I want to believe it, but that belief is mentally blocked by a lot of questions. I can't just blindly submit tothe common agreement amongst biologists that evolution is true, without being provided adequate explanations for all my problems. I guess that's what philosophy has done to me.

 

[rvkevin]

How did marine organisms ever make it onto land? They were soft-skinned organisms who absorbed oxygen through their skin to survive. The downside to this is their skin dries out when not exposed to water, so they'd die pretty quickly on land.

They would have been able to survive in both the ocean and on land. For example, the mudskipper. Also, since they would have been the first animals on land, they would not have been victim to predators so they wouldn't need to be well equipped for land (i.e. ability to run, etc.), just enough to move around.

I was under the impression that fossil findings were rather limited, and isolated events. But this isn't the case at all, some rock formations that were previously seabeds house sometimes hundreds if not thousands of fossils. Yet most of these fossils are complete organisms that look comepletely different to each other. Seeing as so many fossils have been preserved at the one place, surely the vast majority of them would be intermediate organisms, all looking very similar to each other.

The rate of fossilization depends on the environment. If you are looking for a species that lived in a tropical environment, then it will be harder to find fossils of them. It is easier for aquatic animals to fossilize since it is easier for organisms to be buried in the sea. This is why the pickings for human fossils is quite small while the evolution of the whale is well documented. I'm not sure what them looking different from each other is supposed to imply. Of course they look different from each other, all the individuals that fossilized wouldn't all be the same species. If we took a snapshot of all the species that currently exist, even though there are animals that share a common ancestor (e.g. dog and wolf) that look similar, they wouldn't look as similar as animals that had shared a much earlier common ancestor (e.g. dog and human).

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Some more questions-

How did marine organisms ever make it onto land? They were soft-skinned organisms who absorbed oxygen through their skin to survive. The downside to this is their skin dries out when not exposed to water, so they'd die pretty quickly on land.

I just don't see how any organism could have survived long enough to be able to reproduce. The other problem is how marine mating rituals were transferred to land, because the most evolved organisms at this point in time were sexual.

I think that marine animals first moved onto land for brief periods. You're starting with things like lung-fish that use their primitive lung to breathe in stagnant pools of water, which develop limbs so that they can move out of the water for food, to lay eggs or something, I'm not really an expert so I can't really be sure. But eventually, the limbs would get better and better, so that these primitive amphibians can now spend more and more time on land, as they get better adapted to it. Presumably, they'd learn how to mate in shallower and shallower water, as their limbs become less and less suited to swimming and more for standing and walking. I think that the transition between shallow water and land is relatively gentle and it could have been made relatively easy.

But really, the first organisms on land were insects and other invertebrates, which have a different story, one which I don't really know about.

Soz to be annoying but I'm fixated on evolution theory. I'm kind of in a strange position in which I want to believe it, but that belief is mentally blocked by a lot of questions. I can't just blindly submit tothe common agreement amongst biologists that evolution is true, without being provided adequate explanations for all my problems. I guess that's what philosophy has done to me.

Look that is the way you've got to approach it. You shouldn't really just accept something on the fact that other people do, it's not a good way of thinking. It's better if you know enough about it for it all to make sense before you accept it (although it's a different story with Quantum Mechanics... it's just so weird, trying to make it make sense is almost impossible, but you know, there is plenty of evidence for it, so you've got to accept it if you want to work with things on the scale of the very small). Ask the questions, research, read, learn and enjoy it! It looks like you're taking an interest in science, which is great! So don't worry about it. You're learning.

 

[Dre89]

Bob- One of the first animals to make it onto land was the velvet worm, which was basically a cross between a worm and an insect. It was able to breathe air on land. So I guess it probably could have just spent short spells on land until it evolved the appropriate breathing apparatus.

Thing is though, wouldn't an organism need to evolve the ability to evolve? The ability to evolve seems to be a trait featured in every organism. The ability to evolve would be an additional property to an organism. So when abiogensis first occurred, there's a difference between creating organism X,and creating organism X with the property of evolution. This just appears to be an assumed property.

For example cell multiplication. That was how the first organisms evolved before sexual reproduction was developed. Why is it that cells all multiplied? I don't understand how the creation of a cell automatically entails it has the property of multiplication.

I probably didn't word that right, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

And I've always loved science, it fascinates me more than philosophy. I wanted to do marine biology or entomology in high school but I didn't have the marks. I ended up in philosophy, which I enjoy a lot and I'm good at, but now I'm considering doing marine biology, but there are a number of obstacles in the way. I think people assume that because I'm a philosopher that I have a problem with science. It's just scientisimists (scientism is a philosophy ironically) that I have a problem with.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Look that is the way you've got to approach it. You shouldn't really just accept something on the fact that other people do, it's not a good way of thinking. It's better if you know enough about it for it all to make sense before you accept it (although it's a different story with Quantum Mechanics... it's just so weird, trying to make it make sense is almost impossible, but you know, there is plenty of evidence for it, so you've got to accept it if you want to work with things on the scale of the very small). Ask the questions, research, read, learn and enjoy it! It looks like you're taking an interest in science, which is great! So don't worry about it. You're learning.

And as much as I like to mess with Dre, I gotta hand it to him: this kind of open-minded skepticism is exceedingly rare in the evolution debate, and I have to respect and admire it. ^^

 

[Dre89]

And as much as I like to mess with Dre, I gotta hand it to him: this kind of open-minded skepticism is exceedingly rare in the evolution debate, and I have to respect and admire it. ^^

Thanks. I think people assumed that because I'm a theist/sometimes defend religion that I'm automatically narrow-minded. I'm a lot more open-minded than I get credit for.

One thing that annoys me is that 'ordinary people' (people who aren't educated in the topic I'm discussing with them) accuse me of being narrow-minded simply because I respond to their comments quickly. I feel like I'm punished for processing comments quickly, and already knowing what their argument will be, because all people uneducated in a topic tend to use the same arguments (probably like what I'm doing with evolution).

That probably happens to you guys a lot too.

The other thing is though is that it's easier for me to be open-minded on evolution because I'm on the fence, and don't have some form of theoligical or scientist consensus commitment to commit me to one side.

 

[rvkevin]

Thing is though, wouldn't an organism need to evolve the ability to evolve? The ability to evolve seems to be a trait featured in every organism. The ability to evolve would be an additional property to an organism. So when abiogensis first occurred, there's a difference between creating organism X,and creating organism X with the property of evolution. This just appears to be an assumed property.

This basically goes back to what is the definition of life. I saw an debate/panel concerning what we are looking for when we look for life on other planets. In other words, how do we know we found life or not if we don't have a working definition of it. One of the suggestions was descent with modification. Another person contested the idea that modification was required saying that it is basically trying to fit anything we find into our already formed classes. The retort was that if all you have is descent (i.e. replication), then we would call that a mineral. The reason it appears to be assumed is because to some, it is built into the definition of life. However, if there were "life" forms that didn't have mutations, then speciation couldn't occur (and therefore no evolution). I don't think that is much to worry about because mutations can occur from radiation in the environment which would then allow for divergent properties.

 

[AltF4]

Quick interjection: I attended a lecture at ASU not terribly long ago hosted by Laurence Krauss in which the speakers discussed what life is and how we might try to define it. One of the problems with "replication and modification" is that forest fires fit that definition.

What you really want is not just mere modification, but rather genetic modification. IE: When the entity replicates, the modifications are passed down to the replications. With forest fires, the fire does in fact replicate and mutate according to its environment. But the new replicated fires do not carry any traits from the original. (Which is why we don't have intelligent fires walking around. They don't get the chance to evolve anything complex.)

And so your definition of life quickly turns into being equivalent to anything which evolves by a process of genetic adaptations and natural selection. Fascinating topic.

 

[Aesir]

Heh?


No, it was actually the scientific understanding of the Greeks that persisted.


The only objection that religion had was with it being put forth as "the only theory" as opposed to "a possible alternative theory" without better evidence and predictive power then. Granted this wasn't the place of the church, but your reading is incredibly simplistic.

Meh, I've learned making it simple is better than making it complicated. But I stand corrected.

Bob- One of the first animals to make it onto land was the velvet worm, which was basically a cross between a worm and an insect. It was able to breathe air on land. So I guess it probably could have just spent short spells on land until it evolved the appropriate breathing apparatus.

Thing is though, wouldn't an organism need to evolve the ability to evolve? The ability to evolve seems to be a trait featured in every organism. The ability to evolve would be an additional property to an organism. So when abiogensis first occurred, there's a difference between creating organism X,and creating organism X with the property of evolution. This just appears to be an assumed property.

That's pretty interesting, the 'ability to evolve' though I would argue all living things have that trait, mutations happen most of the time they're useless but sometimes a big mutation comes around and it sticks.

For example cell multiplication. That was how the first organisms evolved before sexual reproduction was developed. Why is it that cells all multiplied? I don't understand how the creation of a cell automatically entails it has the property of multiplication. No idea why I decided to describe that, I'm sure you know the basics of evolution lol.

And I've always loved science, it fascinates me more than philosophy. I wanted to do marine biology or entomology in high school but I didn't have the marks. I ended up in philosophy, which I enjoy a lot and I'm good at, but now I'm considering doing marine biology, but there are a number of obstacles in the way. I think people assume that because I'm a philosopher that I have a problem with science. It's just scientisimists (scientism is a philosophy ironically) that I have a problem with.

I know exactly what you're going through, I went toward politics/economics (found out the part I liked about it was the academics, the actual work is more to do with kissing *** than actual policy work.) So now I'm regretting not getting into science like I had always wanted.

 

[gm jack]

This basically goes back to what is the definition of life. I saw an debate/panel concerning what we are looking for when we look for life on other planets. In other words, how do we know we found life or not if we don't have a working definition of it. One of the suggestions was descent with modification. Another person contested the idea that modification was required saying that it is basically trying to fit anything we find into our already formed classes. The retort was that if all you have is descent (i.e. replication), then we would call that a mineral. The reason it appears to be assumed is because to some, it is built into the definition of life. However, if there were "life" forms that didn't have mutations, then speciation couldn't occur (and therefore no evolution). I don't think that is much to worry about because mutations can occur from radiation in the environment which would then allow for divergent properties.

A fairly good definition of life regards the use of homeostasis to control their own environment.

@Dre regarding "evolving the ability to evolve"

It's a matter of maths here. If something can reproduce, there is likely to be far more of it than something that doesn't reproduce. Errors in this replication are the driving force behind evolution. If an organism doesn't reproduce however, it will (by probability) die eventually, and cease to exist.

The trait of reproducing is very beneficial to the survival of the group of molecules/species/whatever.

 

[rvkevin]

A fairly good definition of life regards the use of homeostasis to control their own environment.

I agree.

@Dre regarding "evolving the ability to evolve"

It's a matter of maths here. If something can reproduce, there is likely to be far more of it than something that doesn't reproduce. Errors in this replication are the driving force behind evolution. If an organism doesn't reproduce however, it will (by probability) die eventually, and cease to exist.

The highlighted was what I understood Dre. to be asking. Why assume that there are errors in the replication process? If we define life as something that has homeostasis, then lifeforms don't even need to reproduce to be considered alive, let alone reproduce with replication errors. However, as I said earlier, even if there were no mutations during the reproduction process, environmental factors would aid in species diversification. To some, they would just apply it to the definition of life. Maybe while looking for extraterrestrial life, they want to find an organism that has the potential to evolve to be intelligent, which would more or less require an evolutionary process.

 

[gm jack]

This is a bit broken but just addressing your points.

We assume there are errors because probability says so. And the reproducing thing only comes about as anything that can't reproduce is destined to die, and cease to exist. This also completely ignores the probability of something complex enough to regulate homeostasis arising without evolution.

Environmental factors are hugely linked to evolution (factors such as phenotypic plasticity may me major players as drivers of genetic change), so it is fairly well understood how changing environments can lead to effects such as speciation.

Intelligence is not an end point in evolution that much be reached. More complex brains are huge energetic costs, and as such will be detrimental to many species, who can reproduce successfully without anything close to a human definition of intelligence. However, it does appear to be a point of convergence, with several groups (such as the corvids) proving to be very adept in many aspects of what we consider rational thought.