Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[thesometimesaint]

Micro evolution is an observable process of variation in a specie.  Scientist claim these variations develop into new specie which has resulted in the multitude of life forms that are now and have been here on the earth having developed from simple single cell life.  Macro-evolution can not be observed so it is all extrapolation from observed micro-evolution. 

 

tss is fond of the example of the changes derived in the bacteria experiment but the fact is that after over 31,000 (i think) generations and some interesting changes they are still bacteria.

 

I use that example because it clearly has been demonstrated in the lab, They are a different species of bacteria. Macro Evolution is just Micro evolution over sufficient time to produce a new species. IE; 30.000 generations of E.Coli bacteria isn't very long by human standards, about 250 days. While 30,000 generations of Bristle Cone Pines is a very long time by human standards, about 15 million years. That 15 million years is plenty of time for the Hominidae family(us) to separate from the Hylobatidae family(Gibbons).

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#mediaviewer/File:Fossil_hominids.jpg

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

[Uncle Dale]

I use that example because it clearly has been demonstrated in the lab...

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, it's just a matter of time before some

respected journal publishes an extended study of flatworms, over,

say a decade or two. They're more complex critters than the single

cell lifeforms, but I'm fairly certain that a population can eventually

be developed that cannot successfully interchange genetic material

with their ancestral look-alikes.

 

But that too will be dismissed as nothing but "micro-evolution" and

useless for proving that people descended from ringtail monkeys.

 

UD

[bcuzbcuz]

To correspond with the Cosmos thread here...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63085-cosmos-are-you-watching/

...I thought one might also be interested in the 'Your Inner Fish' Series. It's quite good. Evolution, Fossils, Embryos, Genetics, and yes, even Sonic Hedgehog (very important, you'll just have to watch). Try episode one:

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/watch/

I think most people will come away with a much better sense of what Evolution is and the science behind it. Have not detected any anti-religion/anti-Christian sentiment so far. My own belief in God is strengthened by seeing how His intricate creation works, is put together, and made.

I just realized that I've added my comments to this topic, several times, without thanking you for your original post. I looked up those programs (Inner Fish) from my satellite provider and have thoroughly enjoyed them. The format of the programmes and the quality of computer animation and the expertise of the interviewed scientists was very impressive.

Thank you.

Edited February 27, 2015 by bcuzbcuz

[SmileyMcGee]

Thanks for the advice. As to your points:

#1 - I don't need ample evidence for evolution. I've made it clear I am a proponent of evolution. Why is that so hard to understand?

#2 - I do have an understanding of genetics. I don't see what genetics has to do with evolution. TSS has been trying to convice me that genetics is evolution, but it is not.

Evolution occurs when an organism receives a mutation via some pathway and in a place where the mutation can be passed along to a descendant organism, AND when that mutation either does not impede the survival of the descendant, or improves the survival of the descendant. If the mutation impedes survival, and if it does so before the organism can pass the new trait to a descendant, then the mutation dies off. Of course, even a beneficial mutation can be lost through accident (such as the mutated organism getting eaten before it can reproduce). If the mutation does not impede survival, then it may be passed on to a descendant. If enough beneficial mutations accumulate, such that the descendant organisms are no longer like the ancestral organism, then speciation is said to occur. Thus we have many different species in a given genus.

Now, some folks look at this and say that mutations are completely random (thru cosmic rays, chemical-induction, or copying errors). I look at this and say that mutations may be random or they may be directed by an omnipotent Designer. I'll allow both, if you want, but it should be clear that an omnipotent and omniscient Designer is perfectly in control of even random mutations -- this makes them ultimately non-random, but whatever.

You can't prove me wrong in my belief, because my belief is not falsifiable. It is impossible to prove that I am wrong. Of course it's not science, but then again I am not claiming that it is.

You may still want to cure me of my error, but you haven't a leg to stand on. And you don't NEED to prove me wrong. If you disagree with me, so what? Does my belief gore your ox? If it does, then your are quite simply a control freak.

I wasn't trying to prove any of your supernatural beliefs wrong; I realize they can't be. I posted those points because you appeared to misrepresent the theory of evolution. You seemed to vacillate between conflicting ideas, but thank you for clearing that up.

[Calm]

I use that example because it clearly has been demonstrated in the lab, They are a different species of bacteria. Macro Evolution is just Micro evolution over sufficient time to produce a new species. IE; 30.000 generations of E.Coli bacteria isn't very long by human standards, about 250 days. While 30,000 generations of Bristle Cone Pines is a very long time by human standards, about 15 million years. That 15 million years is plenty of time for the Hominidae family(us) to separate from the Hylobatidae family(Gibbons).

I believe the argument is that it isn't the absolute length of time that should matter most, but the number of generations…if 30,000 generations is sufficient for macroevolution to occur in one species, why wouldn't it appear in 30,000 generations of bacteria?  Not anything significantly more complex than bacteria, but say something closer to eukaryotes as described here as part of the believed evolutionary chain:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

I think this the study: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. And that's a great example! I agree that if this were the only type of evidence then speciation may require some serious extrapolation and I would even agree the idea initially was purely extrapolation, as most untested theories are. But when the predictive power of the theory has been confirmed again and again, extrapolation no longer characterizes the theory appropriately. The theory can predict what types of fossils should be found and where they should be found. It predicts previously unknown relationships between species and the genetic makeup of the species. It also has incredible explanatory power: why do some snakes has small vestiges of legs? Why do whales have phalanges? And why don't sharks? Evolution can powerfully explain these questions.

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code

Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures

Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"

Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry

Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry

Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species

Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"

From: http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the argument is that it isn't the absolute length of time that should matter most, but the number of generations…if 30,000 generations is sufficient for macroevolution to occur in one species, why wouldn't it appear in 30,000 generations of bacteria?  Not anything significantly more complex than bacteria, but say something closer to eukaryotes as described here as part of the believed evolutionary chain:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03

 

That isn't how evolution works. There is no absolute minimum or maximum number of generations needed for all organisms. Only that at some point the two groups diverged from their common ancestor. Not all bacteria evolve at the same rate. With the E.Coli bacteria it took 30000 generations of separation for some to evolve into a different species. 

 

Again not all eukaryotes evolved into more complex lifeforms. All that is necessary is for some to diverge enough to become a different species.

SEE

For a more in-depth look.

SEE

[SmileyMcGee]

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code

Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures

Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"

Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry

Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry

Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species

Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"

From: http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Can you articulate why these are actual problems and not just a collection of logical fallacies?

[Grudunza]

1 and 2: Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life or DNA. Look to abiogenesis or meteors crashing on Earth with DNA or God spontaneously starting life. I believe some combination of that is what started it, but evolution has no stake in that issue.

3: Random mutations might not be able to account for the complexity of the human eye, but evolution is not random. Natural selection makes preferential selections that can indeed create complex structures in a relatively short time. Have monkeys sitting at typewriters for years and they will never likely type "To be or not to be," but make it so that when a letter is correct it stays in place, and look for "tobeornottobe" and you'll find that happen quickly.

4-10: Similarly faulty logic and assumptions that someone else with more time today can hopefully cover.

[Rob Osborn]

1 and 2: Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life or DNA. Look to abiogenesis or meteors crashing on Earth with DNA or God spontaneously starting life. I believe some combination of that is what started it, but evolution has no stake in that issue.

3: Random mutations might not be able to account for the complexity of the human eye, but evolution is not random. Natural selection makes preferential selections that can indeed create complex structures in a relatively short time. Have monkeys sitting at typewriters for years and they will never likely type "To be or not to be," but make it so that when a letter is correct it stays in place, and look for "tobeornottobe" and you'll find that happen quickly.

4-10: Similarly faulty logic and assumptions that someone else with more time today can hopefully cover.

Evolution has everything to say about chemical evolution and how life first began. Random mutations are just that- random. Otherwise one would have to admit that the mutations were planned, intelligent operations, of the which, they are not. Random mutations happen and sometimes those mutations result in a benefit to a species. Most often though, those random mutations spell disaster for a species.

Monkeys and typewriters...why dont we just be truthful here and say that first the monkey has to make the typewriter before they type out the book. Good luck!

There is nothing logical about evolutionary theory which believes it is sole responsible for all life.

[TMESSENGER]

I believe the Bible, the only true information as who is God. This information, is condensed for the simple reason, we would not be able to understand certain concepts/teachings because we would not understand them if God really put the real information in total entity...much like a father explaining to his son how he was created...I kissed mommy, and then you were born see?

The Bible than is my foundation of what I believe, so when I read the Bible in Genesis, there are other parts in the Bible that corroborate/affirm  these teachings/concepts as coming from God.

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution has everything to say about chemical evolution and how life first began. Random mutations are just that- random. Otherwise one would have to admit that the mutations were planned, intelligent operations, of the which, they are not. Random mutations happen and sometimes those mutations result in a benefit to a species. Most often though, those random mutations spell disaster for a species.

Monkeys and typewriters...why dont we just be truthful here and say that first the monkey has to make the typewriter before they type out the book. Good luck!

There is nothing logical about evolutionary theory which believes it is sole responsible for all life.

 

Incorrect. Evolution is about how life changed once it got here. Abiogenesis is how simple chemical and mechanical processes could produce very simple not quite living things. Evolution is not random it merely says that any given species will produce more offspring than can live long enough to reproduce. That only those individuals that reproduce will add their genetics to the gene pool. Most mutations are neutral and have no effect on the survivability of the individual.

 

The monkeys and typewrites example you use is without merit.

SEE

 

CFR

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect. Evolution is about how life changed once it got here. Abiogenesis is how simple chemical and mechanical processes could produce very simple not quite living things. Evolution is not random it merely says that any given species will produce more offspring than can live long enough to reproduce. That only those individuals that reproduce will add their genetics to the gene pool. Most mutations are neutral and have no effect on the survivability of the individual.

 

The monkeys and typewrites example you use is without merit.

SEE

 

CFR

You are wrong on many levels. Go read your evolution chapter in any biology book.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the Bible, the only true information as who is God. This information, is condensed for the simple reason, we would not be able to understand certain concepts/teachings because we would not understand them if God really put the real information in total entity...much like a father explaining to his son how he was created...I kissed mommy, and then you were born see?

The Bible than is my foundation of what I believe, so when I read the Bible in Genesis, there are other parts in the Bible that corroborate/affirm  these teachings/concepts as coming from God.

 

Welcome to the Glass Menagerie.

 

Teleological Argument and Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[thesometimesaint]

You are wrong on many levels. Go read your evolution chapter in any biology book.

 

Answer the CFR.

[Uncle Dale]

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

 

 

 

As I've mentioned a few times, I live out here in the midst of nowhere,

and not far away, on the ocean floor, are the volcanic vents around

which multiple lifeforms congregate -- deep down, far from sunlight,

each one is a veritable oasis of life in an otherwise extensive desert

of deep sea nothingness.

 

Now, I'm not saying that tubeworms and pigment-free blind crabs

first evolved around these black smokers, but I do say that they

provide a chemical-rich "primordial soup" environment, where we

can identify organic chemistry and the natural rock-fissures which

serve as artificial membranes at a microscopic level.

 

It might be argued that they supply no "primordial soup" already

salted with the necessary precursors of RNA -- but, at the very 

least they provide a happy home for anaerobic bacteria -- just

the sort of primitive lifeforms evolutions say were once the most

advanced microbes living on a planet without oxygen rich air.

 

UD

[danielwoods]

Can you articulate why these are actual problems and not just a collection of logical fallacies?

 

The article from which they come is rather long. Which particular one did you want to discuss? 

[danielwoods]

1 and 2: Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life or DNA. Look to abiogenesis or meteors crashing on Earth with DNA or God spontaneously starting life. I believe some combination of that is what started it, but evolution has no stake in that issue.

3: Random mutations might not be able to account for the complexity of the human eye, but evolution is not random. Natural selection makes preferential selections that can indeed create complex structures in a relatively short time. Have monkeys sitting at typewriters for years and they will never likely type "To be or not to be," but make it so that when a letter is correct it stays in place, and look for "tobeornottobe" and you'll find that happen quickly.

4-10: Similarly faulty logic and assumptions that someone else with more time today can hopefully cover.

 

The key to your whole statement is that you believe it happened. These theories can't be demonstrated, because it's based on faith. The ten points are problems that the theories run into when put in real life. 

 

For example, your idea that DNA just rode in on a meteorite. Great, where's the evidence? And where did the DNA come from? Where has it ever been observed that DNA can survive such a trip (Radiation/Heat/Cold) and even then thrive once it lands? 

 

It's all just baseless fantasy unless you have actual evidence. 

[danielwoods]

As I've mentioned a few times, I live out here in the midst of nowhere,

and not far away, on the ocean floor, are the volcanic vents around

which multiple lifeforms congregate -- deep down, far from sunlight,

each one is a veritable oasis of life in an otherwise extensive desert

of deep sea nothingness.

 

Now, I'm not saying that tubeworms and pigment-free blind crabs

first evolved around these black smokers, but I do say that they

provide a chemical-rich "primordial soup" environment, where we

can identify organic chemistry and the natural rock-fissures which

serve as artificial membranes at a microscopic level.

 

It might be argued that they supply no "primordial soup" already

salted with the necessary precursors of RNA -- but, at the very 

least they provide a happy home for anaerobic bacteria -- just

the sort of primitive lifeforms evolutions say were once the most

advanced microbes living on a planet without oxygen rich air.

 

UD

 

Interesting that the article linked before addresses your theory:

 

"Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water."

[14.] Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council, The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, p. 60 (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007).

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041#fn14

[Uncle Dale]

Interesting that the article linked before addresses your theory:

"Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water."

[14.] Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council, The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, p. 60 (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007).

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041#fn14

I'm not one to argue with what did or did not exist

back in Adam's day (or before that if he really is

a fictional first father) but experts smarter, wiser

and better educated than I am, say that the vents

are worth our study.

None of which means that the very first chain of

self-replicating proteins was born in, near, or

even as deeply hidden as our Pacific vents. I'd

be open to hearing a more nuanced argument

for the bacteria, and even more primitive, less

complex microbes, migrating to the vents early

on, and finding a happy home there.

Then again, I can safely bet that there is some

highly self-assured creation scientist lurking

out "there," just waiting to voice his testimony,

informing us that God Himself made the blind

white crabs, and placed them beside the vents

on day four or five of our planet's birth.

UD

Why create a crab with eyes that cannot see

is a thing quite beyond my limited imagination.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting that the article linked before addresses your theory:

 

"Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water."

[14.] Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council, The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, p. 60 (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007).

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041#fn14

Metabolism without life, RNA, and DNA formed in lab

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VPKo9y499lc

SEE http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=814372

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

 

There may well be life on Europa and Titan.

SEE http://www.space.com/20536-jupiter-moon-europa-life-ingredients.html

SEE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150227181333.htm

Edited March 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Answer the CFR.

A CFR for monkeys and typewriters?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.

 

Moreover

SEE

[SmileyMcGee]

The article from which they come is rather long. Which particular one did you want to discuss?

Since you are effectively asserting that all of them are challenges why not discuss all of them? But feel free start with any of them

Edited March 1, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Evolution has everything to say about chemical evolution and how life first began. Random mutations are just that- random. Otherwise one would have to admit that the mutations were planned, intelligent operations, of the which, they are not. Random mutations happen and sometimes those mutations result in a benefit to a species. Most often though, those random mutations spell disaster for a species.

Monkeys and typewriters...why dont we just be truthful here and say that first the monkey has to make the typewriter before they type out the book. Good luck!

There is nothing logical about evolutionary theory which believes it is sole responsible for all life.

"All I know is that if I don't understand abiogenesis or we haven't replicated it yet in a lab, then all of evolution is false and ID is true." This is the essence of your argument. Edited March 1, 2015 by SmileyMcGee