Evolution, Creationisim, Abiogenisis, etc.

[Dr. Paine]

As to the wolves, I understand why you mentioned them, but I don't think wolves are considered a common ancestor to dogs any more than chimpanzees are to humans.

 

Except they are...

 

Unless I am SEVERELY misinformed, there's not even any debate- the common Gray Wolf is the ancestor of all modern dog breeds.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Dr. Paine

[Completely Different]

Okay: the grey wolf is the common ancestor to all dogs. All varieties of dogs came from the breeding of wolves. Originally it would have simply been for those who are more docile and less likely to bite a human's hand off; over time it became more specific. People bred for traits such as speed, good noses, fur colour, etc. This is evident not only the fact that wolves and dogs can produce fertile offspring, but also their highly similar physiology and genetics. In fact, dogs are officially classed as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus familiaris, compared to just the wolf's Canis lupus.)

 

If anyone is interested in the science of domestication, I highly suggest reading about the domestication of foxes in Russia. Long story short: fur trading was big. A fur seller thought it would be more cost effective to have a group of foxes he could breed for fur instead of hunt. They started breeding only the most friendly and playful, so they would be easier to care fore. Over very few generations, they start exhibiting many of the traits of dogs; curled tails, floppy ears, a near perpetual puppy like demenour and wagging tails. Especially ironic is it changed their fur colour patchy, so the fur couldn't even be sold!

 

Also- chimpanzees are not the common ancestor of humans. They aren't like our grandparents- we're more like cousins, sharing metaphorcial grandparents. The exact Last Common Ancestor (LCA) is a little hazy, partly due to new discoveries being made all the time, and a little bit of contention when one species becomes another.* One suggested possibility is the species Pan prior, which lived in Africa about 7 million years ago. Others suggest Austrolipthcines.

 

 

* Side Note: this species thing is merely because on any continuous scale, its hard to pin point exactly where one thing blends into another. After all, on a very detailed colour wheel, could you point out exactly where lime green becomes yellow?

[7Deadly$ins]

Did you just say that the Bible has no contradictions in itself? Seriously?

 

And the wolf is undoubtedly the ancestor of dogs. There isn't even debate about this.

 

As far as the Russian Fox Experiment, you're mostly right Completely Different, but the project was started as an experiment in domestication from the get-go.

[Completely Different]

Did you just say that the Bible has no contradictions in itself? Seriously?

 

And the wolf is undoubtedly the ancestor of dogs. There isn't even debate about this.

 

As far as the Russian Fox Experiment, you're mostly right Completely Different, but the project was started as an experiment in domestication from the get-go.

Hmm? Really? *googles*

 

Well, you seem to be right! Seems that my memory was a bit faulty (or who knows- maybe the article I read all those years ago was wrong.) Still, the main point of the story is the same.

[Kestra15]

Yes.

Whether or not you consider the self-contradictions to actually be as such (the classic example being when you compare the God of the Old Testament, who is quite happy for His people to go off and cause a rampage, to the God of the New Testament who teaches us to turn the other cheek), it is still not a true document. Hence part of why I will always consider Evolution to be superior to Creationism.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Kestra15

[olympe]

As for the magnetic fields, no one simply told me this, I read the scientific paper on it myself. I recommend this article for a short preview of the theory and why it has reason to be supported.

D. Russell Humphreys writes that "all [creationists] agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.!" However, the existence of magnetic field reversals proves that the magnetic field does not, in fact, decay over time, but can also rise (when the reversal is being established). (Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the magnetic field doesn't decay over long periods of time, with some ups and downs in between, but each measurement of a magnetic field is only the status quo of one moment in time and does not tell us whether the field is on the raise or on the decline.

 

Also, if I read the author's Figure 1. correctly, it means that the closer the magnetic field of a celestial body is to its theoretical maximum, the younger it is (as the field is said to decay over time). Correct? If that was true, it would follow that the sun is younger than the Earth (which is according to scripture) as it is much closer to its theoretical maximum than Earth. However, the moon would have to be much, much older than either sun or Earth, as its magnetic field is much weaker than its theoretical maximum. Which, I might point out, is contrary to the creation story. Shouldn't that be evidence enough for a creationist scientist that his theory cannot work within the boundaries of creation as told in the bible?

 

Regarding "loss of information":

 

I know, it's only a sketch. A good sketch, but still a sketch. However, the double-winged fly does exist:

(If you want to google, the flies are fruit flies (Drosophila), and the mutation is called bithorax combined with postbithorax.)

 

Another interesting Drosophila mutation, antennapedia:

Simple loss of information?

 

It doesn't. I took those classes in pursuit of my degree. If one is going to study astrophysics one must of course learn the prevailing theories in that field. (I found them interesting, though sometimes confusing, but I think that goes for all physics classes. (Except quantum, that's just confusing. )-: ))

Too true. (Although I have to admit that I find stellar evolution not all that confusing. But that comes from reading books on astronomy since late 1st grade, I guess.)

Edited February 14, 2012 by olympe

[potterwolf]

What do you mean by "true document", and how do you know it isn't true? Do you have substantial evidence to disprove any Biblical claims that the rest of the world lacks? Because as far as I recall, on matters of history the Bible has been shown to be completely correct, disregarding accounts of miracles that can never be proven of course.

What? How can the Bible have been shown to be 100% historically accurate? There's absolutely no way that that's true, unless i've been drastically misinformed. You're telling me that every place, every person, every historical event mentioned in the bible has been confirmed by historians using other sources? *skeptical* Or am i misunderstanding?

[TikindiDragon]

What?  How can the Bible have been shown to be 100% historically accurate? There's absolutely no way that that's true, unless i've been drastically misinformed. You're telling me that every place, every person, every historical event mentioned in the bible has been confirmed by historians using other sources? *skeptical* Or am i misunderstanding?

You're probably misunderstanding, although I may have interpreted Phil wrong so I hope he'll correct me if I have.

 

Where the Bible references historical Kings etc, it concurrs with current historical/archaeological evidence. There are some interesting cases where a ruler previously thought to only have been mentioned in the Bible has been 'discovered' by historians, and independantly placed in the historical timeline in the same spot the Bible placed them.

 

Broadly this applies to Kings and Chronicles (which are almost the same thing anyway - reading them can get tedious at times).

 

Edit: arrg. Awfully grammaticaly incorrect sentance!

Edited February 14, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[Kai]

That's a completely absurd comparison. There is a clear difference between variation of beak length and a non-bird species evolving into birds and sprouting beaks. Especially since the beak lengths fluctuate depending on environmental conditions and will often eventually return to what they were in the first place, no progressive "forward" evolutionary motion having taken place. Please stop assuming that all those who reject evolution as an explanation for multiple species are ignorant. I would highly appreciate it.

Hey man, I don't belive the rest of your post has any value because you don't realise that there is no direction of evolution. This suggests your understanding of the term is funamdentally flawed.

 

Yes.

lol.

 

For starters I will say this is dated material.

So what? Old things aren't wrong by default.

 

Second, who is G. Brent Dalrymple and why can his research be consider legitimate? Especially on such a wide variety of topics, I doubt he is an expert in them all.

Of course he isn't. This is why he references numerous papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

As for the magnetic fields, no one simply told me this, I read the scientific paper on it myself. I recommend this article for a short preview of the theory and why it has reason to be supported.

Look it's not a scientific paper. You don't science by first stating a belief and then talking about it.

 

http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

 

Since half of your 'article's references are from that 'journal' I'd say it's pretty dead.

 

And seriously if you can actually point out evidence for creation (which is impossible because it's unfalsifiable), go pick up your Nobel prize.

 

The reply given to salt in the ocean is based on the assumption of steady state (what goes in = what comes out) which is untrue. Unfortunately I have no article to reference to back it up, but then the one the site claims I cannot access to verify.

Bad luck. At least my paper exists.

 

No, of course not. The common ancestor had the information to be large or small. For the chihuahua: Smaller and smaller dogs were selected and bred over time, resulting in the small dog. For the great dane the opposite, large, was selected. (No doubt other traits were also chosen, but let's keep it at these two.)

They came from a common ancestor, which hence had the information to be both large and small, though it was likely manifested by being of medium build. The chihuahua is small, it cannot be large, it has lost the ability, the information. The great dane is large...

How do you know chihuahuas still don't "have the information" to be large, but only "manifest" small, since the common ancestor, having "the information" to be any size, could somehow "manifest" a medium build??? Yeah this is full of holes, sounds more like a fantasy.

 

As to the wolves, I understand why you mentioned them, but I don't think wolves are considered a common ancestor to dogs any more than chimpanzees are to humans.

This is another one where you're just factually incorrect.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Kai

[elderberrysyrup]

In order for life to have started from one celled organisms, eventually creating the diverse life you see around you, yeah, there would have to be some sort of direction there. Evolution as an explanation for diversity of species demands forward progress from single celled organisms into larger organisms. However you take evolutionary theory as it stands now, at some point before there were all these species abundant on the earth, there was a forward progress that took place to create more complex creatures. I don't see how you can deny that.

I believe you misunderstand. It's not that there is a specific direction of evolution like the genes and genetics are pushed specifically towards more complex factors. It's the random mutations and effects, of which only the non-harmful or beneficial are given the opportunity to spread their genes. If you mash together a bunch of molecules for millions of years, eventually you're going to find amazing stuff. That doesn't mean a God exists, that just means you mashed together molecules for millions of years. Evolution works on the same principle, given million and billions of years of random gene mutations along with the fact that certain genes work in an environment where other genes don't, you're going to find some amazing stuff. It doesn't mean it had any real direction, it just means things were mashed together long enough.

[Alpha1]

In order for life to have started from one celled organisms, eventually creating the diverse life you see around you, yeah, there would have to be some sort of direction there. Evolution as an explanation for diversity of species demands forward progress from single celled organisms into larger organisms. However you take evolutionary theory as it stands now, at some point before there were all these species abundant on the earth, there was a forward progress that took place to create more complex creatures. I don't see how you can deny that.

 

All from naturalistic explanations such as mutations, gene flow, and genetic drift.

 

It seems like you assume it's impossible to get this diversity because you would need an intelligence behind it. Is that the case?

 

Riddle me this: Why is there a sexual arms race in ducks? How does the male "know" how to get his reproductive organs to corkscrew one way, and the female "know" how to get her reproductive organs to corkscrew the other way with dead-end pits?

 

As I said before, aside from many other arguments, genetics disproves your biblical belief in kinds. There's no reason why organisms that are linked with morphological data would have similar protein sequences, since there is an astronomical amount of sequences that could code for the same protein. Many changes would contribute very little to the structure and function of the protein, and it is predicted that related organisms would carry recent changes to the primary sequences. Only common descent can explain it.

 

 

[olympe]

Only common descent can explain it.

Or a creator with a certain lack of creativitiy...

 

Regarding direction in evolution: As it happens, there is no direction, only change. However, in hindsight, you will see a direction. Like with governments: You cannot predict which party will win the election in the year x, but if you look at historical data, you will see certain trends. (For example, that most US presidents get re-elected, or that the next president will belong to the other party than his predecessor.)

[elderberrysyrup]

Or a creator with a certain lack of creativitiy...

'The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles.'

 

Chart Comparing Diversity

 

Beetles being, of course, almost 1/4th of that.

[Alpha1]

Or a creator with a certain lack of creativitiy...

 

[Rosedamai]

Regarding direction in evolution: As it happens, there is no direction, only change.

Example: Sharks. Sharks are optimized for the environment that they live in, and no longer needs to change. If things were really supposed to change into more complex systems, thus implying a sense of direction, they would have developed some sort of detection systems to stay away from shark-fin hunters and such. Doesn't happen.

[Kai]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that it's anywhere CLOSE to proof for a designer. If it was, we wouldn't be having this argument. Just answering Kai's claim that evolution has a "direction." I don't disagree, but my point is that at some point there had to be some "forward progress" to more complex organisms if you will. Again, I'm not making any claims about God or creation or anything here. Just making clear that I personally don't believe the observed adaptation in the world today is clear enough evidence or a good enough explanation for species diversity. The assumption that anyone who disbelieves in the theory of evolution is merely ignorant is ridiculous and rather offensive. I don't claim to know as much as any of you (just a high school junior here), but saying that those who reject evolution are ignorant and uneducated is both untrue and offensive to creationist PhD's everywhere. I'm not really equipped to argue anything further in this level of discussion.

Dude evolution is like gravity, it's there whether you believe it or not and whether you're offended or not. I like how you have to put "forward progress" in quotes because you just made up a definition that doesn't exist.

 

How exactly is there no denying that a human is more complex than a bacterium? IF you go look up genome lengths you'll find that a lot of simple things have longer code than humans. If you want to put forward an alternative objective measure that would be nice because "there's no denying" isn't evidence, it's just your judgment.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Kai

[elderberrysyrup]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that it's anywhere CLOSE to proof for a designer. If it was, we wouldn't be having this argument. Just answering Kai's claim that evolution has a "direction." I don't disagree, but my point is that at some point there had to be some "forward progress" to more complex organisms if you will. Again, I'm not making any claims about God or creation or anything here. Just making clear that I personally don't believe the observed adaptation in the world today is clear enough evidence or a good enough explanation for species diversity. The assumption that anyone who disbelieves in the theory of evolution is merely ignorant is ridiculous and rather offensive. I don't claim to know as much as any of you (just a high school junior here), but saying that those who reject evolution are ignorant and uneducated is both untrue and offensive to creationist PhD's everywhere. I'm not really equipped to argue anything further in this level of discussion.

Oh no, I'm not here to try and offend you. I'm just a freshman in College. I largely don't rap on creationist folk because they're creationist, I'm just discussing your points in particular, which may not jive with things very well. May I ask what kind of evidence you're looking for that would 'absolutely' prove such things?

 

(Also, everything is not as varied as you think. Don't all animals or so use only 20 or so of the same amino acids?)

Edited February 16, 2012 by soullesshuman

[olympe]

That may be so, but assuming there are 20... The number of possible combinations would be 20!, a factoral right?

Not really. Because, although there are only 21 (=20 or so) different amino acids in eukaryotes, each and every protein can contain any number of amino acids - they're not 20 amino acids long, usually much longer (by using the same 21 amino acids over and over again). Thus, the number of combination is - practically - infinte.

 

One cell versus untold trillions of cells.

Happens all the time. See...

Plants:

Chlamydomonas => Gonium => Eudorina =>

Volvox (especially evolution of the multi-cellular "colonies", which took time in the Triassic period, when the dinosaurs already roamed the land)

Bacteria:

Cyanobacteria

A similar variability can be found in green algae (everything from single cells, small cell colonies to big colonies to real multi-cell algae), red algae (single cells, small cell colonies to thalli (= plant bodies) made from filaments, which is a stage between a colony and a multi-cell organism) and brown algae (everything but single cells can be found). And, surprise, they all evolved independently and in different times. (Cyanobacterium colonies reach as far back as 2.7 billion years at least, probably even 3.5 billion years (in the form of stromatolites); red algae have been multicellular for at least 1.2 billion years; brown algae - which already are multicellular - developed about 150 to 200 million years ago). Also, look at the biology of slime molds: Usually, they live as amoeba-like single cells, but they can form plasmodia, which are large "cells" with many nuclei, and they even build fruiting bodies like funghi. More infomation on slime molds There are also some funghi which can exist both as single cells (like yeast) or in mulitcellular hyphenous bodies.

[elderberrysyrup]

I'm not trying to play the "I'm offended" card here to avoid intellectual discussion. It just seems to be a common misconception that anyone who disagrees with evolution is uneducated, ignorant, stupid, hillbilly, etc. It gets a little old after awhile.

 

Not sure exactly. But I've never seen anything even remotely convincing enough to lead me to believe that random chance and natural selection could develop all the beautiful things I've seen from single cells.

 

That may be so, but assuming there are 20... The number of possible combinations would be 20!, a factoral right? So there are 2.4329 X 10^18 possible combinations. That's 2,432,900,000,000,000,000 combinations. That's a hell. of. a. lot. And that's just combinations of amino acids not factoring anything else in.

I'm not saying that the possibilities of amino acid chains (proteins) aren't amazing, I'm just saying the entire variation of animalia aren't as varied as you might think, therefore we can't say 'everything is too varied to be from evolution' because they simply aren't like completely isolated from one another, they all share characteristics that can be explained by evolution. I don't know about creationism, but saying 'and then everything was made as it was' doesn't explain changes in species. I mean, stuff like those of the moths changing color, or the sewer mosquitoes. Aren't the sewer mosquitoes considered a distinct species now? Did they just 'pop up' as per creationist explanation?

[Kai]

Adaptation is there whether I believe it or not, but accepting macroevolution is not a given.

 

lol macroevolution is just a term you learned on the internet that doesn't mean anything. It's as if you believe in the movement of balls but not the movement of planets, because one is microgravity and one is macrogravity.

 

One cell versus untold trillions of cells. Complex life functions, reasoning abilities, societies, and technology... Come on.

 

"Come on" doesn't mean anything. Evolution's forward progress is purely in more adapted organisms but this only incidentally results in more complex ones.

 

Not sure exactly. But I've never seen anything even remotely convincing enough to lead me to believe that random chance and natural selection could develop all the beautiful things I've seen from single cells.

 

It's not my fault you haven't seen these things. Go major biology.

[olympe]

I'm not quite sure what your point is... would you mind clarifying?

Well, I decided to give you a bit of input on the first of the little problems you have with evolution:

One cell versus untold trillions of cells.

If you peruse the links I gave you, you'll see that

There is not a change from single cell organisms to organisms with untold trillions of cells, but many steps in between - which is considered a clear indication for evolution, not creation.

These steps can still be found in nature. (As a matter of fact, I had several volvox colonies under a microscope once. Very beautiful sight. And you wouldn't believe how fast these things move! But I digress...)

Obviously, seeing the various dates when the step from single cells to multicellular organisms happened, it has happened more than once, and in more than just one group of beings (bacteria, algae, slime molds, sponges, polypes...)

This leads to the conclusion that multi-cell organisms have a distinct advantage over single cells.

Also, you cannot argue with the "loss of information" argument from before. Just look at the development from Chlamydomonas to Volvox: Neither Gonium, Eudorina nor Volvox "lost" their ability to divide their cells completely, but they actually build some gelatinous mass to stay together. And Volvox cells (of some species, not all!), which still consists of cells which look and behave just like Chlamydomonas cells, are actually interconnected by thin strands of cytoplasm. The cells of a Volvox "colony" even move in sync! Additionally Volvox has differentiated cells for reproduction, which makes it "more" than just a colony. Also, some species of the Volvox family developed sexual reproduction, which is way more complicated than asexual reproduction. Can you really argue with loss of information here?

 

Hmm. This also starts to cover your next point:

Complex life functions, reasoning abilities, societies, and technology

 

I'd go so far as to claim that societies and technology are a logical consequence of social beings with great reasoning abilities. Which only leaves the reasoning abilities... I'll reserve that for another day, though. (It's past 11 PM over here...)

[Kai]

No, it's the difference between coding that already exists and adding new information. It's the difference between adaptation and creating new species. And no, I didn't learn this term on the internet thanks. High school biology. If you can't argue past stupid ad hominem jabs then I see no point in continuing this. Say something that matters without personal attacks please.

 

If you learned 'macroevolution' in high school biology then that teacher should have taught that the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one, only a difference of time and scale. This is the original way the term was used in science and creationists have obviously perverted it.

 

I didn't say it was your "fault." But I've participated in many of these discussions and nothing has convinced me yet. I'd be happy to introduce you to a creationist biology major. And chemistry professor. And physics teacher. Me personally, I'm going to major in government. Again, you're making the assumption that anyone who believes in creationism just clearly isn't educated enough, clearly not the case.

 

I didn't say that, I said that if you're not convinced by the evidence for evolution that means you've never looked. Whether or not you believe in creation doesn't matter, of course if you think it does then that's a flaw with your reasoning.

[Alpha1]

The assumption that anyone who disbelieves in the theory of evolution is merely ignorant is ridiculous and rather offensive. I don't claim to know as much as any of you (just a high school junior here), but saying that those who reject evolution are ignorant and uneducated is both untrue and offensive to creationist PhD's everywhere.  I'm not really equipped to argue anything further in this level of discussion.

 

They refuse to acknowledge the evidence because many believe it disproves Christianity. That's where their conviction relies, but the evidence doesn't support it. The evidence extends to several fields of science, and it includes: fossil record showing less complex ---> more complex organisms and timeline and transition is coherent in an evolutionary context); conserved synteny (God can’t put a puzzle together?); molecular and morphological studies proving phylogeny to a precision greater than constants such as the gravitational constant G or the charge of an electron; endogenous retroviruses and transposons inserted in same locations in different organisms; atavisms such as hindlimbs in whales, extra toes in horses, dew claws in many dog breeds, snake with legs. Etc.

 

Creationist Ph.D’s everywhere?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

“Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.”

 

Many Creationists who have Ph’D’s like Jason Gastrich and Kent Hovind get their degrees from unaccredited diploma mills that have extremely low standards.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03...rsity_has_a.php

 

For example, here’s Patriot University where Kent Hovind got his degree.

 

 

No, it's the difference between coding that already exists and adding new information.

 

Nylon-eating bacteria. Teacup chilhuahua vs. Bandog. Gonorrhea has recently acquired a piece of human DNA. Polyploidy in plants and some lizards and other organisms. Etc.

 

There is not a change from single cell organisms to organisms with untold trillions of cells, but many steps in between - which is considered a clear indication for evolution, not creation.

 

This is where experimental evolution comes in.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/10/1115323109

 

Experimental evolution of multicellularity

 

“Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. […]”

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Paine]

Gonorrhea has recently acquired a piece of human DNA.

 

Wait, wat? ._.

[Alpha1]

Wait, wat? ._.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10213174143.htm

 

Gonorrhea Acquires a Piece of Human DNA: First Evidence of Gene Transfer from Human Host to Bacterial Pathogen

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20209101844.htm

 

Scientists Sound Alarm Over Threat of Untreatable Gonorrhea in United States

 

ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2012)

 

Also becoming resistant to all current drug treatments....