Science Disproves Evolution

[skep]

Let’s stick with transitional fossils for a minute, just because I think they’re cool.

Instead of spamming us with nonsense from a creationist propaganda website why don’t you explain (in your own words would be nice) why you deny the existence of transitional fossils? 

We could start with transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays if you like.  Or primitive jawless fish to bony fish.  From primitive bony fish to amphibians, or just list the transitions among the amphibians:

Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
   
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.

Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.

Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.

Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
   
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.

Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.)

We could carry from amphibians to amniotes, from synapsid reptiles to mammals, from diapsid reptiles to birds... throw in a few primates for good measure…

I suspect I am wasting my time here as you are claiming that none of these exist.

[Old Mike]

I fear you are, Skep.
Evolution is proved every time an insect or bacterium specis develops resistance to something that previously killed its members.

[so what]

Skep & Old Mike

The examples given by Skep are multi-celled complex organisms, and are not relevant to this discussion.
Pahu clearly is looking for a transition in micro organisms, specifically the transitions from 1 to 20 cells.

Secondly, the examples given are placed in an evolutionary scale of development which is still a hypothesis.
Whilst science can prove certain species belong in family groups, science has not (yet) the ability to prove that such species are transitional stages.
The examples given are members of a evolutionary hypothesis, which is used to give direction to scientific investigation.
The fallacy of this hypothesis is continuously proven as the hypothesis is ammended very regulary.

With regards to the statement that evolution proves itself through organisms becoming resistant, this unfortunately is incorrect.
When an organism becomes resistant to a disease, it is not changing its cellular structure.
It is only activating functions which were present all along.

Its like learning how to read or speak, and falls in a complete different evolutionary category than growing a third leg, or developing wings to fly.

En facto, the statement also disproves evolution.
An insect or bacterium cannot develop resistance that previously killed its members simply because it has no knowledge of what killed its family. It only has knowledge of what tries to kill him, and by unlocking already present functions it manages to fight off the killer.
The "unlock" may be passed on through reproduction.
But the insect or bacteria will never grow out of its species and will forever remain to be an insect or a bacteria.

How does this disprove evolution?
Quite simple, the process described is "learning through experience". If this would be the evolutionary process, than the first living cell on earth would have nothing to learn from and would therefor have no urge to develop or reproduce, with this making sure evolution could not have happened.

Learning through experience might have played a part in evolution, it does not prove it at all.

The evolutionary matter Pahu is referring to is of a complete different magnitude and far more important than the simple modifications you guys come up with.

[Old Mike]

If a large population of insects is treated with insecticide the vast majority die. A few survive and breed, and some of their ofspring inherit their parents' resistance. This is precisely what natural selection means. Over thousands of generations individual small variations accumulate until the progeny of the millionth generation or so are so different from the original that they cannot interbred and a new species has emerged.

[mr platohead]

so what ... Old Mike, as he just said, isn't talking about Lamarckianism here. As mentioned, the resistance to pesticide is the result of a random genetic mutation.

If there's no pesticide, the gene would not be obvious with respect to behaviour, and may be removed from the gene pool if there is no advantage, or if there is an actual disadvantage, to having that gene in a world without pesticide.

But with no disadvantage, the gene might mosey along down the generations. Once pesticide appears, that gene would provide an advantage to the host, and there'd then be an explosion of pesticide-resistance genes in the population, due to the fact that non-resistant individuals would rapidly be killed off, while resistant ones would remain.

The problem with creationists is that they take lack of proof for hypothesis A to mean proof for hypothesis B. So yes, there may be some problems with our understanding of evolution, but that doesn't mean the universe is 3,800 years old (or whatever it is the Bible says) and that God created anything.

[so what]

Platohead, I dont care whether creationists can prove if God created the world. I know they cannot. I also know Evolutionists cannot prove their hypothesis.

But, the way evolution is described by Old Mike and yourself, also validates Pahu's point that it is highly remarkable (if not questionable) that we are unable to find organisms of 2-20 cells.
If indeed evulotion is a process over many generations and over many years, proof of existance in this category should be abundant.

As said before, Pahu's question is of a much larger magnitude than some simple gene mutations, leading to the development of a new species.
We are talking about (the first) one-celled organism, having the "urge" due to external or internal factors, to reproduce into a multi-celled organism.
In order for this cell to be te common ancestor of all living things, this one cell should carry the genetic blueprint of all living things.

This said, it makes Old Mikes example absurd as the sudden arise of an insecticide is not natural and can therefor not cause natural selection to occur.

It also makes your statement of gene removal highly unlikely. Especially in the first billion years of evolution when the variety of genes were required to form the different species.

And finally, evolution does not ONLY involve the mutation of a random gene. On the contrary, evolution can only take place if the mutation takes place in the reproductive genes and then still it has to become the leading frequency.
Such mutations are then captured in the dna structure and passed on as a normal prerequisite.

Genes dont care about the organism they thrive in, and a mutation of the gene will only take place if that gene is stimulated directly.

Meantime this is one of the problems evolution is facing. In principle the mutation of a gene is considered to be a defect of the host and causes immediate extinction.

There simply is no proof for macro evolution to have taken place.
It is a hypothesis and its as plausible as creationism.

Let me explain my understanding of macro evolution by giving you an example.
Lets say I have a 10 cent coin. I leave it on the table and after many millions of years so many silver elements have clung to it that it became a 20 cent coin. (this is micro evolution)
After another millions of years, the coin has crown to be a silver dollar (micro evolution as well).
But then, after some more millions of years the coin has evolved to a 10 dollar paper bill. Now that's macro evolution.

If we were to find Pahu's missing cells, then evolution would have examples of macro evolution and our origins could possibly be explained.

Meantime, I just sit back awaiting science to convince me.
As long as the universal laws of "nothing cannot become something" and "chaos cannot create order" maintain to apply...I find very little plausibility in far fetched biological hypothesis that do not only contradict these laws, but also fail to proof themselves.

[God himself]

Platohead, I dont care whether creationists can prove if God created the world. I know they cannot. I also know Evolutionists cannot prove their hypothesis.
...
Meantime, I just sit back awaiting science to convince me.
As long as the universal laws of "nothing cannot become something" and "chaos cannot create order" maintain to apply...I find very little plausibility in far fetched biological hypothesis that do not only contradict these laws, but also fail to proof themselves.

What?

Because science can't convince you of evolution, you'll instead believe the ludicrous theory of divine creation?

Yes, that makes perfect sense.


 

[mr platohead]

so what .... Sorry, but you have a whole bunch of errors and misunderstandings in what you wrote.

1). When I say "random gene mutation", this doesn't mean the mutation of a random gene. Of course for evolution to be a valid theory (note the word theory ... and the word valid, by the way), mutations must occur on genes in reproductive cells, and not in somatic cells (someone please correct me if I'm wrong - oh, and why don't we hear creationists say this?). What I mean is that any mutation in these genes is random.

2) You talk about a 'one-celled organism, having the "urge" due to external or internal factors, to reproduce into a multi-celled organism.' I know you put the word 'urge' in quotations, but to even use the word shows either a huge misunderstanding over how evolution works, or an inability to properly express your ideas. Creationism is, of course, the great anthropomorphism.

3) You say that "In order for this cell to be the common ancestor of all living things, this one cell should carry the genetic blueprint of all living things." This is not the case. Biologists measure genetic diversity and similarity. Populations of anything subject to random forces will eventually drift apart, though may keep some similarities over time. Rather than look for some magical prime organism that holds the "genetic blueprint" of all organisms, you should be interested in the fact that so many species are genetically very similar, and that many similar genetic sequences exist in many different species.

And your statement is rather backward. Why should the initial organism in a process of change be a blueprint for all organisms that exist as a result of that change? This invalidates your next statement that: "This said, it makes Old Mikes example absurd as the sudden arise of an insecticide is not natural and can therefor not cause natural selection to occur." Most of what mankind does to the earth is not natural - and species must adapt or go extinct in many cases.

4) You say that "Genes dont care about the organism they thrive in". Yes! - I imagine you must have read The Selfish Gene. This book outlines one of the great arguments for natural selection and evolution, based on that very idea.

5) Micro vs. macro-evolution. Have you heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium? From Wikipedia:

"Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species experience little change for most of their geological history, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous."

Yes, this is just a theory. But that's what science is - the development of theories in the face of ever-changing observations and thought, not the acceptance of magic and superstition to "explain" what we haven't figured out yet.

Also, your idea of a silver coin transforming into a paper note is misguided, and shows a lack of understanding about so-called macro-evolution. Your reasoning reminds me of the famous cartoon by S. Harris. Look at:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

Evolution isn't magic. And in answer to your statement, all known organisms on earth are carbon-based. The basic building blocks are the same, but the way they are put together is different.

6) Your last few words show the inconsistency in your thinking - "As long as the universal laws of "nothing cannot become something" and "chaos cannot create order" maintain to apply...I find very little plausibility in far fetched biological hypothesis [hypotheses] that do not only contradict these laws, but also fail to proof [prove] them [selves]."

Creationism comes from the Bible. The Bible states that "1. First God made heaven & earth 2. The earth was without form and void".

Void means empty. So, according to the Bible, God made everything now existing on the earth from emptiness. Most Christians believe that God created the universe out of nothing. Again, magic. Your statement about the "universal laws" and your apology of creationism are mutually exclusive and inconsistent.

I know you present your creationist apology with the appearance of logical thought and argument, but it really isn't.

Theories of evolution still need a lot of work, but there is nothing in the creationist agenda that gives it any credibility whatsoever. Science based on faith and/or superstition is not science.

7) "Platohead, I dont care whether creationists can prove if God created the world. I know they cannot. I also know Evolutionists cannot prove their hypothesis."

Your argument, such as it is, just boils down to personal preference. Either that, or you could trash all scientific theories that haven't been empirically proven yet. Creationists have the view that if a theory is not yet completely proven, then creationism must rule. Their so-called arguments are used to "prove" creationism, ie. the idea of creationism comes first (from the Bible), and arguments are then brought forward to "support" this, which is not science. (And before you say that Science also does this, no it doesn't - yes, positions and theories may eventually becomes entrenched, but they are eventually superceded by new ones if contradictory data arises.) Science uses observation to generate arguments, which then become conjectures, which then become theories. Different groups of scientists may press their differing points of view, as humans tend to do about everything, but over time, only crackpots and phonies stick to outdated theories, while the rest of Science moves on.

Creationism kills this spirit of exploration.

[so what]

To God himself,

In exactly what post in this discussion do you see me defending creationism? I am curious.
Or are you simply concluding I must be a creationist because I dispute evolution?

[God himself]

To God himself,

In exactly what post in this discussion do you see me defending creationism? I am curious.
Or are you simply concluding I must be a creationist because I dispute evolution?

Yes. It is a conclusion I came to.

Evolution is the most plausible theory there is for our existence. If you don't accept it, and aren't a creationist, what are you? A Scientologist?

 

[so what]

Platohead, your argumentation starts to become very weak. But you fail to address Pahu's question: where are the missing cells?

1) Good, you explained yourself.

2) Yes, and thats exactly why I put it in quotations.

3) There is not a shred of proof for genetic additions. As already said before, evolution is a matter of reproduction. If the original host does not carry with it the genetic possibility for blue eyes (example), it's offspring will never have blue eyes.
Therefor the original common ancestor of all living things, should carry with it the blueprint of all life.

4) Very interesting material, but still a hypothesis.

5) Irrelevant. Still a hypothesis and completely unproven.

6) This discussion is not about what my personal convictions are. Non of my posts have been defending creationism and in none of my posts have I tried to dispute scientific statements with creationist argumentation.
In fact, from the argumentation I have written so far you cannot deduct I am a creationist and I kindly invite you to show me otherwise.

7) "Platohead, I dont care whether creationists can prove if God created the world. I know they cannot. I also know Evolutionists cannot prove their hypothesis."

This is not an argument. this is a statement and a fact.
I wonder how you come to the conclusion that the above statement can be used to trash the theory of evolution. If it does, it trashes the theory of creation as well.

Yes, crackpots and phonies stick to outdated theories.
When does a theory become outdated? Exactly...only when it is proven to be incorrect!
Why would creationism kill the spirit of exploration? Many historical scientists were creationists and many present scientists are too. What you are saying is that for someone to be a scientist he has to be a evolitionist?

[so what]

God himself,

"Evolution is the most plausible theory there is for our existence".
- Well argumented statement, and not at all ludicrous.

[God himself]

God himself,

"Evolution is the most plausible theory there is for our existence".
- Well argumented statement, and not at all ludicrous.

Well gone on then, what do you believe?

You say you don't believe evolution and say, cautiously, that nowehere did you back creationism, so what is it?

[mr platohead]

so what ...

"If the original host does not carry with it the genetic possibility for blue eyes (example), it's offspring will never have blue eyes.Therefor[e] the original common ancestor of all living things, should carry with it the blueprint of all life."

Sorry, but you are completely wrong! Where did you pick this idea up? It doesn't even make logical sense.

Oh, I think I see what you mean - you're going a generation back.

Okay, imagine a population in which there are only brown-eyed individuals. Two mating individuals have brown eyes, and by argument, genes for brown eyes. The mother has a number of eggs, the DNA inside of which may be subject to mutation or damage before fertilisation. In one of these eggs, the gene for brown eyes mutates to one that presents blue eyes. This egg is eventually fertilised, and the offspring have blue eyes. No need for the parents to have genes for blue or any other possible eye colours. (You do know what genetic mutation means?)

This is obviously a very simplified example, and I'm sure you could pick up any book on evolutionary biology to find a better explanation.

And please note that I don't presume to state whether or not you believe in creationism, only that you present an apology for it. When you write that evolution "... is a hypothesis and its as plausible as creationism" you do what creationists always do, which is to assume that the lack of 100% proof for evolution somehow validates creationism. That puts your way of thinking squarely in their camp, whether you accept it or not. And that's dangerous.

I don't know how to unify gravity with the nuclear forces, but that doesn't mean Einstein was wrong, and indeed points to a positive future where new ideas might build on the old ones to gain a deeper understanding. Creationists kill this way of thinking, since any and all scientific debate becomes simply a form of affirmation (apology) for their own superstitions.

And just as bad are people who get the scientific facts wrong in the first place, and use these distortions to argue their point of view.

[so what]

Platohead,

You are wrong.
What is wrote is: "If the original host does not carry with it the genetic POSSIBILITY for blue eyes....".

No amount of genetic defects will make the impossible possible.