Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

Dave when you say you see no creator, do you not see many strange coincidences that could give rise to the notion. I find the problem from both sides , one jumps to the conclusion of an almighty creator and the other like yours , its all a great big coincidence.

Alan -- if you want to critique evolution, you need to do it in scientific terms and not using logic or using thought experiments. There is PLENTY of established science that would seem counterintuitive -- until you do the science. We don't adhere to evolutionary biology because it's logical. We do because it's the answer we repeatedly get when we look at the world.

Right now my left nostril is flowing, i wonder why?

How did inanimate matter, from the already existing primordial soup, become a living extremely complex cell organism?

Evidence ? thanks

Dave when you say you see no creator, do you not see many strange coincidences that could give rise to the notion.

I find the problem from both sides , one jumps to the conclusion of an almighty creator and the other like yours

...

I cant believe that the formula for life, that has always existed, has not the appearance of invention.

Oh thank you for being so particular.

What's your current understanding of what the theory states about an immediate descendant to a population forced into a new ecological niche and, that given, what are your objections to the idea that those immediate descendants are not likely to be better adapted than their parents?

Note the words 'immediate' and 'likely', by the way.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen
Well, this is your first foundational error in understanding the theory of evolution through natural selection.


c) if an animal population is forced into an unfriendly environment it's immediate descendants are no more likely to be adapted to it than the first generation.

We have an extraordinarily sophisticated visual cortex -- fully 1/3 of our brain is devoted to visual processing, not just seeing but processing what we see. Our visual system is one of our most complex neurologic systems, and far and away our most complicated sensory system.

The absence of a creator doesn't make it a coincidence. Physical existence has followed a path of probabilities.

If you have none, thats fine. We can move on.

Sorry but life as we know it with all its complexities was completely inevitable the millisecond the universe became visible. Its destiny was set in a formula for life that had more than just a probable chance, it was inevitable. This does not conclude a visible thoughtful creator but it definitely gives nature a look of determination and foresight.

It's just bog-standard evolution by natural selection.

Until you make some effort to explain what it is you object to then I have no idea what evidence it is you require beyond general evidence for the theory for evolution by natural selection.

So you can post the "smashing-it's-head-against-the-wall" smiley all you want - but until you actually explain what it is you're looking for - in English that isn't too mangled I hope - I can't really hope to clear things up for you.

Explain your objection or we'll let this go.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

Quote:

c) if an animal population is forced into an unfriendly environment it's immediate descendants are no more likely to be adapted to it than the first generation.

Evidence ? thanks

here is a bog standard that indicates that adaptations WILL occur.

Would you say that life was not inevitable?

I am not suggesting this sort of thing doesn't happen.

In fact I am a strong proponent of the idea.

I said that in the first generation of a population that had adopted a new niche seeing adaptations would be unlikely.

Come back a few generations later and seeing such adaptations might be expected (provided the population has survived of course).

A hundred or so, and such adaptations would be very likely.

So....

What are your objections to the idea that those immediate descendants are not likely to be better adapted than their parents?

Do note the operative words. We're proposing the same thing - but I'm noting that it doesn't happen in one generation.


I'd say it was a fluke that might not have happened at all, or in multifarious different ways.

Name just one positive mutation!!

I understand that you are saying it happens long term. What in heaven's name makes you think adaptation to environments does not happen in first generation and every generation ?

Here are a few:

For example, kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.



Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or "altitude sickness". A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.



Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS.



Similarly, population genetics is being credited as one reason incidence of sickle-cell genes in African-Americans is apparently decreasing over time.



For another example we've also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.



There's also a family in Germany who were already unusually strong. But in one case, one of their children was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a Herculean kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the muscle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.



And then there's a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density. According to their investigators, members of this family have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the Bruce Willis movie, 'Unbreakable'.



All of these are examples of specifically identified mutations which are definitely beneficial, and which have spread through the subsequent gene pool according to natural selection. This is one of many indesputable proofs of evolution in humans. But we've identified beneficial mutations in other many other species too.

I wish you'd parse posts better. I posted the mutation stuff in reply to a claim by Alan, not you.

I am not denying that adaptations occur in the first generation. I'm saying it's not LIKELY that they do.