Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

"Proven to a degree of reasonable scientific certainty"
Thats the wording in the ACLU filing

However, the only way to prove a scientific theory is by not disproving it. Richard Zayre

Ros and Still -

I think you have missed my point - my wording sounded incorrect but I truly understand your point. I am not saying that man has some elevated position on the 'chain of being'.

I am saying that creationists that accept evolution are saying that it is not interspecial evolution. Meaning - God could have created the basic species and then they evolved from there - with a mechanism that God gave them (i.e. Random mutation).

Has this interspecial evolution been proven? The talk is of a common ancestor - how air tight is the case of the 'missing link' between the species?

I am not arguing anything - I am asking.

TF

Hi TF,

It sounds like you're asking if it's possible that "God" created evolution.



Please define "interspecial evolution". Then I may be able to answer.

From a scientific perspective, there is no doubt that evolution occured and is occuring. There is no question that everything had a common ancestor.

Perhaps I still don't understand your question or your point here.

rosborne,

it seems that TF may have been specifically referring to evolution of man and ape from a common ancestor. he is concerned how well that has been proven.

Hi Wand,



It is an absolute certainty (within science) that Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor, just as it is a certainty that Man and Whale evolved from a common ancestor (remember that there are lots of common ancestors which preceed the branches). But that doesn't mean that we've actually found the fossil skeleton of whatever common ancestor existed.

TF, are you asking if we've found the fossil skeleton of the common ancestor, or if we know a common ancestor must have existed?

Please note that in science, it is not necessary to actually find the fossil skeleton of a common ancestor in order to know beyond a reasonable doubt that one existed.

"Proven beyond a reasonable doubt" even works in our court system of justice. Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so what's the beef?

LOL

Science Fiction.
What sort of idiotic, banal logic can claim something to be "an absolute certainty" without any emperical evidence to substantiate it?

Please note that in science fiction hard facts are not required.

Let's rewrite that: "...there is no doubt in Rosborne979's mind that evolution occured and is occuring."

LOL - You make me laugh, man.

"Theistic Evolution" is what you are referring to, TTF. :wink:

LOL -

You keep getting better Ros.

_________? noun. The theory that everything that exists had its orgin in special acts of creation by God.

Well, that wraps that up. Thanks B-phile for drawing my attention to that.

Stop it man, you're killing me.

I have made NO such claim for any school of thought on the subject of "Origins" in this thread.

For the record though, and in the interests of fairness, as well as within the previously posted definitions for Hypothesis, Theory and Law, I do not conceive of any verifiable process that can prove the Theory of Evolution, as generally defined.

I got a million of 'em

YEAH, YEAH,Thaats all youre good for Bib, you merely wish to beat on the hypothesisv theory v law drum without giving anything of your own knowledge or experience. The fact that You cannot concieve of a process to verify evolution is merely a comment on your inability to evaluate and analyze data and evidence, so Im not really concerned about what you cannot see, nor wish tto ignore.

i, insteaad will discuss just a smattering of the "empirical" evidence that exists, and it isnt necessarily based only a fossil record. dNA evidence, for example has linked common ancestry by comparing long sequence strings of same codons and interons on base pairs. Its like a Bar Code for similar products att a department store The reasonable conclusion of such a condition in genomes is that evolutionary mechhanisms are sttrongly supported. For example leets look at close species

1 two species contain similar genomes (lets saay only 80 to 90% similarity yet they are only different species)

2 Inter mediate living species, genii,and orders show similar genomic patterns.Their genomes show as inteermediates b etween the two upper end members

3 Homologous structures derive from these same genomic components . Most scientists conclude that a similaar ancestry was at work here

4 I wonder what Bib concludes on genomically similar species?. I would say that Bib concludes that some special Creation has resulted in these genomes, even though these different species are so closely linked by genetics and morphology(we dont know anything about their fossils and historic ranges yet) ,LLets say weve got crows, ravens, grackles, cowbirds, and buzzards of the Old World and new and all these share almost 100% of each others DNA.TThen we find fossils of old and new world forms, and present geographic ranges show these birds are isolated by distance today

5 The fact that we can plot and demonstrate such close DNA asseemblages between otheer speecies like humans, pongids, great apes, various species of chimps, (actually all species of chimps). These genomes alone Gives some strong evidence that weve got more cousins than we want to talk about.THE GENOME< ONCE HAVING SOLVED A PROBLEM DOESNT GO REINVENTING ITSELF__IT PASSES ITS MESSAGE ON TO SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS . This genetic revolution has taken most all of the wind out of Creationisms sails

6the fact that Short tandem repeat alleles on the controller(junk) portions of the human genome show a surprising affinity for the "out of Africa" sstory, and this story has oveerwhelming evidence that mankind, came out of Africa via Asia and around the continent to Europe in 2 distinct waves. These STR alleles are preseerved in the DNA of everyones parental starting range. Neutral Mutations collect on tthe populational genome at a fairly fixed rate, usually one for every 20 generations, so we can use DNA as a sort of crude "clock"

"Roundup Ready" ag plants have conferred a selective hybridization to native plants. Such that these "induced artificially selected hybrids" have taken over and displaced the original parent plants. Once an artificial mutation is acquired (aala Margulis) , tthis mutation confeers a "fitness" to the Roundup environment aand plants, have evolved a resistance to roundup

7 Fossil evidence (since it was brought up) has been consistently supportive of intermediates in macroevolution. The record is loaded with intermediate fossil forms. All the way from foraminiferans to whales. "The Treatise On Paleontology" is as big as the Encyclopedia Britannica aand conmtains cladistics data , as well as identifications keys to many entire fossil groups through geologic time. I used to do work on a Devonian critter called Terataspis grandis, which "devolved" into a streamlined form as the environment in which it lived became more energetic

8 Saltation (punctuated equilibrium) was a popular iconoclastic 'hypothesis" for a mechanism serving to explain a gap in evolutionary theory, when scientists were too busy doing othher things than field sampling. Latest sampling on some of the key beds and fossils that Eldredge and Gould focused on have been micro sampled stratigraphically and the results, at least in the mucrospirifers of the Hamilton group, show thhat there indeed are intermediaate fossils and often saltation is just used as a convenient way to explain gaps. (Sort of like how Creationists explain fossil gaps, except that Creationists use gaps to try to deny the entire theory of evolution, rather than find where data is lacking to identify its weak spots)
So saltation is slowly becoming suspect as a "rule" and Punctuated Equilibrium isnt as hip as it once was

8 Isolated species rapidly can evolve into new specie almost under our eyes. eg, island dwarf mammoths alive on baffin Islaand as late as 5000 y bp,They were isolated there about 13000 ybp
Ethipean red wolves have been allopatrically undergoing speciation among the "hill wolves" and the "lowland wolves" In the space of but a few hundred years of hunting by the Afar peopleConsequently, they are approaching subspecies levels
Nile cichlid fish, once isol;ated by a tectonic shift in the Nile have evolved into lake victoria cichlids that have taken up niches rserved by other entire fish genus. Theyve developed new forms and are reproductively isolated from the original parent species. This took about 50000 years

Te Northwest rufous hummingbird, by learning to adapt to human patterns, have developed 2 distinct migration patterns, one that migrated south from Vancouver and one tthat is now migrating East and South through NY, PA MD for wintering over , and these are rapidly becoming isolates and leading to subspecies levels

Alleghany cave rats and Alleghany mountain rats have sprung from the same parent. They wre now 2 separate species with totally different morphologies. WE know that theyir parent species were driven there by continental glaciattion in about 15000 years

Thee complete load of extinct animal in the fossil record indicates
that well over 99.995 of all animals that ever lived are extinct. most of those were perfectly adapted to an environment and were quite succeessful, the environments changed and mostt of the adapted animalsl didnt. We know, for example that hhere were seven orders of mammals that crossed the K/T boundary, today only 3, the monotremes, marsupials, and placentals are left.It appears that nature "tinkers around" with forms and leaves most of them in the dust bin, but the fact thhat the vast majority of these forms end up in the dust bin means that something dynamic is always happening. Little environmental changes confer fitness to a few and death to tthe majority

9In the early Paleocene through the Eocene, with dinosaurs gone, birds developed that were large and flighhtless and these were niche opportunists who developed into large flightless carnivorous birds thhat were isolated on the S American continent until it collided with N America, then these flightless birds disappeared (Bigger carnivores saw them as more snack than associate)

10 The fossil record is just chockablock full of many stories that are beyond these few. To deny rosbornes claim of proof means that you deny that these above examples and many others are either lies or are fakes or are something else. What is your take on the fossil record and DNA story? All thhe data , by itself, may give you some place to hide in your assertions. However, the strength of 'proof" of evolutionary theory is in the
massive amount of reepeat data and evidence. IN EVERY CASE< THERE IS A FOSSIL TRACK AT LEAST PARTIALLY COMPLETE< THERE IS PRESENT DNA< THERE ARE FOSSIL EXPERIMENTAL FORMS< THERE IS GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON CHANGING ENVIRONMNETS< THERE IS GEOCHRON DATA THAT ALL POINTS TO DEEP TIME DATES THAT CONFIRM THESE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES>THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF EVOLUION GOING ON TODAY

I would sure like to know since your spending all your time criticizing others in your fact-free manner , and the points that you wish to discuss are mostly irrelevant to the subject .whatt is your explanattion for all these phenom and why do you feel tthat all these scientists are wasting their time?

Ros, Thanks for taking the time to answer me - Okay - it seems that you have said that it is an absolute certainty and then that we have not found the fossil evidence that states that we have indeed come from the same ancestor.

Here is what I mean - theistic evolution as Bib called it purports that God created the species (as it is explained in Genesis) and then evolution took over and the species evolved. If we are missing the fossile evidence that firmly links the two species - this theory is allowed to be plausable.

What firm evidence do we have linking the species? I hope that firms things up.

TF

tF, genetics . You have to read the book DNA by Watson, its a popularly written but highly informative text on how connections of species are maade uwsing genetic inference, The technical stuff is in the journaal of evolutionary biology and , The Treatise on Paleontology.

Weve sequenced aa number of otther species besides thhe human genome and , from the pattern (The genetic BAR CODE) of thhe specific amino acid base pairs, we can see that there are whole sections of genomes of mice aand badgers and humans that are exactly the same. Indicating that once a design is settled on, nature sticks with it.

CI originally made reference to different finches on the Galapaagos islaands. these finches are sepaarate species and their genetic makeeup show minor differeence from each other as they are still diverging from the original parent (common ancestor ) finch. The fact that they are separate species means that they dont interbreed and that defeats Bibs whole story.

Farmerman -

Thanks. I will read it. Do you think, then, that we will have more and more proof as we sequence more and more species?

I think Evolution is excellent and I think it is awesome to see it work (for my little understanding of it).

I have done quite a bit of study on big bang cosmology - and it amazes me to see the complexity.

I see a lot of the bible as allegory and mythology - but I take red letter Christ's words pretty seriously. The amazement of the universe and it's simplistic complexity makes me love a God all the more - I don't have any answers - and I don't mind being wrong when I die - that is what faith is all about for me - I have some evidence to believe in a God - and the rest is faith.

Thanks for your measured reply and I look forward to checking out the book. It sounds like a Universe in a Nutshell type of book but for Evolution.

TF

Hi TF,

I think I understand your question now. Thanks. I'll try to answer each part below.



This is completely possible because a God can do anything. But it is not possible within the realm of science, because science precludes the existence of Gods.

But consider this as an analogy to theistic evolution, if a God created a tree, fully grown {poof}, and you found that tree and cut it down, and saw all the growth rings showing that it had grown from a seed, would there really be any difference if the tree had grown from a seed or been created in a poof? If all of the aspects of an organism's history are created flawlessly with Godly precision, including its growth history, then hasn't history been created as well?

Theistic evolution is the same. If an organism is created spontaneously, but contains every trace of a genetic history, every hint of its connection to the environment, and every nuance of a purely natural evolution, then does it really matter any more if it was poofed into being, or if it evolved. It would all be the same.

And with a God involved, any of this is certainly possible, but what about the logic of it. We can see the process of evolution in every living thing around us, so even if everything was created in a poof, we know that the result of that poof still contains the structure of a process which stands on its own.

Is it logical to create a world with all the evidence of evolution and all the mechanisms for evolution, without having taken advantage of that very system? If I was an omniscient creator, I think I would figure everything out ahead of time, and then put the process in motions with one initial poof, rather than countless little poofs, all of which would have to be woven back into a single pattern to create a coherent reality. But that's just me



What firm evidence do you have linking you to your great great great great grandfather? Do you have his bones, have you ever seen his bones? Probably not, but even though he's gone you do carry his DNA, and so do your distant cousins. And in the same way, we and our cousins the Apes, carry the DNA of an ancient common grandfather.

The bones are gone, returned to dust, but we don't need them. A mechanism for passing information on from generation to generation was predicted by Evolutionary theory even before that mechanism had been identified. And then we found it, right where Evolutionary theory said it should be, buried at the heart of the chemistry of reproduction and growth.

Evolution (biological in particular) is not a tenuous theory which is supported by only a few isolated predictions. It is a view of biological growth and development over time which is supported by countless interconnecting predictions and measurements, and not a single instance of inviable evidence. We will continue to find the fossils of creatures who came before us, and we may even find a common ancestor some day, but we really don't need to see those bones to know where we came from, any more than you need to see your G G G G Great Grandfather's bones to know where you came from.

Best Regards,

Very well put, rosborne. Your claims of evolution agrees with almost everything I have read about the subject. That scientists can now trace the DNA from Africa to Australia, through Asia and Europe is not a supposition, but fact. The 13 Darwin finches is another fact. The 100 or so scientists that now does research at the Charles Darwin Research Center on the Galapagos Islands see first hand how evolution works. People who refute evolution does so, because they can't accept the fact that humans are a progeny of primates they may find unacceptable for religious' reasons. That tall fence is too difficult a climb for many.