Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

When the first member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with? Or if he can still breed with the 'old species' then he is not a 'new species', is he?

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".

As usual Spendius does not know what he's talking about. The bustle was invented by Charles Frederick Worth, a man.

Hey xingu and littlek-

I was only having a bit of fun. And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Like c.i. suggests- it's the entertainment.

I am not sure rl is a man as you all keep saying. Is there any evidence that rl is a bloke?

rl- Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

There were atheists long before Darwin was first thought of. And they had much better arguments than your protagonists on here are offering.
Donatien Alphonse Francois, Marquis de Sade for example.

Atheism in a Christian country is a psychological category outside the normal. There is a mechanism to explain its appearence.

The immigrants from Europe wanted to become Americans but couldn't do due to the difficulties presented by the new world to people who had been socialised in the old world. They couldn't become complete Americans because their character, their modes of thought and their accents carried the stain of Europe. But their children could become Americans. The second generation was educated to be American. When that change had taken place the parents were rejected as old-fashioned, ignorant and alien even. The more successful the transmutation the more a sense of shame attached to the parents and, because the mother still remained a source of comfort and love, the father, who was off working, lost his authority the most.

This leads to a position where a degree of contempt is directed towards the parents by this Americanised second generation.

Patriarchal authority was diminished and usually with the approval of the father who wanted his children to be the Americans he could never be himself. This dynamic increased the relative authority of the mother and the setting up of a feminine conscience in the nation symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, the alma mater, the pussy whip and Mom and apple-pie imagery and reinforced by nationally syndicated comic strips such as Bringing Up Father and Blondie and many American movies and TV series in which the father is presnted as something of a gump. The exaggerated displays of faked machismo are a natural reaction.

Authority itself comes to be suspect and distrusted by association and the highest authority in the old world was Christianity a patriarchal religion.

Hence atheism became popular in those who had been most successfully Americanised because it was anti-authority.

Janet Hobhouse, an American, writes about Gertrude Stein-

Quote:

During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".

Bob Hope offered Marilyn to the troops in Korea with the remark- "This is what you're fighting for boys."

These considerations are most pronounced in the socially and geographically mobile and particularly in cities.

Hence, rl, atheism is a part of your opponents persona. You are not going to change it arguing about such trivial matters as DNA, RNA, peptide whatsits, proteins, nucleotides or biogeography. Those are forms of mental dress rather than mental clothing. They are fashions worn for agressive assertiveness reasons. Bourgeoise cudgels.

I'm afraid that you are helping your opponents to evade the more important aspect of these matters which is, obviously, the social consequences of their position if it wins the day. You must have noticed how carefully they avoid that topic despite my proddings and goadings and it is the only subject worthy of serious debate. That is the reason they engage with you and ignore what I have to say as best they can.

xingu wrote-

Quote:

As usual Spendius does not know what he's talking about. The bustle was invented by Charles Frederick Worth, a man.

So you think that whatever a man chooses to invent is going to be automatically worn by the ladies. It is the demand from the ladies that does the inventing and not stuffing a fancy cushion up the back of ladies' frocks once they have decided what they want. Any clunker could think of that as a way of satisfying the demand. Necessity is the mother of invention. My point has more credibility than yours even if I was a bit careless with my word choice for efficiency reasons.

You're a male chauvinist pig. A pedantic one to boot.

I think Shapiro is merely speculating the mechanisms not the lab evidence.

Hey xingu and littlek-

I was only having a bit of fun. And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Like c.i. suggests- it's the entertainment.

I am not sure rl is a man as you all keep saying. Is there any evidence that rl is a bloke?

rl- Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

There were atheists long before Darwin was first thought of. And they had much better arguments than your protagonists on here are offering.
Donatien Alphonse Francois, Marquis de Sade for example.

Atheism in a Christian country is a psychological category outside the normal. There is a mechanism to explain its appearence.

The immigrants from Europe wanted to become Americans but couldn't do due to the difficulties presented by the new world to people who had been socialised in the old world. They couldn't become complete Americans because their character, their modes of thought and their accents carried the stain of Europe. But their children could become Americans. The second generation was educated to be American. When that change had taken place the parents were rejected as old-fashioned, ignorant and alien even. The more successful the transmutation the more a sense of shame attached to the parents and, because the mother still remained a source of comfort and love, the father, who was off working, lost his authority the most.

This leads to a position where a degree of contempt is directed towards the parents by this Americanised second generation.

Patriarchal authority was diminished and usually with the approval of the father who wanted his children to be the Americans he could never be himself. This dynamic increased the relative authority of the mother and the setting up of a feminine conscience in the nation symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, the alma mater, the pussy whip and Mom and apple-pie imagery and reinforced by nationally syndicated comic strips such as Bringing Up Father and Blondie and many American movies and TV series in which the father is presnted as something of a gump. The exaggerated displays of faked machismo are a natural reaction.

Authority itself comes to be suspect and distrusted by association and the highest authority in the old world was Christianity a patriarchal religion.

Hence atheism became popular in those who had been most successfully Americanised because it was anti-authority.

Janet Hobhouse, an American, writes about Gertrude Stein-

Quote:

During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".

Bob Hope offered Marilyn to the troops in Korea with the remark- "This is what you're fighting for boys."

These considerations are most pronounced in the socially and geographically mobile and particularly in cities.

Hence, rl, atheism is a part of your opponents persona. You are not going to change it arguing about such trivial matters as DNA, RNA, peptide whatsits, proteins, nucleotides or biogeography. Those are forms of mental dress rather than mental clothing. They are fashions worn for agressive assertiveness reasons. Bourgeoise cudgels.

I'm afraid that you are helping your opponents to evade the more important aspect of these matters which is, obviously, the social consequences of their position if it wins the day. You must have noticed how carefully they avoid that topic despite my proddings and goadings and it is the only subject worthy of serious debate. That is the reason they engage with you and ignore what I have to say as best they can.

real life wrote:

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

nylonases

And all the AIG mess has already been shown to be wrong
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.htmlNylonase Enzymes
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4565844&highlight=nylon


and:

real life wrote:

When the first member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with? Or if he can still breed with the 'old species' then he is not a 'new species', is he?

Once again, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Populations evolve. Individual organisms do not evolve. They retain the same genes throughout their life.

Maybe you'll like the rabbits better....

Quote:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .

real life wrote:

ros,

Perhaps you miss Shapiro's point.

He is saying there WERE no replicators in early life.

Just small molecules reacting in a protective bubble.

I get Shapiro's point, he's just saying that there might have been small molecules reacting in a "chemical network" (his choice of words) before, and possibly as a precursor to, replicative molecules. I don't find that very surprising. Do you ?

Over all, his idea of a chemical networks as a basis for replicative development was a neat idea. I like it.

But I think maybe I'm missing YOUR point. Were you trying to make a point through this article?

And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

So you think that whatever a man chooses to invent is going to be automatically worn by the ladies. It is the demand from the ladies that does the inventing and not stuffing a fancy cushion up the back of ladies' frocks once they have decided what they want. Any clunker could think of that as a way of satisfying the demand. Necessity is the mother of invention. My point has more credibility than yours even if I was a bit careless with my word choice for efficiency reasons.

You're a male chauvinist pig. A pedantic one to boot.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .

Once again, it is well to remind you that CI has been around long enough to verify this. :wink:

Postulating a 'proto-cell' with NO replicative mechanism is a dead end.

The 'family line' is going nowhere.

That's my point.

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .

Once again, it is well to remind you that CI has been around long enough to verify this. :wink:

The only reason neo knows this, is because we used to buddy around in the good old days.

real life wrote:

Postulating a 'proto-cell' with NO replicative mechanism is a dead end.

The 'family line' is going nowhere.

That's my point.

He's not postulating a 'proto-cell' with no replicative mechanism.

He's postulating what he's calling a 'chemical network'. It's more of a sequence of chemical processes ......

The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.......

......which he believes might create a kind of chemical environment in which replicative molecules could arise.