Best Evidence for Evolution.

[bob b]

For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?

 

[SUTG]

For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?

First off, I would change that to "Young Earth Creationists do not understand evolution." There are probably a few that do, but in general it is the case that they are either ignorant of the theory or they intentionally misunderstand it.

I'd say the best case for evolution is that there is so much coherent evidence from so many different disciplines. Even in Darwin's time I think the case was made, but now we have the molecular evidence which I would consider the best evidence for evolution.

 

[bob b]

I'd say the best case for evolution is that there is so much coherent evidence from so many different disciplines.

Care to be a tad more specific?

 

[SUTG]

Care to be a tad more specific?

Sure. While I mentioned above that I think the molecular evidence was the 'best' evidence for evolution, here is an list of some others:

-The Fossil Record
-The nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life
-Vestigal organs and homology
-Artifical Selection
-Geographic distribution of organisms

 

[bob b]

Sure. While I mentioned above that I think the molecular evidence was the 'best' evidence for evolution, here is an list of some others:

Molecular evidence is not able to trace descent back to a single hypothetical primitive protocell. It cannot even determine how DNA arose in the first place as a storage mechanism for the production of proteins. Remember, my definition of evolution requires you to provide evidence that shows that all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

-The Fossil Record

The fossils have not illuminated the question of that single hypothetical primitive protocell.

-The nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life

There is no requirement in the theory that this should even be the case.

In addition, there are unfortunately many examples that fall outside this pattern.

-Vestigal organs

There is no evidence in this category which throws any light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

and homology

Similarity in physical structure throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

-Artifical Selection

Artificial selection throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

-Geographic distribution of organisms

Geographic distribution of organisms throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

-------

Care to try again?

 

[Evoken]

single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.

:dizzy:

 

[bob b]

:dizzy:

If one extrapolates a procedure backwards without limit (not a very scientific procedure to be sure) then just like the Big Bang one ends up with an obvious absurdity.

I prefer to believe that the first lifeforms were not all that different in kind than what we see today, and that they were created in multiple different types.

I did have to "eat crow" in coming to that conclusion, because I had previously written off Genesis in my youth as a bunch of fairy tales written by nomatic sheep herders.

 

[mighty_duck]

Take it one step at a time. Would you agree that there is good evidence that certain groups have common ancestors (one that wasn't directly observed)?
If you reject this evidence, then there is little point in going forward to your protothingamjig.

 

[SUTG]

If one extrapolates a procedure backwards without limit...

We have enough of the puzzle completed to extrapolate. We perform extrapolations like this all of the time - it is an inherent part of the reasoning process. Everyone does it. The only reason it bothers you with the TOE is because you are not very fond of the conclusion.

I prefer to believe that the first lifeforms were not all that different in kind than what we see today, and that they were created in multiple different types.

I prefer to stick with the evidence.

 

[bob b]

Take it one step at a time. Would you agree that there is good evidence that certain groups have common ancestors (one that wasn't directly observed)?

I might if you were more specific about the groupings as well as the evidence.

If you reject this evidence, then there is little point in going forward to your protothingamjig.

I will accept or reject the evidence once it is presented.

(Actually I rarely reject evidence per se, preferring to concentrate on the conclusions which are drawn once the evidence is given).

 

[Cliffracer RIP]

Bob B. The fossil record records changes in Creatures over time. This proves Evolution.

What isn't proven, is as you so neatly put it, our descent from a hypothetical Primitive Proto-Cell, which has never been observed.

Real Life, seems to show that Bacteria are the simplest life-forms capable of independant life.

Really, the Proto-Cells are the Atheists version of God. A something that has not got scientific evidence for it existed, but which is invoked due to it solving a likely unsolvable problem.

 

[bob b]

We have enough of the puzzle completed to extrapolate. We perform extrapolations like this all of the time - it is an inherent part of the reasoning process. Everyone does it.

Part of technical training and experience is to know how far one can safely extrapolate. The naive frequently go too far in this regard.

The only reason it bothers you with the TOE is because you are not very fond of the conclusion.

Actually I had previously embraced the conclusion before my initial studies of DNA 23 years ago forced me to conclude that mutations were highly overrated as a mechanism for making major transformations of one type of creature into another type of creature, regardless of the timescale involved.

Thus, the evidence of DNA forced me to lose my "fondness" for the conventional evolutionary mechanism. Oddly, the situation has grown far worse in this regard over the last 23 years, yet in all that time nobody seems to have been able to come up with any better mechanism which would allow one basic type of creature to give rise to another basic type of creature. If you have such a mechanism don't be shy and please enlighten us.












I prefer to stick with the evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[SUTG]

Part of technical training and experience is to know how far one can safely extrapolate. The naive frequently go too far in this regard.

Agreed. How far are you willing to extrapolate, and why? Tell me about your ancestors.

Actually I had previously embraced the conclusion before my initial studies of DNA 23 years ago forced me to conclude that mutations were highly overrated as a mechanism for making major transformations of one type of creature into another type of creature, regardless of the timescale involved.

How did you arrive at your conclusion?

 

[bob b]

Bob B. The fossil record records changes in Creatures over time. This proves Evolution.

My studies of the fossil record indicate that the fossil record disproves major transformations. This was the finding of the evidence by Gould and Eldridge, except that they claimed that major transformations must have occurred so rapidly that they left no record in the fossils.

What isn't proven, is as you so neatly put it, our descent from a hypothetical Primitive Proto-Cell, which has never been observed.

Real Life, seems to show that Bacteria are the simplest life-forms capable of independant life.

Really, the Proto-Cells are the Atheists version of God. A something that has not got scientific evidence for it existed, but which is invoked due to it solving a likely unsolvable problem.

You are on the right track except you have not studied the fossil record sufficiently to realize that major transformations among multicelled creatures are as non-existent as ones which go from bacteria to anything else.

Gould and Eldridge (and others) gave the game away when they revealed "the trade secret" of paleontology.

 

[bob b]

Agreed. How far are you willing to extrapolate, and why? Tell me about your ancestors.

200-300 generations.

How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Molecular studies. I think you are familiar with them.

 

[Cliffracer RIP]

My studies of the fossil record indicate that the fossil record disproves major transformations. This was the finding of the evidence by Gould and Eldridge, except that they claimed that major transformations must have occurred so rapidly that they left no record in the fossils.

What are you on about? Was not the change between the Newt-Like creatures that existed 400 million years ago and the creatures that exist today a major change.

You are actually completely in agreement with the Theory of Evolution, when you say that major transformations occured.

That's not the way things work. Creatures gradually diversify into different forms, they don't "magically" turn from one into the other.

You are on the right track except you have not studied the fossil record sufficiently to realize that major transformations among multicelled creatures are as non-existent as ones which go from bacteria to anything else.

Gould and Eldridge (and others) gave the game away when they revealed "the trade secret" of paleontology.

However, no Evolutionists are actually claiming that major transformations ever occured.

Things happen as a series of gradual steps, not all at once. This proccess takes millions of years.

Indeed, drastic tranformations were they ever to occur, would almost certainly be fatal or useless, since multiple things have to evolve together in sync, for the most part.

The problem comes with the "assembly" part of the situation. That is how exactly did the various parts get to be assembled well enough that they actually worked to some extent.

Your view of Evolutionary Theory, is actually a flawed one. The effective sum of constant smaller changes, eventually adds up to major changes, when we are comparing over millions of years, but no major transformations ever happened overnight.

 

[mighty_duck]

I might if you were more specific about the groupings as well as the evidence.

I will accept or reject the evidence once it is presented.

(Actually I rarely reject evidence per se, preferring to concentrate on the conclusions which are drawn once the evidence is given).

Evidence for common ancestors for different animals has been presented to you countless times on these forums by much finer posters than myself. It would be a waste of my time to start digging up examples.

If you reject the evidence that dogs and cats have a common ancestor, then why bother going back all the way to your hypotocell? The disagreement happens long before that.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Bob B, I fail to see the point in you endlessly debating the SAME PEOPLE about evolution. Conduct research. Write a book. Get a paper published. Pose your arguments to a new audience (i.e. a different forum). ANYTHING would be better than putting forth the same arguments and "refutations" over and over and over and...

 

[bob b]

What are you on about? Was not the change between the Newt-Like creatures that existed 400 million years ago and the creatures that exist today a major change.

That would only be true if it were demonstrated scientifically that the "newt-like" creature was the ancestor of newts that exist today. This is never done.

You are actually completely in agreement with the Theory of Evolution, when you say that major transformations occured.

Where did I say that?

That's not the way things work. Creatures gradually diversify into different forms, they don't "magically" turn from one into the other.

The offspring do vary. But there is no evidence that this process can be extrapolated backwards without limit to form the fictious "tree of life".

However, no Evolutionists are actually claiming that major transformations ever occured.

Of course they do. They just say that it occurred in multiple stages over millions of years, and the naive think this speculation must be true because the guy has a PhD and teaches at a university.

Things happen as a series of gradual steps, not all at once. This proccess takes millions of years.

This is the theory, but there is no evidence in the fossil record that this actually happens.

Indeed, drastic tranformations were they ever to occur, would almost certainly be fatal or useless, since multiple things have to evolve together in sync, for the most part.

The problem comes with the "assembly" part of the situation. That is how exactly did the various parts get to be assembled well enough that they actually worked to some extent.

Those pesky details again. They have ruined many a beautiful theory. Are you an Engineer by any chance? If so you probably know that complex interrelated control systems can not be created by step-by-step unidimensional tiny changes. And biological control systems are far more complex and interrelated than anything that humans have come up with. (Of course Darwin didn't know this, so he can be excused for thinking that small changes could continue to accumulate without limit. The wonder is that many (if not most) scientists today do not realize the fallacy here. Dogmas die hard.

Your view of Evolutionary Theory, is actually a flawed one. The effective sum of constant smaller changes, eventually adds up to major changes, when we are comparing over millions of years, but no major transformations ever happened overnight.

Unfortunately the only evidence of this is in some people's overactive imaginations.

 

[bob b]

Bob B, I fail to see the point in you endlessly debating the SAME PEOPLE about evolution. Conduct research. Write a book. Get a paper published.

Funny you should mention that.

Pose your arguments to a new audience (i.e. a different forum).

I do. Same result: "there is plenty of evidence (unspecified) for macroevolution".

AND

"Are all those scientists wrong?"

Scientists have been wrong about lots of things in the past (even when "everybody knew thus and thus") and they will be wrong about many of the things which are widely believed today.

But of course "that's how science works".

I'm just giving people here a "heads up" on the next big thing that "everybody knows is true" that will eventually be shown to have been false.

And at that point there will be thousands of scientists who will come forward and confess that they knew or suspected it all the time, but were not able to prove it so they just kept quiet.