Evidence for or against evolution

complete

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to account for everything that falls under the category of evolution.

That would be a neat trick. Please expand on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So problem causes the variable rate of evolution for the concept of naural selection persol?

You have to point it out because it is not obvious to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But thats not a problem with NS. We've already established THAT happens. Its more of a problem with current evolutionary theory if u believe it.

I menat the same thing u did when u said there were holes in NS. U tell ME what those holes in evolution are since u probably know them better than i, and also I don't really beieve there is a problem with NS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's my point. People always use NS as what 'put us here', but evolution is more than natural selection.

Lol, nope. My claim (which may be false) is based on:
a reading of 'dumbed down' versions of articles on evolution
the fact that people still research areas of it

 

I see that you are ignoring your own claims.

Hence I shall assume you can't find any problem with natural selection.

 

The science of evolution contains both facts and theories. Mutation, Natural Selection, and Heredity are facts; they have been observed and tested. Historical evolution (how exactly it all happened) is far more complex and is largely theoretical.

~Raithere

 

Which is all I was trying to say....

 

Historical evolution has also been recorded quite nicely with the fossil record. Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously? Also relationships between genomes indicate historical evolution. These models have been observed and tested also. Moreover if natural selection is observed and tested than automatically historical evolution is observed and tested. Natural selection is after all a historical process and affect evolution. It is a bit strange to disentangle both concepts.

 

How it happened, and that it happened are two different things... as I was first trying to say.

 

I've never really studied fossils, so I don't know much about those. But personally I don't see how anyone could look at the specific biochemical steps involved in ATP production and not think that it was a process that evolved gradually over time. You can clearly see how organisms used to use some ATP variant, then tweaked it a little, then a little more, and so on. There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.

 

I did say theoretical, not hypothetical. There is indeed a large body of supporting evidence (fossils, genetic comparison) as you mentioned. But there is a definite difference between paleontology and biology, between inference and observation. The reason why I go through the trouble of explaining the difference is that most attacks upon evolution make use of the unknowns within paleontology to attack Evolution as a whole. Explaining that Evolution is an observed fact, as well as a body of theories that address how it is likely to have occurred, demonstrates that you cannot invalidate Evolution quite so simply.

I thought you were a scientist.

~Raithere

 

Genetics tests it every day, guess what with every genome, cDNA, mtDNA, ect sequence, we find more and more proof that its true.

 

Hi John,

I need to intervene here. Sorry.

Evolution is the change in genetic frequency in a population per generation,

since this change can occur without natural selection (i.e. neutral changes), then evolution can occur without natural selection.

sorry for butting in

 

That is extremely interesting.

Do you have any scientific references (from scientific journals) that examine this phenomenon in more detail?

TIA

 

ya, most biochem textbooks, he simply stating his opinion based of biochemical pathways and their variations.

 

Is it still considered evolution though if there is no driving force.

I guess my question is, what's the difference between a mutation and evolution? I thought evolution required a 'better' (at least temporary) outcome to be evolution.

 

you misunderstand me.

i am looking for review papers on the evolutionary significance of residual/vestigal steps in biochemical pathways.

i'm hoping that Nasor can provide some refs.

 

I find that very doubtful, by the way do you have evidence against his hypothesis? Perhaps you could post your evidence then.

 

what do you find doubtful, that Nasor can find the refs., or that i am looking for refs., or that such refs. exist?

of which hypothesis do you speak?

i am asking for references for my own edification.

WCF, thank you for your reply, but you need not spend any more time on this.

 

all 3

Nasor's

sure you are.

why not?