Level of Proof for Evolution
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am not playing this game..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's not a quiz. I am not going to sit here and answer question after question.
If you really want to know about evolution there are many sites with good info on that..
Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today, what you are describing is an evolution from a less complex variant. What would you say it was and do you have any links that explain this? Then we need to consider the complexity, with valves and chambers. Do you believe that by simply by evolving that this was done, but the real question is...WHY?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Discussion. I don't even know your view..
Speaking as a complete amateur, I would guess that the first heart was formed at least with the first recognizable chordate, a small fishlike creature called Pikaia gracilens, the fossil of which was found in the Burgess Shale. The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on knowing every single detail of the evolution of every animal and plant.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Thank you.
Actually, the heart began to take mamalian form with the chordates but they inhereted the primitive heart from the sea squirt.
I guess this is going to eat at me like a bug eats nylon.
The ideas in my head are difficult for me to articulate. The only thing i found in a quick search is this:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm
The ideas in my head are difficult for me to articulate. The only thing i found in a quick search is this:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
John, "irreducible complexity" is a pseudoscientific concept. You have to get over your attraction to this stuff. Things only appear "irreducibly complex" because we haven't yet figured them out.
This is exactly like the old smug question, "Okay, you evolutionists, how do you explain the development of small wings with tiny feathers? They're no good for anything! Why did they evolve? Ha! Gotcha!" We finally got around to doing counterintuitive experiments, and watched "flightless" chickens climb up negative-slope embankments using the negative lift of their "useless" wings.
The evolution denialists, like all spiritualists, have an unreasoned faith in the existence of the supernatural, despite the total lack of empirical evidence for it. Scientists have been accused of having faith in science, but at least it's a reasoned faith. Science has consistently been answering questions of greater and greater difficulty for 500 years. It's at least sensible to assume that it will probably continue to do something that it has always done, just as it's sensible to assume that the moon will continue to revolve around the earth or that eggs will hatch into chickens like they've always done.
The hypothesis that the scientific method works has mountains of supporting evidence. It has been exhaustively tested and peer-reviewed for five hundred years, and it has never been falsified. The hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural power directs our universe has never been tested or peer-reviewed, because it is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be tested or peer-reviewed.
It is reasonable to assume that anything that now looks irreducibly complex, and therefore disproves the entire canon of science, will be reduced by science.
This is exactly like the old smug question, "Okay, you evolutionists, how do you explain the development of small wings with tiny feathers? They're no good for anything! Why did they evolve? Ha! Gotcha!" We finally got around to doing counterintuitive experiments, and watched "flightless" chickens climb up negative-slope embankments using the negative lift of their "useless" wings.
The evolution denialists, like all spiritualists, have an unreasoned faith in the existence of the supernatural, despite the total lack of empirical evidence for it. Scientists have been accused of having faith in science, but at least it's a reasoned faith. Science has consistently been answering questions of greater and greater difficulty for 500 years. It's at least sensible to assume that it will probably continue to do something that it has always done, just as it's sensible to assume that the moon will continue to revolve around the earth or that eggs will hatch into chickens like they've always done.
The hypothesis that the scientific method works has mountains of supporting evidence. It has been exhaustively tested and peer-reviewed for five hundred years, and it has never been falsified. The hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural power directs our universe has never been tested or peer-reviewed, because it is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be tested or peer-reviewed.
It is reasonable to assume that anything that now looks irreducibly complex, and therefore disproves the entire canon of science, will be reduced by science.
I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult. Scientists observe (and cause) augmenting mutations in people and other organisms every day. But all of these are fatal to the individual organism, or prevent them from reproducing... like your example of the seedless watermelon.
That mutation must be artificially created every single time, since the resulting watermelon is sterile. It is the humans that are better adapted to their environment (by creating easier to consume food), not watermelons. And this adaptation is not one of biological evolution.
I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask.
I did not bring up the idea of the first functioning heart, but it is interesting. Did some organisms carry around a useless hunk of muscle for generations with the intention of delivering a heart to their ancestors? I think you have to be comfortable with that idea to interpret the presence of similar or duplicate genetic material as a venue for advantageous mutation developed by an organism within itself.
I'm looking for any study where scientists have observed this happening. I'm not content with a deduction based on an assumption.
aaronmark:
You seem to be confusing two processes. Natural selection is culling process by which "less fit" genomes are removed from the gene pool as a result of competition for limited resources. The transmission and production of new genetic material is a separate process that occurs during gene copying in the process of cell division.
During copying, "errors" of many kinds can occur. They can result in segments of DNA being replicated, deleted or changed. All of these produce "new genetic material", in that the resulting gene codes for something other than what it originally coded for. (Things are actually a little more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it).
That's not true. Take, for example, the example of people born with six fingers instead of five. That's a mutation that is not fatal. Nor does it prevent the individual from reproducing.
Or consider the example of camoflage in different kinds of animals. Mutations which resulted in animals that had better camoflage were beneficial. They did not result in death or prevent reproduction.
Possibly, but maybe not. As an example, you can imagine some kind of muscle originally useful for something else eventually being "co-opted" to a new function. Alternatively, if carrying around a "useless" hunk of muscle was not detrimental to the organism's survival, there is no reason to suppose it would have been "selected out".
John99:
Given enough time, it might. It has happened at least once before...
You seem to be confusing two processes. Natural selection is culling process by which "less fit" genomes are removed from the gene pool as a result of competition for limited resources. The transmission and production of new genetic material is a separate process that occurs during gene copying in the process of cell division.
During copying, "errors" of many kinds can occur. They can result in segments of DNA being replicated, deleted or changed. All of these produce "new genetic material", in that the resulting gene codes for something other than what it originally coded for. (Things are actually a little more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it).
That's not true. Take, for example, the example of people born with six fingers instead of five. That's a mutation that is not fatal. Nor does it prevent the individual from reproducing.
Or consider the example of camoflage in different kinds of animals. Mutations which resulted in animals that had better camoflage were beneficial. They did not result in death or prevent reproduction.
Possibly, but maybe not. As an example, you can imagine some kind of muscle originally useful for something else eventually being "co-opted" to a new function. Alternatively, if carrying around a "useless" hunk of muscle was not detrimental to the organism's survival, there is no reason to suppose it would have been "selected out".
John99:
Given enough time, it might. It has happened at least once before...
No, there would not. Darwinian evolution says there was no such thing.john said:
It is not a part of Darwinian theory. In Darwinian theory there is no such thing as the first functioning heart.aaron said:
You can't ask reasonable questions and you get hung up on non problems because you don't understand the basic theory involved.
It's almost impossible, as fra as I can tell.aaron said:
It can be cloned. And it is exactly biological evolution, exactly what you ask for. You simply have an artificially limited notion of what "favorable adaptation" means.aaron said:
A seedless watermelon needs certain human interventionist activities to reproduce, except in rare cases. An apple needs certain honeybee interventionist activities to reproduce. They have adapted to their environments through acquisition and mutation of genetic material and its expression.
And you've been handed antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which has been observed in axenic culture in a test tube no less. End of story.aaron said:
Again?iceaura said:
Some people are having trouble with the words here. I mean words like "adapt" and "advantage", and the idea of "new" material.
There's another one, too: "purpose".
Purpose is behaviour; we see behaviour (like, everywhere); we also behave.
If you are having trouble understanding "purpose", try going somewhere where there are wild animals - wolves or bears say, or large predators like the big cats. Hang around long enough, and you will eventually become the object of purposeful behaviour.
Or you could try swimming somewhere there are lots of sharks.
Purposeful behaviour can be easily observed in humans (like, us). Try standing in the middle of a busy road, and you might get the idea.
I'm not intending to join in, I just wish to say that your question is pointless, not the real question as you state.
Try some easier ones first. Why is grass green and not purple ? Why have I got feet at the end of my legs ? I know they are for walkin BUT WHY ? Get the dea ?
You are unbelievably confused. I get the impression you have been given a lot of misleading information and, not knowing any better, have bought it lock, stock and barrel. Purpose is not behaviour. It may be the precursor of behaviour. Now it's your turn to ask what the purpose of behaviour is and so on.
C U around
Hi all,
There are plenty of examples, such as :
For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm
If you are actually interested in beneficial mutations, you can read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
And many many more locations.
But aaronmark isn't interested in learning about beneficial mutations, he is actually a creationist pretending to be interested.
aaronmark has failed to do any study on mutations, and when examples are presented to him, he dismisses them with unscientific word games.
Iasion
There are plenty of examples, such as :
For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm
If you are actually interested in beneficial mutations, you can read more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
And many many more locations.
But aaronmark isn't interested in learning about beneficial mutations, he is actually a creationist pretending to be interested.
aaronmark has failed to do any study on mutations, and when examples are presented to him, he dismisses them with unscientific word games.
Iasion