Hmmm, thoughts on evolution?(no, not vs religion)

[Nick man]

There are so many logical flaws with the theory of evolution that I could write a book on it . I'm not saying that it is entirely wrong, but I get annoyed when people talk about it like it is written in stone. There are just a lot of kinks to be worked out. I think that, by it's nature, evolution is a theory that cannot be proven (or disproven) but arguments can certainly be posed that may question it's validity or completeness.

I probably shouldn't even have posted this though, because I will be asked to elaborate and give specific examples...my fingers can't handle that much typing . I've actually discussed this with a professor of mine (who teaches a class called "Logic" among others ), and he is responsible for many of my beliefs and problems with the theory of evolution that I have recognized. Note than none of them have anything to do with religion, only logic and science.

A gross skeleton of some of the annoying mistakes scientists make:

- Evidence that 'fits' with a theory is very different from evidence that 'proves' a theory. Theoretically there are an infinite number of theories in which all the evidence would fit. If you start with the firm belief that the theory is true (a priori) whatever evidence you find you will interpret in such a way as to make it fit with your theory. In our studies at school we found that evolutionists use almost the exact same set of evidence to support their theories as do creationists.

- A tendency to ridiculously anthropomorphize genes.

- They can't explain how it all started. Yes we've all heard the 'pool of goo' story, but how exactly did that work? They tried re-creating this in a laboratory in the 1980's...nothing happened. So they applied electric current to it and tried other various things to get it to work. In the end the conclusion was that despite their inability to show that this was possible even in a controlled laboratory setting, it must have happened anyway.

- Why? We have examples of creatures like alligators that have remained unchanged for millions of years because they are so well suited to their environment. Scientists say that they have not changed because there has been no reason to. In our world, every species on the planet is perfectly suited to it's environment, incredibly fined tuned genetically in fact, and if it wasn't it would be extinct very quickly. So why have there been such radical changes? Environmental changes can change how a species is able to survive. If, as a result of this change, some members of the species are now better equiped to survive than others, traits possessed by those members will become dominant (ie. natural selection). But we do not see new genetic traits miraculously arise in animals that are having a difficult time surviving in their present environment. The argument would be that it takes millions of years, but even so it is hard to imagine an environmental change that would necessitate such radical changes. I once heard a scientist say that the first fish came onto land because of predatory pressures...yet it took a million years or so for them to evolve. It seems to me that if they survived the million year necessary to evolve, then there were no predatory pressures.

- As the starter of this thread mentioned, the specifics on how exactly the process of evolution works are a bit iffy. Natural selection doesn't seem to be able to explain the vast variety of species on this planet, and believing that random genetic mutations have created the numerous, incredibly fine tuned organisms we find on earth, is quite a leap of faith. It is easy to see how, through a change in environment, one genetic trait can become dominant. But how can entirely new genetics traits be created? If the fish from the previous point is growing lungs and legs, where did the genetic code for those come from? If they grow gradually, and it takes millions of years, then those fish would be carrying around a lot of genetic deadweight for a long long time. Most likely this genetic material would be a hindrance to the fish in it's current environment, and if not, by the evolutionists own arguments, it would be weeded out as useless material.

Like I said, this is a pretty gross skeleton of a couple arguments/questions about evolution. I'd rather not get into an argument about it, but it now appears (as I scroll up) that I have written a fair bit already...uh oh .

You are a bit missinformed.

It only takes a very small change in genetic code to cause a dramatic physical chance. For example: Humans and chimpazees share 99. something percent of their DNA. The fist with lungs probably just started out as a fish that had its fins positioned in such a way that it could pull itself onto a river bed to avoid comming predators. The rest of the fish were less sucessful at reproducing so they didnt end up with as many offspring as the fish the could pull itself out of the water. As would be expected some of these new fish that had that extra mobility sometimes had trouble returning to the water before their gills dried up and they suffocated. With time another fish developed a genetic mutation which pushed its gills further into its body so they dried out less easily. It was able to survive outside of the water (away from predators) longer so it reproduced more. As time went on more genetic mutations made the gills more like lungs and the fish that featured these genetic mutations survived better. The fact that there is pressure from predators doesnt mean that it requires a dramatic sudden change, but rather a series of subtle, "good enough" changes can get the job done.

Also:
Most of our DNA does not code for anything. Most of it is garbage and serves no purpose but that doesnt act as dead weight, its just extra stuff that does nothing.

 

[Nick man]

Also, we dont know exactly what was going on with our early plannet. We dont have the knowledge of the exact chemicals and their proportions so as of now we cant create life.

Im not saying that means its possible, but the fact that we havent doesnt mean it cant be done.

 

[BruceWane]

Evidence that 'fits' with a theory is very different from evidence that 'proves' a theory.

Obviously, something that is called a "theory" has not been absolutely proved. But just because we don't have absolute proof, it doesn't invalidate the theory. A theory is simply the best known explanation for a phenomenon.

For example, gravity, as we know it scientifically, is a theory. We know that gravity exists, and we know a lot about it and how to work with it, but we cannot prove scientifically exactly how it works. That doesn't mean that we used to float around until Isaac Newton came along. And it doesn't mean that Einstein's corrections to Newtonian physics made us any heavier or lighter.

See? A theory attempts to explain a phenomenon; it is not the phenomenon itself. While the theory of evolution may be incomplete, that does not mean that evolution did not and does not occur.

Theoretically there are an infinite number of theories in which all the evidence would fit. If you start with the firm belief that the theory is true (a priori) whatever evidence you find you will interpret in such a way as to make it fit with your theory.

I don't think you are familiar with the process of peer review. Theories are not accepted by the scientific community without rigorous criticism. If evidence for any argument is lacking in any way, it is not accepted. Evidence is not given "favorable interpretation" by the scientific community, it is evaluated very critically.

In our studies at school we found that evolutionists use almost the exact same set of evidence to support their theories as do creationists.

Yeah...almost. Things can get really twisted if you reject a few key scientific tools like carbon dating.

They can't explain how it all started. Yes we've all heard the 'pool of goo' story, but how exactly did that work?

The study of evolution does not include explaining how it all started; that is a completely different area of study called abiogenesis. The lack of an accepted theory of abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

But anyway........

They tried re-creating this in a laboratory in the 1980's...nothing happened. So they applied electric current to it and tried other various things to get it to work. In the end the conclusion was that despite their inability to show that this was possible even in a controlled laboratory setting, it must have happened anyway.

Absolutely, positively WRONG. Look up "Miller's Experiment". It was one of the first experiments of this kind, but there have since been many experiments simulating many different environments, both on earth and in space, in which amino acids and other organic molecules have been spontaneously produced.

Why?...... So why have there been such radical changes?

Who said there have been radical changes? There have been many incremental changes. Characterizing evolution as "radical changes" is like sleeping through a car ride across the state, only to wake and come to the conclusion that you were magically teleported there.

Environmental changes can change how a species is able to survive...............I once heard a scientist say that the first fish came onto land because of predatory pressures...yet it took a million years or so for them to evolve. It seems to me that if they survived the million year necessary to evolve, then there were no predatory pressures.

I think perhaps this scientist could better explain himself, as it appears he's just giving a condensed version. The full story would explain that some fish found that they could avoid predators by going into water too shallow for them too follow. Then of course, the predators adapt in order to chase them into shallower water. So the prey moves into even shallower water....and the predator follows....and so on.

As the starter of this thread mentioned, the specifics on how exactly the process of evolution works are a bit iffy. Natural selection doesn't seem to be able to explain the vast variety of species on this planet, and believing that random genetic mutations have created the numerous, incredibly fine tuned organisms we find on earth, is quite a leap of faith. It is easy to see how, through a change in environment, one genetic trait can become dominant. But how can entirely new genetics traits be created? If the fish from the previous point is growing lungs and legs, where did the genetic code for those come from? If they grow gradually, and it takes millions of years, then those fish would be carrying around a lot of genetic deadweight for a long long time. Most likely this genetic material would be a hindrance to the fish in it's current environment, and if not, by the evolutionists own arguments, it would be weeded out as useless material.

All creatures carry around a lot of genetic deadweight. A large part of DNA is useless. Genetic noise. And it causes no problems at all.

As far as the diversity of life......just take a look at a family tree that goes back 6 or 7 generations. It's a huge thing. And that's roughly, what, 300 years? Now, multiply that out to a few billion years............

 

[clef360]

An evolution would be that molars begin getting smaller and smaller in humans to the point that they stopped coming in. That would happen over the course of millenia, or eons. Slowly the same thing will happen to our fingernails and toenails. They are vestigial remnants of when we used to have claws. Our tailbone will slowly dissapear over the next few million as well. That is evolution.

Am I mistaken, or is there something that's killing people with nails, teeth, and tailbones more so than people without? How is it an advantage to not have these traits? I think that it might(!!!!) be that people are getting worse off every generation. Only people with the worst genetic diseases are selected out of the population. Our technology allows almost everyone to survive and breed, even if they have some faults, and our global society(or whatever) pretty much breaks down any land barriers that might seperate groups of people, so I'm thinking that only evolving our species will be doing is toward being more similar. For example, say someone has the genetic coding for dark skin, and another person has light skin. They breed, and come up with something in between. I dunno, this is all just my own guessing and opinion based off my limited college biology experience, so don't take it too seriously.

 

[Mark Reccord]

- Evidence that 'fits' with a theory is very different from evidence that 'proves' a theory. Theoretically there are an infinite number of theories in which all the evidence would fit. If you start with the firm belief that the theory is true (a priori) whatever evidence you find you will interpret in such a way as to make it fit with your theory. In our studies at school we found that evolutionists use almost the exact same set of evidence to support their theories as do creationists.

Like BruceWane said, the 'theory' (or theories) of evolution is an attempt to explain the fact of evolution. Theories are basically that: trying to explain observable phenomena using the evidence at hand. Sure, there are problems with the theory/theories and holes in it, it's a very complicated problem with the large time frames and such. No credible scientist would say that they have it all figured out. The fact that there isn't a complete theory doesn't change the fact that evolution has occurred and is occurring, we just haven't figured out the mechanism(s).

Of course creationists use the same set of evidence that the scientific community uses because they haven't done any of their own research. The 'creation science' crowd only seems to critique actual scientific work and then come to the false conclusion that if something doesn't support the current theories, it automatically must support literal creationism.

 

[jucas]

BruceWane

Well put, I thought about replying, but I wouldn't have said it nearly as eloquently as you did. Out of curiousity, what is it you do that you know about this type of thing? (it was Miller and Uray with the amino acids and organic molecules wasn't it? just trying to remember the other guys name)

 

[Nick Gann]

Am I mistaken, or is there something that's killing people with nails, teeth, and tailbones more so than people without? How is it an advantage to not have these traits? I think that it might(!!!!) be that people are getting worse off every generation. Only people with the worst genetic diseases are selected out of the population. Our technology allows almost everyone to survive and breed, even if they have some faults, and our global society(or whatever) pretty much breaks down any land barriers that might seperate groups of people, so I'm thinking that only evolving our species will be doing is toward being more similar. For example, say someone has the genetic coding for dark skin, and another person has light skin. They breed, and come up with something in between. I dunno, this is all just my own guessing and opinion based off my limited college biology experience, so don't take it too seriously.

Did you even read the FIRST LINE OF MY POST? I said evolution is MORE than just natural selection. It is also due to the uses and new uses of the body and its parts. We have no tail, so no need for a tailbone. There is no need for a tail, so no tail. No need for a tailbone, so we will probably lose them in a few million years.

 

[Ba Gua Tiger]

there is too much talking and I have a headache. I am unsubscribing



Have fun not getting anywhere

 

[Brad Barker]

there is this 100 year old biologist named Ernst Mayr, who apparently is "arguably the greatest evolutionary biologist of the 20th century," according to the director of the museum of comparative zoology.

he has plenty of books on biology and evolution. in fact, one is called <i>what evolution is</i>. might be useful.

personally, i don't find biology interesting. but i do have a subscription to scientific american, which will be cancelled soon--too many articles on biology! lol.

 

[DEFELDUS]

havent read the replies but my thought on it is this:

now that we let technology run our lives so thoroughly, will we continue to evolve or not? have we reached a plateau where we let our technology evolve for us while we make no progress? 0_o

 

[country_boy]

A theory attempts to explain a phenomenon; it is not the phenomenon itself. While the theory of evolution may be incomplete, that does not mean that evolution did not and does not occur.

That was very well said.

I think that one area that we can see evolution due to environmental stress is in diseases, bacteria, and crop pests. (please correct me if I'm wrong, biology is not my area) When the chemical that you apply to kill them doesn't kill them all, the offspring of the survivors are resistant to the poison. In recent years there has been an "arms race" in the pharmacutical and pesticide industries to keep up with the pests. I

Any thoughs?

This is a very interesting thread! Almost gets me in the mood for classes to resume, almost.

 

[Nick Gann]

havent read the replies but my thought on it is this:

now that we let technology run our lives so thoroughly, will we continue to evolve or not? have we reached a plateau where we let our technology evolve for us while we make no progress? 0_o

That is more a function of adaptation than evolution. We make our environment adapt to us instead of us adapting to it, as has been the standard of the past.

 

[Nick man]

Did you even read the FIRST LINE OF MY POST? I said evolution is MORE than just natural selection. It is also due to the uses and new uses of the body and its parts. We have no tail, so no need for a tailbone. There is no need for a tail, so no tail. No need for a tailbone, so we will probably lose them in a few million years.

We dont just lose things we dont need. It has to either be replaced by something more favorable, or be a detriment for it to cause breeding to work against it.

Evolution is just the mutation of a single organism without natural selection. Natural selection is what propels those mutations into actual evolution.

 

[Nick Gann]

Hmm, that's not how I learned it. *shrug*

 

[Nick man]

havent read the replies but my thought on it is this:

now that we let technology run our lives so thoroughly, will we continue to evolve or not? have we reached a plateau where we let our technology evolve for us while we make no progress? 0_o

We will still evolve.

Who gets the ladies?

Good lookin guys, so there will be more good lookin offspring.

Who else gets the ladies?

Guys who can support them and a family. Smart people or people with other adaptations that make them more productive will have more offspring. Assuming they are genetically linked, we will have more inteligent/productive offspring.

In addition, some cancers and other disieases are still untreatable/uncurable. There are people who have natural resistance to some of these diseases though, and they will make up an increasingly larger percentage of the population as they reproduce and others who are more susceptible die.

 

[Aaron Saunders]

I always learned evolution like Nick did -- that we do, in fact, lose things we don't need. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anything contrary.

 

[Nick man]

I always learned evolution like Nick did -- that we do, in fact, lose things we don't need. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anything contrary.

Which Nick? j/k

Well a lot of people in my experience misunderstand that aspect of it.

There needs to be a mechanism for change.

It is possible that we lose things that we dont need because thats more energy that goes into creating them in a developing child and thus it is advantageous not to have it so that the extra energy and nutrients can go to vital functions.

It is not possible to lose something unless there is a prefrence to be without it. There is no motivation for those genetics to become dominant.

 

[Wrong Robot]

Man, reading through this thread is pretty good refresher course for me. I studied evolution my senior year in high school, and I've forgotten a lot of the finer points by now, but it's largely coming back to me now, thanks guys

 

[Bard2dbone]

Okay. I'm probably going to ramble a LOT here, but here goes.

1. Evolutionary/ Mutatory pressure doesn't always have to be positive. In school they always used the example you just used about traits that make reproduction more likely being the reaits that get passed down. I say that that is bull-poopie because baldness is a dominant trait. And any bald guy will tell you it doesn't help you reproduce. Which is a damn shame, because the primary cause of male-pattern baldness is excess testoterone. I think that male-pattern baldness is one of the crueler jokes God ever came up with. Give a guy way too much of the stuff that makes a man a man, make him chemically/hormonally predisposed to be obsessed about sex and then make him less likely to find a partner at the same time. Thanks a whole heapin' bunch God.

2. Country_boy had it pretty much on the mark and this IS my field. Most of the drug resistant disease that are cropping up nowadays are due to stupid people failing to finish their antibiotics. If you start a round of antibiotics, you kill the weaker germs first. If you stop taking them before all of the germs are gone, you only have the strongest ones left. So those are the germs that reproduce and spread. Same things with bugs out on the farm. If you only kill the weak ones, only the strong are left. And whatever made them strong eventually gets passed down. So the drugs that killed disease a generation ago, actually can FEED the equivalent disease now. If you have ever heard of a variation of gonorrhea that servicemen used to call 'the black drip' , it is actually Penicillinase Producing Neisseria Gonorrhea. The first two words in PPNG mean that it EATS PENICILLIN. It used to be regular gonorrhea. But enough guys and gals didn't finish their penicillin pills that they trained it to like the stuff.

3. Most of the 'natural pressures' the evolution relies on no longer exist for humans. The most 'evolutionarily postive' people in the gene pool are willingly limiting their genetic output. The people who would not have survived to adulthood in the 19th century are the ones that are reproducing like an all-night Kinkos. Events that would have culled them from the herd in earlier eras can now be repaired. So the pointless wasrws of protoplasm can have eight or ten kids. While the actual benefits to society decide to have one, and then actually stop. One of my frequent patients is a boy whose Dad is his Granddad,. That's not a joke. A guy impregnated his own daughter. She kept the baby and was shocked that he has LOTS of medical issues. Dad/Grandad is out of jail now, living back in the same house with his wife and daughter/mistress. One of the nurses I work with says daughter/mistress is pregnant again. I see lots of intelligent, responsible people that are unable to conceive. Or when they do their kid comes down with some horrible condition and eventually dies. Then I see people that no responsible society would allow to reproduce coming in because all seven of their kids got spider bites and scorpion stings on the same day from playing in the shed.

It's really really really really not a fair world.

 

[robb.]

babies aren't born with any teeth

then where do teeth come from?

robb.