Evolution Pros and Cons

[questor]

Evolution remains a complex subject. It is obvious that environment influences variation in species, all one has to do is observe the different skin colors in Homo Sapiens.to see these results. These of course are macro variations and we do not know the biochemical reactions in genes that ocurred to cause these differences. Some think that Darwin's theory does not hold up to its proclamations and I would like to post an attempt at refutation of the theory to dicuss some finer points. I do believe that adaptation to environment takes place, although I do not understand the chemical mechanism. I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors. Please read this link as it provides many areas of discussion.

Darwinism Refuted.com

[Tormod]

That is just another creationism site. It would fit neatly into all the other creationism threads here at Hypography.

[Moontanman]

I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors.]

 

No one has ever suggested that evolution theory supports the idea of evolution in demand. Claiming this is totally disingenuous, no animal can just grow wings to help it escape predators this is not part of evolutionary theory in any way shape or form. I suggest you try to understand evolution from the stand point of real science instead of trying to disprove it through creationist sites that have no real evidence to back them up and only use lies and misleading propaganda.

[Galapagos]

I do not believe there can be evolution upon demand, such as a primitive animal growing wings to help escape predators, when no wings were present in ancestors. Please read this link as it provides many areas of discussion.

Darwinism Refuted.com

What you describe sounds like the dated evolutionary theory of Lamarckism, and it is rejected by most evolutionary biologists.

 

The website you have linked is a creationist website of the ID flavor. JFYI, ID is rejected by both the U.S. court systems and the scientific community as religious pseudoscience.

 

Also, if you want to discuss the evolution of flight, gliding, or wings, feel free. That happens to be an interesting topic in evolutionary biology..

[pamela]

Questor, is it possible that you cite an example as to what you are referring to? And can this example be based from a scientific standpoint only? In posting a link to site that has it's origins in creationism, will only allow the construct of a wall based in anticreationism that will thwart any possibility of having an objective discussion

[questor]

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution. If someone here can explain how genetic code can be changed to make a lemur become a man, I would like to hear it. The chimpanzee has a genome very similar to man, but no chimp has ever become a man, nor has a man become a chimp. There have been at least 5 major mass extinctions and then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago that seemed to repopulate the world.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years

.

[Moontanman]

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution. If someone here can explain how genetic code can be changed to make a lemur become a man, I would like to hear it. The chimpanzee has a genome very similar to man, but no chimp has ever become a man, nor has a man become a chimp.

 

Questor, no man can ever become a chimp, no chimp can ever become a man. A lemur cannot become a man, you are asking nonsensical questions. The change from one species to another can happen over just a few generations but that would be a tiny change, the change from a lemur to a man or even from a chimp to a man would literally take millions of generations with thousands of different species between the two. The changes occur at the genetic level from environmental pressures acting on random mutations. You do understand that chimps are not the ancestors of humans don't you?

 

http://

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years

.[/QT here have been at least 5 major mass extinctions and then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago that seemed to repopulate the world.

UOTE

 

First of all no known mass extinction wiped out all phyla, or even most phyla. The mass extinctions of the past 500,000,000 years wiped out lots of species and required millions of years for new species to evolve. There were mass extinctions before that, when cyano bacteria started polluting the atmosphere with oxygen it was probably the biggest mass extinction in the history of life on earth but no complex animals were involved in that, only microbes. What is your problem with mass extinctions and the way they were repopulated by new species? How is that process unclear?

[Galapagos]

Let me say that this thread not is about creationism. It is about questioning the science or lack of it in the theory of evolution.

This thread is certainly about creationism, and specifically stealth creationism and Intelligent Design creationism. The "Pros and Cons" argument is analogous to the "Strengths and Weaknesses" rhetoric popular among the same creationists trying to pretend they are just "Teaching The Controversy" and encouraging "Academic Freedom":

 

The Austringer Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too

Pharyngula: The battle rages on in Texas

Explore the strengths and weaknesses of Florida's "Academic Freedom" bill - The Panda's Thumb

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Those "Strengths and Weakness" of Evolution

 

 

Carry on with the thread, but it is obvious that the motivation here is primarily religious, not scientific.

[Moontanman]

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

[Galapagos]

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

 

My spidey sense is tingling, but okay. On with the show then..

 

 

 

Questor, no man can ever become a chimp, no chimp can ever become a man. A lemur cannot become a man, you are asking nonsensical questions. The change from one species to another can happen over just a few generations but that would be a tiny change, the change from a lemur to a man or even from a chimp to a man would literally take millions of generations with thousands of different species between the two. The changes occur at the genetic level from environmental pressures acting on random mutations. You do understand that chimps are not the ancestors of humans don't you?

 

You got it, Moonman. Chimpanzees and humans are both modern primates. Our common ancestor was neither a chimpanzee or a human, it was something else. The common ancestor gave birth to the patri/matriarchs of two lineages; ours, and the chimps, and these two lineages diverged and adapted to different niches and were exposed to different selection pressures. Modern chimps and humans are very well adapted for their own niches and accordingly very different species.

 

I would assume the time line of life was well beyond the single cell life form and we have to deal with the problem of how genetic material was able to change enough to make all the new phyla down to new species of life in the last 500 million years

Why do you think the variation in genes cannot account for the variation in phenotype?

Also, on the "specific weaknesses" section of the wikipedia "Strenghts And Weaknesses" page, the creationist objections to the Cambrian explosion are addressed. Even though this isn't a creationist thread :), I figure someone may benefit from it anyway.

[Pyrotex]

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

MooMan, where have you been for the last year or more?

 

We have given Questor dozens of chances.

 

It always ends the same. He spreads Creationist BS as if it were some newly discovered truth and demands we refute it. We refute it. He starts a new thread and we go through the same harangue all over again.

 

We cannot give him the "benefit of the doubt" because there IS NO DOUBT what his motives are, and have been since the dark and miserable day that he crawled in from the LaBrea Tar Pit.

 

[Nothing personal, Questor] :) :) ;)

[Essay]

...observe the different skin colors in Homo Sapiens.to see these results. These of course are macro variations and we do not know the biochemical reactions in genes that ocurred to cause these differences. Some think...

Some research....

 

Why does nobody call Questor on this claim? I think we have a good understanding of the biochemical details of how skin color changes over the different latitudes, over the millennia.

 

[googled: folate melanin pigmentation]

 

Human skin color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see the sections: "Health related effects"

& "Genetics of skin color variation"

 

"...Europeans may have been dark as recently as 13,000 years ago."

Well, I thought it was 20 kya, but... you get the idea.

 

...or....

Differences between Races

Nutrient photolysis of folate, mentioned above, is thought to have played an important role in natural selection and the evolution of darker skin colors. Folic acid is required for normal DNA biosynthesis, and folate (a conjugated form of folic acid) is required for bone marrow maturation and red blood cell development. Research has also shown a causal relationship between neural tube defects and folate lysis. In addition, tests on lab mice and rats have shown that folate deficiency can cause male infertility (by arresting spermatogenesis). Putting all of these clues together, it's reasonable to hypothesize that Homo ergaster individuals that had greater protection against UV radiation were likely to produce more offspring than those with lower concentrations of melanin, eventually leading to darker skin colors associated with tropical environments.

 

As populations spread from Africa, it seems likely that dark skin color was less well suited to environments with lower UV radiation levels in the temperate zone. While dangerous in excess, UV radiation is essential for the synthesis of previtamin D3, which is needed for calcium absorption and normal skeletal development. In tropical areas, there is no problem receiving enough UV light for D3 synthesis. In higher latitudes, though, where exposure to UV light is significantly less, a high concentration of melanin may hinder the passage of enough radiation to synthesize the necessary amount of the vitamin precursor. Medical records show that people with darker skin living in the higher latitudes are at greater risk for vitamin D3 deficiency (which can trigger the onset of various bone density diseases that can result in immobilization, deformities, and death). For this reason, it is believed that as populations moved north, natural selection favored lighter shades of skin. The point is that by understanding the biological benefits of traits, it is possible to understand the evolution of them.

 

....Happy Holidays

~ :)

[Zythryn]

Nobody bothered calling Questor on that because it is the same thing he always does.

Builds a fallacious premise and then makes fun of it (Man coming from Chimps, Evolution on demand, Gays are treated with preferential treatment; that last one is not from this thread but is in my mind one of Q's all time funniest attempts at this tactic).

When cornered to give supporting evidence or documentation he either disappears, or does a google search and posts the results without checking that the results actually support his claim (and in some cases actually refute in;)).

Then after that doesn't work, he finds a new thread (or makes one) and does the same thing.

Now, I hope I am wrong and that he will discuss this to conclusion and admit where his premise has no foundations, if it is shown that they indeed have no foundation. But alas, I will be quite surprised if he doesn't follow the same pattern:(

[Moontanman]

Some research....

 

Why does nobody call Questor on this claim? I think we have a good understanding of the biochemical details of how skin color changes over the different latitudes, over the millennia.

 

[googled: folate melanin pigmentation]

 

 

Well, I thought it was 20 kya, but... you get the idea.

 

...or....

 

 

....Happy Holidays

~ :)

 

I think you just did Essay! I'd like to see reasonable discussion of this subject. Questor seems to think we will have a problem answering his questions. i don't think there will be a problem answering any question anyone can come up with concerning evolution. As long as questor and his allies stay with in the rules in this thread lets do so but if anyone steps out side the rules then they should feel the full brunt of the moderators. Far too often these discussion are side tracked by ambush posters trying to seem intelligent and then running away when they realize just how uninformed they are. Lets try to carry this thread out to it's completion, lets be completely fair, who ever looses has to admit to loosing, no hit and run tactics, and the looser agrees to cease and desist from bringing it up in other threads. How about it, a duel to the put up or shut up end?

[Essay]

Nobody bothered calling Questor on that because it is the same thing he always.... :(

Aha, I see....

 

Well let's see....

I did visit the site and picked a section to examine:

Darwinism Refuted.com

"This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific..."

===

 

Hahahahaha: It's too bad they can't connect those "scientific findings" into a coherent picture.

At least that's the impression left with me after choosing that section on Thermodynamics.

 

With enough discussion about several facets of entropy to be overwhelmingly confusing (to anyone not already familiar with the many more facets of entropy that exist), they seem to draw logical conclusions.

 

The thing that gets me laughing, is that they draw all their conclusions about the origin of life.

 

Darwin's theory deals with the "Origin of Species."

These are two very different theories, and yet these refuters seem to think that discounting one discounts the other.

 

As can be seen below, they go to a lot of rhetorical effort to address the origin of life (on pages 01-03), and then conclude (on page 04) that the same thing applies to evolution. Huh? :)

 

Jeremy Rifkin [notable environmental radical] is their best example of an "evolutionist?"

I think his "magical power" view more closely matches the advocates of this refuter's website. :naughty:

darwinismrefuted: "Evolution and Thermodynamics-" 01. The Misconception About Open Systems; 02. Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter;" 03. The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems; 04. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma.

 

Darwinism Refuted.com

"The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic."

 

"Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

 

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. 368- -[368: Jeremy Rifkin, Antropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.]

 

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis."

Thanks for that helpful explanation of entropy, Jeremy (and for inventing a new word!).

These refuter folks clearly got a lot out of it. :doh:

===

 

Darwinism Refuted.com

"In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

 

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. 369- -[369: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p.40.]"

 

"As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth."

 

"The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own."

...they're talking about the origin of life here, aren't they?

===

 

 

Darwinism Refuted.com

"The law of entropy, as we know, definitively states that when any organized, and complex structure is left to natural conditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information will result. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered, scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gave rise to living things with their organized systems."

Gee, I remember hearing that "the theory of evolution claims" something else. Are they confusing evolution with the origin of life?

===

 

Darwinism Refuted.com

"If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims...."

"In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life, and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy."

Yep, this is all about how to "explain the origin of life."

===

 

Darwinism Refuted.com

"So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that can so clearly be seen in living systems?

 

The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter."

 

"A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:

 

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. 383- -[383: Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207.]

 

The truths that we have been examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics."

Oh, but now we're drawing conclusions about "the impossibility of evolution."

When did we switch tracks?

The "truths that we have been examining in this section" had to do with entropy and the origins of life, not evolution.

 

Questor, regardless of their mangled distortion of thermodynamics, do you see a problem with the logic of this thermodynamics page on the "refuters" website?

 

Thanks,

~ :)

[Moontanman]

Questor, don't run away, I want to help you understand what evolution is and how it works. It's doubtful you could go anywhere and have more resources to help you understand. If you have problems with what has been posted so far lets hear them.You wanted a pros and cons thread so here it is. Put your concerns out there, we'll do our best to answer them. If you have reason to disagree lets hear your reasons. This subject has been used as a hit and run type thing by far too many people. It's wrong to use those tactics on this forum or in any real discussion of any subject. I'd like to clear this up once and for all, at least for the people here right now. At some point this thread will be useful as a place to direct such questions in the future. I'd like to see this done as a point by point discussion not a broad "evolution is BS or ID is BS" So many times we get broad arguments but every time the discussion gets done to a point by point one side cuts and runs. If an argument has merit this forum will show it. No one here wants to win just to win, it's important to be correct, winning the argument with out being correct is not part of the agenda of evolution, lets see if the detractors can live up to the same standard.

[pamela]

I would like to thank you, Moontanman, for your kind words to Questor. I think it extremely important to be kind and unbiased to people, when persuading them to see the proof behind science.We are all in a learning stage throughout our lives. Too many times have I been in the situation of trying to explain and support evolution on deaf ears; having an understanding heart and patience, allows the walls of unbelief to come crashing down.

I have seen many people now accepting evolution and while still keeping their core religious beliefs, have incorporated science into their views. Respect and kindness is the impetus for change