Evolution Pros and Cons

[questor]

Some of my problems with evolution and the origin of life:

abiogenesis- experiments have formed organic compounds but not life

what is life? at what particulate level does it exist? molecular? atomic? sub-atomic?

if the sea was the original crucible of life, why did animals need to move to land?

what was the diet of the original one celled animal? There was no other life to eat

if DNA is difficult to produce, how did all the different life forms occur early on?

if DNA is information, how does it arise from no information?

how did sapience arise from non-sapience?

If organisms respond to environmental challenges, how does one explain wings?

how does one explain a brontosaurus, what environmental challenge could create this beast?

what environmental challenge could create the brain of modern man?

What was the impetus for man's brain to become what it is, while our cousins the apes are still apes?

I'm sure there are good answers to these question because we are all here.

[Galapagos]

Interesting read for those following along:

Reducibly Complex Blog Archive Anti-Evolution: It’s the New Intelligent Design

 

 

Some of my problems with evolution and the origin of life:

abiogenesis- experiments have formed organic compounds but not life

We are talking about incredibly complex chemical reactions that only needed to happen once 3.8 billion years ago when nobody was around. Does it really surprise you that in the past 50 years since this field was born that we haven't done this yet? For some reason I doubt you clicked the links before, so here you go again:

Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

what is life? at what particulate level does it exist? molecular? atomic? sub-atomic?

Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

if the sea was the original crucible of life, why did animals need to move to land?

Organisms fill any niche possible, this has already been covered. http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17750-evolution-pros-and-cons-4.html#post249131

what was the diet of the original one celled animal? There was no other life to eat

if DNA is difficult to produce, how did all the different life forms occur early on?

if DNA is information, how does it arise from no information?

RNA world hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

how did sapience arise from non-sapience?

A magical disembodied personality used its magical powers to grant magical souls and the whole world was a magical place for everyone! Also, AIDS!

Edge: THE ADJACENT POSSIBLE

 

If organisms respond to environmental challenges, how does one explain wings?

Origin of avian flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

how does one explain a brontosaurus, what environmental challenge could create this beast?

Cope's rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

what environmental challenge could create the brain of modern man?

What was the impetus for man's brain to become what it is, while our cousins the apes are still apes?

Psychological adaptation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I'm sure there are good answers to these question because we are all here.

And what you have been doing is known as the "Gish Gallop".

Duane Gish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gish gallop - RationalWiki

 

Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.

 

 

 

The entire relevant science community is in consensus questor. Evolution is a fact, and we all evolved from one or a few common ancestors.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Continue with your argument from ignorance, but it is quite transparent.

You have not conceded or acknowledged any of the points on which you have been wrong(basically all of them) and no evidence has been good enough for you.

You are also yet to explain the alternate hypothesis or why it is more likely. Care to enlighten us?

[questor]

Galapagos, good post and excellent links to interesting research. Let me post a quote from one of them: '' Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

 

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997) This may be interpreted differently by different people, but it somewhat alludes to my questions.

I believe that life has not been explained on its particulate basis. Your link to the definition of life demonstrates that clearly. The molecular or particulate basis of wing development has not been explained or even addressed. Your link to wing development shows that clearly. Since all life consists of carbon compounds, where lies the chemistry that creates the difference? You might say that fauna are a bag of organic chemicals contained in varying organic containers. We will never understand illness, evolution, life, or thought (to name a few) until we can understand the biochemical and enzymatic reactions which cause our motors to run and replicate species. Most scientific observations (including Darwin) are based upon macro events. I am trying to understand the micro events that make all things possible. You can observe a bird having wings , but you can't tell me exactly how it occurred or why. I find it hard to believe that a small raptor found it useful to have wings and so they developed. I'm sure that all small raptors would have enjoyed that advantage, why didn't they have the same chance? If man and chimps split from a common ancestor 6 million or so years ago, why are the chimps still tree swingers and men are on the internet? Is there a an intelligence gene?

[Galapagos]

Galapagos, good post and excellent links to interesting research. Let me post a quote from one of them: '' Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

 

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997) This may be interpreted differently by different people, but it somewhat alludes to my questions.

What does that have to do with whether or not evolution happened? You asked a bunch of unrelated questions in "GIsh Gallop" style, and you got answers with just as much time put into them. You have yet to concede any of the points where you have been proven wrong, and you have yet to offer your alternative hypothesis.

 

I believe that life has not been explained on its particulate basis. Your link to the definition of life demonstrates that clearly. The molecular or particulate basis of wing development has not been explained or even addressed. Your link to wing development shows that clearly. Since all life consists of carbon compounds, where lies the chemistry that creates the difference? You might say that fauna are a bag of organic chemicals contained in varying organic containers. We will never understand illness, evolution, life, or thought (to name a few) until we can understand the biochemical and enzymatic reactions which cause our motors to run and replicate species. Most scientific observations (including Darwin) are based upon macro events. I am trying to understand the micro events that make all things possible. You can observe a bird having wings , but you can't tell me exactly how it occurred or why. I find it hard to believe that a small raptor found it useful to have wings and so they developed. I'm sure that all small raptors would have enjoyed that advantage, why didn't they have the same chance? If man and chimps split from a common ancestor 6 million or so years ago, why are the chimps still tree swingers and men are on the internet? Is there a an intelligence gene?

 

I'm about to walk out the door, and I do not know of any studies on the molecular evolution of the wing. There was some in the post about the finches posted earlier, and fortunately I can offer very, very, very extensive work just published about eye evolution:

 

Genomicron: All about eye evolution.

highlights for you:

 

 

Opening the “Black Box”: The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution by Todd H. Oakley and M. Sabrina Pankey

 

Misconceptions About the Evolution of Complexity by Andrew J. Petto and Louise S. Mead

 

358-389. The Evolution of Complex Organs by T. Ryan Gregory

 

 

The Origin of the Vertebrate Eye by Trevor D. Lamb, Edward N. Pugh, Jr., and Shaun P. Collin

 

 

What is your alternate explanation for all of the evidence for evolution so far accumulated in this thread?

[Essay]

...so much for lunch.... :)

I am trying to understand the micro events that make all things possible.

That'd require a lot more than the 4 chem. courses that you mentioned, but....

It sounds more like you're questioning overarching principles, rather than digging into any one detail.

===

 

For a really enjoyable and informative overview (with some amazing details too):

 

ResearchChannel - From Butterflies to Humans

Description:

The story of animal evolution is marked by key innovations such as limbs for walking on land, wings for flight, and color patterns for advertising or concealment. How do new traits arise? Sean B. Carroll, Ph.D. explores how new patterns evolve when 'old' genes learn new tricks. Old genes learning new tricks also apply to our own species and the evolution of traits that distinguish us from earlier hominids and other apes. Despite immense advances in evidence and understanding, there remains a societal struggle with the acceptance of our biological history and the evolutionary process.

 

...and for Part II....

ResearchChannel - Endless Forms Most Beautiful

Description:

The Darwinian revolution was the first revolution in biology. University of Wisconsin--Madison's Sean B. Carroll traces the discovery of evolution through Charles Darwin's long voyage, many discoveries, and prodigious writings. Darwin introduced the concept of the 'fittest,' but how are the fittest made? The second revolution in biology was triggered by discoveries in genetics. Genetic variation, selection, and time combine to fuel the evolutionary process. The action of selection is now visible in DNA, both in preventing injurious changes and in favoring advantageous changes in traits.

 

 

I was lucky enough to catch these on our local cable system.

 

~ :confused:

[questor]

Galapagos, if you would like to show me where I have personally made an untrue

statement that has been scientifically disproved, post it and I will retract it. I made it clear in the beginning of the post that I was going to post dissent to Darwin's theory. I did not say I was in total agreement with the dissent.

[REASON]

I made it clear in the beginning of the post that I was going to post dissent to Darwin's theory. I did not say I was in total agreement with the dissent.

 

So not only are you portraying Gish, but you're also playing the Devil's Advocate. :confused:

 

If only I felt you were doing so to gain knowledge and understanding rather than simply stroking your ego. :shrug:

 

 

Happy Holidays! :)

[Zythryn]

I made it clear in the beginning of the post that I was going to post dissent to Darwin's theory. I did not say I was in total agreement with the dissent.

 

Ok Questor, what position do you hold then?

What 'finer' point would you like to discuss.

As soon as someone addresses one of the many points you raise, you drop that line of discussion and move on to another.

So, please pick one point, and lets follow it to its conclusion.

[Moontanman]

Galapagos, if you would like to show me where I have personally made an untrue

statement that has been scientifically disproved, post it and I will retract it. I made it clear in the beginning of the post that I was going to post dissent to Darwin's theory. I did not say I was in total agreement with the dissent.

 

Questor, if you could come up with something new I would be all for it, but you are just dragging out all the same tired old stuff that has been refuted here over and over and over and over. Every creationist with an ego the size of God sweeps in here thinking they have the last word of the death of evolution and have no clue they are simply repeating the same old stuff everyone has heard so many times it's nauseating. Repetition will never make these things correct. All these BS artists who have a new "Evolution disproved" type site are nothing but ammunition for these guys to make them think they have something new. All any of it ever amounts to is repetition of the same old stuff, sometimes it's not even that good, often as in the case the Muslim creationist it's such complete BS it's actually comedic. I honestly thought you were serious but all you are doing is dredging up stuff that was buried so long ago it should be fossilized by now. Do some research, find something new that hasn't been refuted so many times it smells like a week old fish and I'll be impressed, but this insistent repetition of known BS just gets boring. I would really like to dig into this subject if it was fresh but just refuting the same thing is not fun and smacks of disrespect for everyone here.

[questor]

It's easy to see who has a closed mind here, who has already formed an opinion based on meager knowledge and will not entertain any thoughts to the contrary. Those of you who don't want to continue the discussion have a simple remedy. If you have totally accepted the current explanations of evolution, you can depart secure in that knowledge, you need to question no more. If you have reservations

about some aspects of the theory, I will post some more information. If you think I have made an error in facts, present the error with scientific proof to the contrary.

Some here may be experts in the subject. Why not present the facts backed up with science. I have never said the theory is wrong. It is obvious that variations in species have ocurred. The problem to me is the tremendous diversity in life and species caused by factors we don't understand.

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t125078h5p201442/fulltext.pdf

 

''Introduction

As a career, science would hold very little appeal if all it

entailed were the confirmation of existing knowledge or the

memorization of long lists of well-established facts. Science

thrives on what is not yet known: the more vexing a problem,

the more inspiring it is to investigate. With millions of

species alive today (and orders of magnitude more thought

to be extinct), not only describing but also explaining the

diversity, history, and complexity of life is a challenge nearly

without equal in all of science. Nevertheless, the diligent accumulation

of data punctuated by occasional empirical or

theoretical breakthroughs has, over the past two centuries

yielded tremendous advances in the understanding of life’s

complexities and the historical origins thereof.

There was a time when natural processes capable of

producing complex biological features were deemed inconceivable,

leading to the conclusion that these, like human

artifacts, must be the products of intelligent agency (e.g.,

Paley 1802). Beginning with Darwin’s (1859) description of

natural selection, and expanding considerably upon it in the

150 years since, the science of evolutionary biology has assembled

a theoretical framework capable of explaining how

complex features can arise naturally over time. Still, while

few nonspecialists have trouble acknowledging small-scale

evolutionary processes such as the evolution of antibiotic

resistance within populations of bacteria, they often remain

uncertain as to how similar mechanisms could account for

complex structures such as eyes or wings (Ayala 2007; Scott

and Matzke 2007).''

The challenge, as with more complex biological features, is

to explain how such a system evolved through intermediates

to its current, integrated state, given that it is not reasonable

to hypothesize that the components arose together

instantaneously by mutation.

In vertebrates, the stress hormone cortisol activates the

glucocorticoid receptor, which is involved in regulating

metabolism and immunity whereas a related receptor, the

mineralocorticoid receptor, is activated by aldosterone to

regulate electrolyte homeostasis (in abstract terms A + B→X

whereas C + D → Y). This specificity is important, as activation

of the wrong receptor would be very detrimental to the

organism (it would be a problem if A + D→Y; Adami 2006).

Having the two receptors activated separately is also

beneficial as it allows metabolism to be regulated independently

of electrolytes, for example (Bridgham et al. 2006).

Phylogenetic analyses suggest that the two receptors are derived

from an ancestral gene that duplicated about 450

million years ago (Mya). Aldosterone, by contrast, is found

only in tetrapods and, therefore, evolved long after the origin

of the two receptors (Fig. 1A). The question is, how could

these receptors become specific for different hormones when

one of the hormones did not yet exist?

In order to address this question, Bridgham et al. (2006)

used phylogenetic approaches to reconstruct the ancestral

corticoid receptor and found that it would have been sensitive

to cortisol, aldosterone (had it existed), and another

hormone known as 11-deoxycorticosterone. The difference

between this early receptor and the modern glucocorticoid

receptor, which does not bind aldosterone, lies in amino acid

changes caused by twomutations—either one of these changes

alone makes the receptor insensitive to cortisol, but both

together make it sensitive to cortisol and insensitive to aldosterone.

It is unlikely that both mutations would occur

simultaneously, but Bridgham et al. (2006) found that one of

the mutations retained sensitivity to 11-deoxycorticosterone,

meaning that this intermediate step would still be functional,

though in a different way, and could still have been favored

before the second mutation occurred (Fig. 1B). Meanwhile,

selection acting to maintain specificity for a different hormone

that was structurally similar to aldosterone meant that

once aldosterone arose, it could bind to the mineralocorticoid

receptor which remained similar to the ancestral form (a

process Bridgham et al. 2006 call “molecular exploitation”;

Fig. 1A).

In short, even though they are now indivisible, the two

hormone-receptor pairs could have evolved through a stepwise

series favored at each stage by natural selection, but the

steps were not direct. The process involved gene duplication,

the input of a third hormone, and shifts in function. Similar

processes may operate generally in the evolution of complex

proteins in a manner that is readily explained by modern

evolutionary theory (see Lynch 2005 for a technical discussion).

These and other indirect evolutionary processes are

also involved in the evolution of complex organs and their

components, and are discussed in more detail in the following

sections. It is important to note that most complex

organ evolution probably involves processes from various

parts of the direct–indirect evolutionary continuum.

[questor]

Reading the above information would leave one to wonder at the number and sequences of provident mutations that would have to occur to make just one organ system. Then all the systems have to gather together by some process to complete the whole animal. This information only speaks to macro activity, it does not explain the micro activity. What force drives all this to happen as it does? How can all these atoms and molecules be guided to perform the functions neccesary?

[Zythryn]

What force drives...

No force at all Questor. The creatures that survive pass on their genes to the their offspring. Many more creatures have died because they could not adapt. Those that can, pass along their genes and/or teach their offspring making them more likely to survive in that environment. Or, to be able to better use the resources in its environment to allow it to produce more offspring.

Organs, in their final state don't need to all be produced at once. The eye is much more complicated than the light sensitive patches of skin which developed first.

And it is still changing! After all, I would guess, and I don't know here, that the apendix at one point served a purpose. It doesn't now, so what happened?

[Moontanman]

Reading the above information would leave one to wonder at the number and sequences of provident mutations that would have to occur to make just one organ system. Then all the systems have to gather together by some process to complete the whole animal. This information only speaks to macro activity, it does not explain the micro activity. What force drives all this to happen as it does? How can all these atoms and molecules be guided to perform the functions neccesary?

 

Questor, probably thousands, even million of mutations of would be required over many tens of millions of years to make a complete organ system. This has come about in many small steps as Zythryn has pointed, the problem you are talking about is called irreducible complexity, it's been refuted hundreds of times, it is not a problem in evolution. Evolution easily accounts for this idea of irreducible complexity. Minds here are only closed to old refuted concepts that are no longer part of any argument about evolution. Just because some creation science site is promoting something doesn't mean it's new or even relevant. They excel in the idea of repeating something often enough makes it true. Get with the program Questor, find something that hasn't already been shown to false a hundred times.

[questor]

If there is no force, or motivation for a reaction to take place, why does it happen?

Can you name other events which have no reason for happening?

[Moontanman]

If there is no force, or motivation for a reaction to take place, why does it happen?

Can you name other events which have no reason for happening?

 

I think it's a better question to ask do you know of any event that has a reason for happening? Combine oxygen and hydrogen and when the conditions are correct they will react to make water, Until the conditions are correct they do not. No reason is required, all other chemical reactions take place the same way. In the case of evolution these reactions are driven by the success of the organism. The organism that has the genes that allow the correct reactions to take place live if they didn't the organism would die. This has bee fine tuned by billions of generations of genes over billions of years. You seem to operate on the premise that every organism is starting from scratch, this is not true, the chemical basis for all the reactions taking place was written into DNA billions o years ago, only fine tuning has been required since the fine tuning is driven by evolution. Organisms that get it right live, those that don't die or have fewer offspring. It's that simple.

[questor]

Moon, it's not simple at all. Here is something simple: H2O - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water: The Chemistry of Water: Electrolysis

are you telling me there is no reason for this reaction? You understand that in order to have chemical reactions, elements or compounds have to be present in proper amounts, conditions must be correct and a catalyst must be present.

Again, I ask you--tell me of things that happen with no reason.

[Moontanman]

Moon, it's not simple at all. Here is something simple: H2O - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water: The Chemistry of Water: Electrolysis

are you telling me there is no reason for this reaction? You understand that in order to have chemical reactions, elements or compounds have to be present in proper amounts, conditions must be correct and a catalyst must be present.

Again, I ask you--tell me of things that happen with no reason.

 

Yes, questor, there is no "reason" for oxygen and hydrogen reacting. It's natural process that takes place naturally, no reason required.