Designated Religion Argument Thread

Remove all ads!

Blackthrone:
What evidence of evolution are you talking about? The entire theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This record is vastly incomplete and therefore cannot be used as concrete evidence of anything, but rather as an inspiration for an idea that needs further evidence. No new species have evolved in the history of man. As far as I know, this could be the only real proof of the theory of macroevolution. If you know of something else, please feel free to go into all detail.

 

BlackThrone:
1.) Wrong, no new species have developed in the history of man. Even new viruses like HIV, though only debatably alive, cannot sown to be new and not changes in a previosly harmless virus. Not only that, but I'm not sure how species is defined for a-sexual beings. Do you happen to know?
2.) The problem with the fossil record is that it only proves that there used to be different creatures than there are now, not that one changed into the other. That is what macroevolution claims. The fossil record provides for this possibility, but is by no means proof.
3.) Microevolution is due to natural variations in chromosomes. If, for example, there are 3 chromosome pairs that determine hair color, and 2 possible chromosomes for each pair, then there are 6 different combos and 6 different hair colors. Microevolution states that whatever the most profitable hair color is at the time will become dominant, but the rest won't disapear from the gene pool, they'll just become less common and recessive. There is no mutation or change in potential, only a shift along an unchanged spectrum.
4.) My biggest problem with macroevolution is that there has never been a case of mutation being positive in human history. Every case of mutation has ended up being cancer, Down's Syndrome-like effects, or physical deformities that inhibit the creature(3 or 5 legs instead of 4). 99% of exposure to mutagenic substances results in cancer, frequently fatal (definately fatal w/o human influence).

 

I'm not sure you can say that life thrived if civilisation didn't occur. Let me put it another way, if we have had civilisation for only the last 5% of mankinds existence, what was God doing during the other 95%. Why didn't he start mankind off in civilisation? My point is that it didn't "Thrive" it survived. I've heard a statistic that 10% of humans that have ever lived are alive today - now that is "thriving" as a species.

I accept there are a lot of unknowns, I was just offering another recognised scientific view point from experts.
I believe I'm right in saying that there is no PROOF that you need a moon, gas giant etc for life it is just the rare earth concept that says you do. What is believed is understood is how they may have influenced life on earth.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I was already aware of the London Underground mosquito. This can only have developed in the last 100 years (age of the system) due to the conditions found there. The UK, particularly London which is on Clay and Shingle does not have large natural underground systems, and regardless this species has not been found ANYWHERE ELSE. The species is recognisably similar to a more common version found above ground, but they are unable to breed with each other. Ability to breed is an essential requirement for two animals (obviously of different sexes) to be of the same species.

[ August 09, 2005, 18:29: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Well, since a mutation means going away from an already established structure (which we know works) to something new, is not surprising that 99% of such end up in failure (I am sure the rate is even larger). However, the ideea is that one in a milion occurence which proves to be viable (and give an avantage) will survive and propagate. So in several generations (or more), most of the new members of the species will incorporate the beneficial stuff.

 

New species of bacteria have been developed in labs. But if you're talking multi-cellular creatures existing in nature, then no, there haven't been any new ones. Species are defined using the same nomenclature regardless of whether or not they are asexual or sexual. Even species that reproduce through cell division (asexually)typically have the capability of reproducing sexually through conjugation. That occurs in many unicellular organisms and bacteria. I don't think viruses count, so I won't comment on those. In fact, while it's been about 10 years since I've studied this, I cannot think of a single species that can be described as completely asexual (again viruses excepted).

If not through change, then how do new creatures come about? Is God continually making new ones as the mood strikes him?

This is just plain wrong. Allele frequency has nothing to do with whether or not the gene is dominant or recessive. It is true in the example that your provided that if one hair color is selectively favored it will be passed on frequently and thus the allele frequency will increase in subsequent generations, but it will not cause a recessive allele to become dominant or vice versa. That's not top shelf science either - it's Genetics 101. You lose a lot of credibility when you make statments like in #3, because it shows that you don't even know the terminology, meaning that you probably don't fully understand what you're talking about.

For example, brown eyes are dominant to blue eyes. If for some reason, blue eyes were suddenly favorably selected, subsequent generations would have more and more people with blue eyes. But even if 99% of all existing alleles were blue, whenever you had an individual with a gene for blue eyes and a gene for brown eyes, the individual's eyes would still be brown, because brown would still be dominant.

And this poses no problem with genetics. In fact, most people who study evolution freely admit that 99.99% of all mutations that occur will be deleterious and not beneficial to the organism. Yet mutations are the only known mechanisms for how new adaptations come into existence.

 

See my previous edited post Aldeth, new multi-celular species have developed.

 

I stand corrected. In fact I'll wait to be corrected on any of the four points I made except #3. #2 and #4 are theoretically debatable though.

 

A big part of evolutionary theory is a species adapting to a changing environment. A classic example is the pepper moth in England.

This is clearly evolution in process (i.e., the ability of a species to adapt to change).

Edited to use a quote, rather than my poor attempt at paraphrasing.

[ August 09, 2005, 19:14: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Carcoth:
I stand corrected, I did not know that any new species had arisen. As for the moon/gas giant issue, it is assumed (yes, assumed) that most star systems have similar amounts of debris (asteroids, comets, etc) as we do. Without large gravety wells in the outer system and/or a local gravity 'shield', such as a sizable moon, catastrophic impact events are thought to be too common for life to survive for any long periods. Of course, with all such information, this is highly theoretical and debated.
Aldeth:
Lack of other scientific theories is not proof of a theory. As for the recessive issue, that was a poor choice of words, what I meant was that recessive genes get passed on in shadow and survive, sorry about the confusion.
BlackThrone:
If I understand you correctly, what your saying is that the predictions we have made based on the theory of evolution match the theory of evolution. This is a given and not proof. As for transitional stages, the only hint of this I'm aware of in the fossil record is the general prevalence of one phylum(I think that's the category, reptiles, insects, mammals, etc) in a period. There are no half reptile, half mammals that I know of and of all the species that are called 'transitions' I know of are still around. This kind of puts a damper on this whole issue.
T2Bruno:
Is this the moth report that was later shown to be completely due to the researcher's own interferance? I'm not sure if this is the one, but I know there was one of them in that time period and a lot of people today still don't know it was fake. You have no idea how many times I've seen intelligent people called out because of it. Also, that's microevolution.
All:
My personal belief is basically evolution w/o the whole random issue. There was no random chance of a species evolving, God designed it to happen. My bashing of the theory of evolution is solely due to the fact that American schools teach it as fact and refuse to allow even a hint that it may be wrong when it is far from this status in truth. It may well be right, but this has not been proven.

 

Yes NOG...I think the study that T2 is referencing is the one that had generally been discredited. From what I can remember about reading the reports, it turned out that the "black" pepper moth was actually a regularly occuring variety that had been reported for some time (prior to industrial age), and not an actual beneficial mutation. I think that the report found that the "black" pepper moth was actually able to spawn lighter moths...and that the moths themselves have a certain "chameleon" ability with the shades they give forth.

This study is still presented in High School text books as definitive proof of macroevolution when it quite simply is not.

 

Well, I am no expert in biology, and I do not even remember much that was taught in high school. However, I tend to assume that the people who are experts in the field know what they are talking about. As such, I would be really careful of attacking established theories with nothing to stand on but some superficial knowledge of the matters under consideration.

I must confess that I don't quite understand how someone without extended training in an area can reject stuff which everybody in the field considers to be established fact. I mean, you must think that such a large number of people willfully delude themselves? Or outright lie? I don't get it.

 

Blackthorne:
Very interesting, and yes, very thorough. There is a great deal of information I did not know here, however, I also see a number of problems that, while not sinking the theory by any means, do poke small holes in it.
1.)If biogeography is correct, why are only a few marsupials found outside of Australia and no native mammals but marsupials found in it? If marsupials thrive in one place, why not in another with the same climate and similar factors? If mammals thrive everywhere they occur, and there was a post-mammilian connection between Australia and Africa, why didn't they thrive in Africa? How are cats everywhere but England(there are no native cat species to the English Isles)?
2.)The complex eye evolves in 10 seperate instances in the grand phylology, and yet all of these are the same complex eye, with only minor variations in cone-rod ratios and similar features. This suggests a very different phylology, unless you assume this is yet another 'coincidence' when there are myriad other systems that could have evolved to serve the same function.
3.)The duck-billed platypus, as I'm sure everyone knows, is rather unique. It is one of the only mammals to lay eggs, not even improbable by evolution, the only mammal to have a beak or bill, the only mammal to be venomous, and I think the only mammal to have no nipples. This creature has characteristics that relate it to mammals, ducks, snakes, and lizards. Neither snakes nor ducks are ancestors of mammals. Unless you assume even more coincidences of evolution, and the same organic and/or chemical process evolving several times, it doesn't fit.
Another real problem with evolution is that it requires a wide number of assumptions to be made to support it. As I have repeatedly said, this does not sink scientific evolution, but it does make you want to take a second look at it. This also occurs in many proposed processes of feature changes: if it took 1 million years(very conservative) for feature A to become completely unrelated feature B, what major profit did the in-between stages give over each other to completely eliminate them from the modern day? Why aren't half the reptiles today halfway between reptile jaws and mammal jaws? As your link shows, the in-between stages work, why did they die off? On the other hand, if you believe in a guiding hand behind the process, a design to it all, it makes perfect sense.

 

Without wanting to get into this argument too deeply (since there is so much I don't know about it):

Just as an aside, there are in fact two otherwise-mammalian species which lay eggs - the platypus and the echidna, both of which can be found in Australia. Strictly speaking, they are not mammals but monotremes, and share a variety of characteristics with mammals, birds and arguably reptiles, in the case of the platypus.

Slightly more information here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/monotreme.html

There really aren't many environments that are comparable to the centre of Australia - except deserts and to a lesser extent, savannah, and that's more a case of temperature and conditions than anything else.

The environment and other species in Australia may have something to do with it. There are few large carnivorous species here - the biggest ones are probably the dingo for most of Australia, and a variety of crocodiles in the tropical areas. The conditions do not support a large enough population to sustain large aggressive species; there is little water except in coastal areas, temperatures are high most of the year (no native animals hibernate, IIRC) and while vegetation outside of deserts is plentiful, it's hardly a jungle.

Animals in Australia are built either to kill quickly (we have a majority of the 10 deadliest snake species in the world here, as well as some lethal spiders and sea life), or to move around quickly with minimal effort (the biomechanics of the kangaroo's hopping motion is well-documented and absolutely incredible), and they tend to be small, with a few exceptions like the red kangaroo. There is no need to be able to outrun large predators as they don't exist here.

I'm no expert, but the lack of marsupial life outside of Australia may have more to do with the existence of natural predators than anything else; how long does it take for a baby giraffe to be able to run? A lot less time than it does for a baby bird to fly, or a joey (baby kangaroo) to be able to live outside of a pouch indefinitely. This seems to be more indicative of a developed need to be able to do so or the survival of species which had the ability to do so, rather than an argument against evolution as such.

 

Like the echo-location of bats or the extreme sensitivity to minute vibrations in the ground of [I think it's snakes]?

Natural selection. Evolution is a branching process. When some members of a species undergo a change, either it'll be better for that environment or worse. If it's worse, the abnormalities are eventually weeded out. But if it's better, the new subspecies will eventually out-compete and then out-produce the previous version. With fewer resources available to them, the old species will either die out or move to a new environment where they can compete, starting the evolution process all over again.

 

I agree with Blackthorne TA, Non Sequitur, and Felinoid so I won't repeat what they've already said reasonably well.

 

OK, I'll be first to admit that I know a hell of a lot more about biology and chemistry than I do about physics and astronomy. So I may be way out of my league here. I think I can understand what you are saying - basically the point you're making is that since there are a whole lot of comets, asteroids, meteors, etc. flying around, it's a good thing to have things like other large planets and moons because they get hit instead of the place where you're at - is that correct? That they shield other planets from harm by taking the hits for them? If so, I do have a few questions then.

For starters, let's take a look at the moon. It's pock-marked beyond belief from impacts. This suggests a couple of things: 1.) That anything that hit the moon had the possibility of hitting the earth - i.e., it had not hit anything else on the way and 2.) Since the moon can only act as a shield for the earth 50% of the time (assuming that there's a 50% chance that the moon is closer to the incoming projectile than the earth is) that the earth probably has had as many incoming projectile to deal with as the moon. If anything, you would expect that the moon would be less impacted, as the earth is considerably bigger than the moon, and as such we act as a better shield for the moon than the moon acts for us.

As far as I'm aware, there are two principle reasons why the earth does not look like the moon, and neither have anything to do with the moon taking a lot of hits for us. 1.) The earth has an atmosphere, and many incoming projectiles burn up as they enter the atmosphere. This stops all of the smaller projectiles from ever reaching the surface of the earth. The moon lacks an atmosphere, so even the smaller stuff gets through. So the moon gets his more because it does not have a mechanism for stopping a good percentage of incoming projectiles.

2.) Erosion takes place on earth. Due to things like wind currents, sea currents, geological activity, and plate tectonics (sp?) the land shifts over time and craters get filled in. Any clearly visable craters today (such as the one in Arizona - I think it's near Flagstaff) are relatively new. On the other hand, the moon lacks any of these processes to get rid of old craters, so once a crater forms it's there forever (unless in gets obiliterated by, for example, another bigger impact at the same location).

So basically, the arguement of gravity wells and shields doesn't really work for me because 1.) The gas giants like Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and most notably Jupiter have obviously not stopped impacts from occuring with some frequency in the inner portion of the solar system. While I admit that they must have reduced to possible number of impacts, the protection they provide is by no means absolute. 2.) With the moon being smaller than the earth, and only being on the "right" side for an incoming projectile half the time, the earth should be in harm's way at least as much as the moon. The reason we don't see evidence for this is due to the presence of an atmosphere and several ecological and geological processes that provide protection or destruction of evidence, respectively. 3.) World history has shown many times of mass extinctions, which in many cases are thought to be caused by a catastrophic extraterrestrial impact. Which all ties back in very nicely to evolution, because when you kill off a large percentage of the species, there are a whole range of niches opened up for new species to fill. Verily, extraterrestial impacts have played a large role in evolution and further diverification of species. In fact, they can even be quite helpful for certain species (assuming you're one of the survivors of course).

Yes, but lack of evidence to support any given theory will certainly disprove said theory.