|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2004 : 23:30:56
|
|
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about just what modern evolutionary theory is. Some say one thing and others say something else. This thread is to discover just what the theory (or fact, as you may believe) is to you informed folks in the Skeptic Friends Network. Anyone may express their opinion with whatever source they want to use. Perhaps there is a consensus among this network. Regardless, I would like to know what the modern postulate, theorem, fact, or whatever you want to call it really is in your minds. I'm finding it increasing hard to discuss the subject as I run into new ideas and viewpoints that I never heard in the past. Please bring me and the other creationists in this network up to speed. This thread is not for debating the actual subject, but clearing up what the modern position is. Thanks for your consideration.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
Edited by - Doomar on 02/16/2004 01:12:12
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2004 : 00:43:31 [Permalink]
|
[purple][quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
Try What is Evolution? from the talk.origins FAQ. It provides the current definition, as it has itself "evolved" over time.
purple]
Dave, nice attempt, but biological evolution is not the issue, rather Evolutionary theory. You have simply pointed to a page written by a scientist that repeats the same errors, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. It didn't clear up anything. What is your personal perception of Evolutionary theory in respect to Darwin? What beliefs do you hold in common with Darwin and what beliefs do you not hold in common? I really don't care about scientist A, B, and C,as they obviously can't agree, but I would like to hear your (or any Skeptic friends)personal perception and interpretation.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/16/2004 01:13:00 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 01:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Biological evolution is the issue. It is the theory. If you want to talk about other kinds of evolution, I suggest you state as much.
Or perhaps that is your basic confusion? A sort of Dr. Dino "Darwinism reflects how the universe or life was created" mistake?
That you see the link as being full of "errors, misconceptions, and misunderstandings" says quite a lot, since most "evolutionists" would agree with everything written there.
And why does Darwin really matter, anyway? His ideas are nearing 150 years old. While they were a basis for current thinking, science progresses as time goes by. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 05:15:12 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I'll bite:
The Theory of Evolution, distilled off to it's essence, describes biological change in populations of species as they respond to changes in their enviornment. Of necessity, that statment is way over-simplistic, but to give the topic it's due, I'd have to take the easy and sensible way out and refer you to TO or eleswhere. Send you off to consult the pros.
Everything evolves, one way or another, be it H. s. sapiens or the machine that burnt your toast this morning. I'm old enough to remember some toasters that were mere racks that you put in the oven and really roasted them shingles. "The toast is burning!" was a fairly common shriek around my house, when I was small. Evolution. Now we got's mostly reliable, automatic toasters.
At this point, I must mention (AGAIN, ad nasueaum :rolleyes:) that the ToE has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis, both interesting subjects in their own rights, that still need a lot of work.
I can see the effects evolution of just by looking over Rattlesnakes, and marvel at the adaptations species such as the Rock Rattlers (Crotalus, lepidus) have made to fit into their boulder-field niche.
Further, I can see a lack of Evolution when I flip a rock and find a scorpion. This aracnid has indeed evolved over the eons, but not nearly as much as the little rattler mentioned above, which eats scorps (and is one of the world's very few, front-fanged snakes that commonly prey upon arthropods as an adult).
I refuse to get into the 'macro / micro' evolution squabble; that is entirely bullshit. It is all just plain, old Evolution; gradual adaptation and change of populations over greater or lesser periods of time, ultimetly resulting in speciation or extinction.
That's pretty much my take on it.
Edited to ask: What confusion? From my reading, scienctific thought, with the exception of a few Ph.Ds working for AiG, et al, doing little or no science, are all pretty much in agreement. The only contention is of degree, which is necessary to research. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/16/2004 05:23:40 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 11:09:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
What is your personal perception of Evolutionary theory in respect to Darwin?
What is it that you don't get?
Evolution is a concept that describes gradual change over time to adapt to new conditions.
Evolution as a concept applies to more than just biology.
We talk about Biological Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Auto-mechanical evolution (as in how car models evolve), computer technological evolution.
My HTML-programming skill is evolving as I face new problems, obstacles to overcome, and adapts to them by trying different approaches.
I don't know if "The Theory Of Biological Evolution" is the agreed upon phrase, but I guess it's pretty much what you were asking for. I like it because it's a better description of what it is about than "Evolutionary theory".
Note that this does not address the ultimate beginning of life. That is a different field of science known as Abiogenisis.
A short boiled down version:
1. Mutations occur in the DNA. These mutations can either a) change an existing base-pair into another, b) change several base-pairs, c) swap a chain of base-pairs with another gene or chromosome(?), d) make a chain of base-pairs be copied twice. e) split a chromosome in two, f) other (I'm not a geneticist, I probably missed something).
2. Mutations can be a) beneficial, b) neutral, c) detrimental.
Beneficial increases the offspring's chances of survival in competition. Neutral mutations can spread through populations, and are not subject to survival of the fittest unless they appear at the same time as 'a' or 'c'. Detrimental: a mutation that decreases the chances of survival. Only a fraction of all mutations are other than neutral.
3. Several mutations occur each generation. There are differing opinions regarding the rate of mutations. Prof. Armand Delsemme writes in his book "Our Cosmic Origin" (the literature I read while taking the astro-biology course at the university) that a mutation is made about one per billion base pairs. "Human DNA amounts to more than 10 billion pairs of bases, so there must be a dozen mistakes per copy, each time a cell is duplicated."
4. Survival of the fittest removes individuals that are poorly equipped to handle the current environment, whether it be meteorological factors, food supplies, predators, ability to find shelter etc. A numerical example from Delsemme's book:
"Let us imagine that the available food limits the population of an ecological niche to 10'000 individuals. If a mutation gives an advantage of only 1% to a single individual, in 1000 generations, it's descendants will have eliminated ALL the other individuals. And 1000 generations is a blink of an eye in terms of geological time."
5. It is the total ecological environment that dictates the survival of the fittest. The crocodile hasn't changed much over time because it is very well suited for it's environment which does not change.
Since there is no need for change, very few mutations will qualify as beneficial or detrimental.
The family of wolves, wild dogs and fox has changed a lot, because they have inhabited areas that have been subject to major changes in climate. These changes in the environment initially put a lot of pressure on population, boosting the effect of "survival of the fittest". In an ecological niche under strain a larger percentage of mutations will fall into the category of beneficial or detrimental.
For a long time the colour of the pelt of foxes had remained constant, and small changes in hue was a neutral mutation. With the increasingly arctic climate a lighter colour pelt was beneficial, both for hiding from predators, and stalking prey. Suddenly a neutral mutation became beneficial, and thus the arctic fox evolved a white pelt.
If the climate and other environmental factors remain constant, the evolution-rate is low. Big changes (like massive geological events, meteor impacts or ice-age) creates the crucible which promote rapid change in spices. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 12:09:46 [Permalink]
|
I appreciate all of your comments explaining modern evolutionary concepts. I'm going to list the original Darwinian theories and let you pick them apart as compared to modern thought, so I understand what remains, if anything:
Taken from some web site about Darwin:
Darwin's views changed a bit themselves in the post-Origin era, as well. However, from about 1844 we can see a robust and stable set of theories that we can call "Darwinian"2. They are:
Sidenote: This differs from the list of five theories that Mayr outlined for Darwin's theory3, where he lists · "Evolution as such" (= Transmutationism) · Common Descent · Gradualness · Populational speciation, and · Natural Selection. I think that gradualness is a feature of the then dominant Uniformitarian views of Lyell, and that populational speciation is not a theory proper so much as a new way of dealing with biological data. On the other hand, sexual selection, the struggle for existence and biogeographic distribution are positive hypotheses, while Darwin's views on heredity are focal to many confusions of his theory, even though he did not publish them until well after the Origin.
1. Transmutationism (also called by Darwin "Descent with Modification"). This word means in context that species change ("mutate", from the Latin) from one species to another. It is in opposition to the prevailing Aristotelian views that species were natural kinds that were eternal.
2. Common descent. This is the view (not held by all evolutionists prior to Darwin or even after) that similar species with similar structures (homologies) were similar because they were descended from a common ancestor. Darwin tended to present the cases for limited common descent - i.e., of mammals or birds - but extended the argument to the view that all life arises from a common ancestor or small set of common ancestors.
3. Struggle for existence. This is the view that more organisms are born than can survive. Consequently, most of those zygotes that are fertilised will die, and of those that reach partition (birth) many will either die or not be able to reproduce. The competition here is against the environment, which includes other species (predators and organisms that use the same food and other resources). This is interspecific (between species) competition.
4. Natural selection. This is a complex view that species naturally have a spread of variations, and that variants that confer an advantage on the bearer organisms, and are hereditable, will reproduce more frequently than competitors, and change the "shape" of the species overall. Notice here that this competition is mostly intraspecific, i.e., between families of the same species (and indeed of the same population).
5. Sexual selection. Many features of organisms are obvious hindrances (such as the tails of birds of paradise), and these often occur in one sex only. Darwin argued that there was competition for mating opportunities and any feature that initially marked a gender out as a good mating opportunity would become exaggerated by the mating choices of the opposite gender. Competition here is between conspecifics of the same gender.
6. Biogeographic distribution. Darwin and Wallace were concerned to explain why species were found in the areas they were, and argued that dispersal of similar, but related, species was due to their evolution in one place and migration into other regions.
7. Heredity. Darwin knew very little about what we would call the principles of genetics. He accepted the prevailing and old view that the use of features of the organism would change the way those features were inherited.
With this list in place, we can usefully ask what of these views Darwin owes to others, and whether he was (i) aware of the debt, and (ii) he acknowledged it. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/16/2004 12:11:57 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 12:14:37 [Permalink]
|
| My first specific question would be: Do you still believe in transmutation or evolution of one species becoming another with the originals finally dying off? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 12:22:36 [Permalink]
|
filthy said:
At this point, I must mention (AGAIN, ad nasueaum :rolleyes:) that the ToE has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis, both interesting subjects in their own rights, that still need a lot of work.
Thank you for making this distinction. That is helpful in sorting through this business. Upon reading Darwin's thoughts about original species, it seems he believed that several basic species were original, perhaps created by God (he was not necessarily atheistic) and evolved into the millions of now known species. Keep in mind that when you read Darwin's work, there is very little actual physical evidence and mostly his personal opinion and opinion of other naturists as to what might have occurred. In his own words, it was a theory. He did not deny the "intelligent design" idea at all, but rather reinforced that idea. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 12:53:16 [Permalink]
|
The following written by Jerry Bergman who has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.:
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Darwin evidentially recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” (1900, p. 316). But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many or even thousands! If God made one animal type, He also could have made two or many thousands of different types. No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
This being said, should abiogenesis not be included in the discussion of what modern evolution theory is? Your call.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/16/2004 13:11:49 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 13:49:46 [Permalink]
|
Evolution means change over time. Biological evolution concerns itself with living things. The theory of biological evolution is that living things evolve. (They are subject to change over time.) Darwin suggested that there is a common ancestry for all living things. Darwin also suggested a mechanism for these changes and called it "natural selection." Natural selection suggests that all living things have within them coding (genes) that makes adaptation to a changing environment possible. The coding is not perfect, and sometimes "mistakes" happen. The result of that mistake, (mutation) is inheritable, and can sometimes lead to an organism that is better suited (or fit) to survive in the world that it is born into than the parent was. (Being fit, in this case, does not necessarily mean being stronger or more complex. It just means better adapted to its environment and therefor more likely to live long enough to reproduce.)
Now, there are mechanisms within/upon mechanisms that have been suggested as driving forces behind evolution. They are built upon the foundation that Darwin laid out. Here is where other theories and hypothesis exist. This is the place where you might find some disagreement within the scientific community. These disagreement's can lead to confusion about what scientists actually agree on. Creationists love these disagreement's. However, it is from these battles, and, in fact, the point of these battles that a better understanding of how evolution works may emerge.
But make no mistake. Biological evolution is the cornerstone of the biological sciences. And even as scientists may do battle with one another, the vast majority are in agreement on that point...
Well, that's the best I can do in a short post.
Some of this is a recap of what has already been posted. Sorry about that... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 13:50:14 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
quote:
My first specific question would be: Do you still believe in transmutation or evolution of one species becoming another with the originals finally dying off?
#1. Since we have observed several cases of where one species evolves into 2 species via geographical separation I don't have to believe it, I can know it.
#2. Since such speciation is instigated by geographical separation it does not require the originals to die off as they can continue to thrive in their original environment.
#3. The facts supporting speciation in this fashion are all well known and documented.
* We know that with each generation the genetic make-up of a population changes.
* We know that new mutations appear in the genetic make-up of a population each generation.
* We know that over a few generations these new mutations can become fixed in the population, replacing all other alleles either via natural selection or genetic drift.
* We know that single populations can easily be separated into two distinct populations.
* We know that over time they will continue to genetically diverge from each other as they accumulate different mutations and possibly adapt to different environments/niches.
* We know that eventually they will become so different as to no longer be able to reproduce.
* We have observed the evolution of reproductive isolation (thus the formation of a new species) in as little as 13 generations in salmon.
quote:
Keep in mind that when you read Darwin's work, there is very little actual physical evidence and mostly his personal opinion and opinion of other naturists as to what might have occurred
This is either a statement based on ignorance or an outright lie. I suggest you provide exact examples of opinin from Darwin's book where no evidence is presented to back up your claim. Darwin's works are all heavy with actual observations made by him or others to back up his theory. He spent years gathering observations and then years formulating his theory based on these gathered observations (either ones directly made by him or by others he references). A quick read of his major book shows this to be true. In fact he is quite open and points out areas of his theory that lack (or were lacking) evidence including the lack of a means of inheritance and the lacking fossil record at the time he wrote his book.
quote:
No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
This being said, should abiogenesis not be included in the discussion of what modern evolution theory is? Your call.
First there are several very viable modern hypothesis that can explain the origin of life via naturalistic means. I suggest you get a good book on the subject before speaking authoratatively from ignorance.
The reason most evolutionists tend to shun this subject is because evolutionists are biologists while all modern research into the origins of life have been from the standpoint of organic chemistry. Most evolutionists are wise enough to know not to jump into topics they are not well versed in. Something creationists should learn.
Lastly if you wish to discuss biological evolution then no, if you wish to discuss chemical evolution then yes. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 14:04:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doormar: should abiogenesis not be included in the discussion of what modern evolution theory is? Your call.
It really is a different subject. While interesting, the origin of life and change over time are not the same thing...
There is much support for evolution regardless of what we know about abiogenesis. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 14:51:07 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
The following written by Jerry Bergman who has seven degrees...
This appears to be an argument that because he's got a lot of degrees, and does a lot of teaching, that he must be correct. Unfortunately, Bergman has made at least one big mistake in his Creationist writings, and so should not be assumed to be error-free, despite his degrees.
The problem with the abiogenesis article itself is an old one. Bergman appears to simply claim that because abiogenesis is improbable, and because today's scientists haven't been able to recreate it, it is impossible. However, "difficult" and "impossible" are not synonyms.
Anyway,quote:
This being said, should abiogenesis not be included in the discussion of what modern evolution theory is? Your call.
The theory of evolution deals with what happens after there is life. Adding to it the requirement that it concern what happens prior to life existing is unreasonable. It's sorta like requiring a fashion designer to be able to manufacture thread from scratch, or your neighborhood auto mechanic to mine and smelt iron.
As I said above, this is about the biological theory of evolution, and there has to be biology prior to that theory being applicable. Abiogenesis deals with pre-biotic chemicals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 15:22:16 [Permalink]
|
| Kil, thanks for that brief synopsis. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 15:34:40 [Permalink]
|
Just a comment on abiogenesis and the Big Bang:
It all seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it? The odds are too high, the Creationists tell us, and they surely look that way. But, from my readings, odds don't seem to mean a whole lot in the vastness of the universe, nor indeed even here on Terra Firma, as any serious study of the natural world will demonstrate. It seems that the Law of the Universe that means the most is Murphy's; "If it can happen, sooner or later it certainly will and probably already has."
The only question is that of, "Exactly what can't happen, and why not?
This opens the door to the possible existance various gods and demons as well as that of expanding singularties and fortiously combining chemicals. The odds against all seem high, methinks, but the latter two are are under scientific inquirey, while advocates of the former simply preach.
Perhaps we'll never know for sure what happened 'in the beginnings'
of the universe and life on earth, but we will continue to learn and be amazed at the ongoing results of these studies. I can live with that. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
