|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2004 : 15:42:49 [Permalink]
|
JMCGINN,
Thanks for your response. The difference of chemical and biological evolution is certainly helpful in sorting this out for the lay person. Because the topic is specifically placing Darwin's theory vs. modern theory, we must note, according to your explanation, that chemical evolutionists do have a theory that is contrary to Darwin, in that Darwin allowed for a creator who engineered the first few forms of life from which the now millions have arisen, where chemical evolutionist maintain another theory of the origin of life.
You also noted the evidence of new species arising, but isn't this evidence quite far from the actual "transmutation" that Darwin suggested, where completely diverse species came from an original that eventually died off. Can I surmise, then, that modern evolutionary belief does not include Darwin's idea of the original species, that was inferior, dying off, but originals remaining in a different environment or something? In direct language, do biological evolutionists hold to "complete transmutation" or "partial transmutation"? In other words, does the theory of pigs evolving thru time into horses still hold or not; apes into man, etc?
Jmc, I apologize for bringing the contraversial aspect into the thread, as it only takes one's focus off the subject... my bad.Let me note here that I was quoting a learned person in that post. He was referring to Darwinian theory, and that is why it was posted. I should have deleted his comment on it. I don't wish to make this forum a debate, but a learning place where the actual modern "hypotheses" can be noted and listed. Later, we can debate. LOL |
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 15:47:48 |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 16:03:13 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by jmcginn
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
Ignorance, I will admit to, but not a lie. I was reading directly from Darwin's book, Origin of the Species. It was obvious that he was using his personal observations, but observation is not empirical data...not that that is needed in any theory, as one must hypothesize before one can come up with related data. However, science had not advanced very far in the realm of "small" microscopic things, like cells during his day. Modern research seems to disprove the assumptions of "plazma glob" life made by the evolution-leaning naturists of Darwin's day, so doesn't it follow that modern evolutionary theory must deviate from Darwin in many aspects. Just what these aspects are is what I'm trying to discern.
How does this modern knowledge of DNA, cell structure, and vast complexity of living organisms related to Darwin's points? Any ideas? |
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 : 16:08:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Dave,
I think no scientist is error-free, else he would not be a scientist, but a perfectionist who wouldn't even dare to venture a guess or theory. A person's credentials only show that he's been trained in the field he's speaking about. In no way do credentials make a person right. In that, we certainly agree. |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2004 : 17:29:24 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
A person's credentials only show that he's been trained in the field he's speaking about.
But if the person is wrong - and stating with certainty that abiogenesis is impossible is, at the very least, premature - their credentials don't matter one bit. Copying them from the article's bio paragraph accomplished very little. If people had replied to your quote of him with, "well, who the heck is this Bergman person," it would have been appropriate, but I doubt anyone would have. I, at least, was already familiar with the name, and I and many others here won't bother dismissing an argument simply because it's written by someone not trained in the field. After all, I'm not trained in the field. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 11:36:37 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
quote:
Because the topic is specifically placing Darwin's theory vs. modern theory, we must note, according to your explanation, that chemical evolutionists do have a theory that is contrary to Darwin, in that Darwin allowed for a creator who engineered the first few forms of life from which the now millions have arisen, where chemical evolutionist maintain another theory of the origin of life.
Darwin's theory says very little about the origin of life, although he did make a few conjectures about this, it is easy to see that these are conjectures and nothing more.
Doomar I am not sure what you are getting at. It is the nature of science that theories are built upon, modified, and expanded as more and more research is conducted in these areas. It is a sign of good and active science. Yes the modern theory of evolution has many differences from Darwin's original works. Inheritance and genetics being the biggest two, but there are more. The same can be said for Einstein's theory of relativity. This is normal and expected and Darwin knew this when he wrote his original works. However like Einstein's theory many of Darwin's original points still hold true: life changing over time via natural selection, common descent, etc.
quote:
You also noted the evidence of new species arising, but isn't this evidence quite far from the actual "transmutation" that Darwin suggested, where completely diverse species came from an original that eventually died off.
No, they are exactly the same thing with genetics and inheritance added in. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed on, but he recognized that they were in some fashion. An original or ancestor species/population does not have to be inferior to its descendants if its descendants moved to different niches. <- I hope you understand the term niche and environment, as it is central to the discussion, please let me know if you do not.
quote:
In direct language, do biological evolutionists hold to "complete transmutation" or "partial transmutation"?
You need to define what you mean by "complete" and "partial" transmutation before I can answer this.
quote:
In other words, does the theory of pigs evolving thru time into horses still hold or not; apes into man, etc?
Again modern evolutionists hold to the same arguments as Darwin as regards to common descent. Example:
10 mya: Ancient ape populations and species existed throughout Africa already diversified into several lineages.
6 mya: By this point one lineage has already evolved bipedal locomotion. Several lineages continue to maintain quadrupedal locomotion and quite a few of the lineages alive 10mya are now extinct.
2.5 mya: Several lineages of the bipedal ape now exist. One lineage evolved complex tool use and larger brains.
1.5 mya: Several lineages have went extinct, but several still persist. One of the bipedal ape lineages is now taller and better at tool use.
and so on.
quote:
It was obvious that he was using his personal observations, but observation is not empirical data
Observations that can be repeated are empirical data. Darwin's writings are chocked full of such observations that support his theory. The fact that I can go and reproduce his observations if I do chose (and others have) makes them empirical data.
quote:
How does this modern knowledge of DNA, cell structure, and vast complexity of living organisms related to Darwin's points? Any ideas?
Sure tons of ways. The journal rooms of university libraries are full of articles dealing with just these types of questions. However this is a very broad subject, so please limit it down to something a little more specific. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 13:18:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
You also noted the evidence of new species arising, but isn't this evidence quite far from the actual "transmutation" that Darwin suggested, where completely diverse species came from an original that eventually died off.
Homo S. Sapien and the Neanderthal had a common ancestor about 500'000 years ago. (It's in an older thread, http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2118 )
Evolutionary changes in a spices is gradual, and as such, requires many generations to even manifest small physical changes. Larger differences requires a very long time.
quote:
Can I surmise, then, that modern evolutionary belief does not include Darwin's idea of the original species, that was inferior, dying off,
Only the point that there was an original species that resembled the newer species, as in "God Created the Original Prototype of Dog, then Wolves, Foxes, and Dogs micro-evolved from it".
(This seems to be a subset-belief of Creationism in which Creationism falsely present evolution as being divided into two different categories, where there is only one.)
quote:
but originals remaining in a different environment or something?
The separate species of mosquito that has evolved in the London Subway has survived its predecessor, that "got lost" in the subway. But it original species still lives on above ground. In this case, the subway mosquito is an off-shoot, but the original habitat of the original species remains. Thus, the original species never lost any competition in the survival-of-the-fittest-game. But their "brothers" that lost their way into the subway did.
quote:
In direct language, do biological evolutionists hold to "complete transmutation" or "partial transmutation"? In other words, does the theory of pigs evolving thru time into horses still hold or not; apes into man, etc?
Pigs into horses is just another false image promoted by Creationists.
The closest thing would be "could a pig evolve into something that looks like a horse?" The answer to that question is yes. Given the right circumstances, and enough time they would. Genetically, they will not be a horse, but on the outside could have resemblance to one.
Raccoon Dog belongs to the Canidae family, just like dogs, wolves, jackals, and foxes.
The Raccoon belongs to the Procyoninae family.
From Animal Diversity Web: quote:
Raccoon dogs, as their name implies, appear very similar in appearance to raccoons (family Procyonidae). Head and body length ranges from approximately 50 to 60 cm, tail length reaches 18 cm and shoulder height is about 20 cm in adults. Their colour is grey and black and they display the characteristic "mask" of their namesake.
Dogs don't just evolve to resemble another animal without a reason. By sharing the same kind of habitat, the same kind of food resources, the same kind of predators, adaptations has occurred to both of them forcing them into a striking resemblance.
For all intents and purposes, a dog has evolved into a raccoon.
|
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 - 02/17/2004 : 16:28:28 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse,
Are you saying, then, that modern evolutionary theory about "transmutation" is exactly the same as Darwin's in the respect that over long periods of time, an original species transmutated into totally different species, such as the beginning being some form of mammal, then evolving into thousands of different forms of mammals, not even similar, except within the mammal category; instance being dog....evolving thru millions of years and becoming, horse, zebra, hippopotimas, giraffe, lion, bear, along with hundreds of types of dogs? Or, just evolving into the hundreds of types of dogs alone? This is a very important distinction, as I believe Darwin believed in the first scenareo. Does modern science also believe this? Or do they believe in multiple subcategories of mammals, say hundreds, evolving into various other species of the same subset? |
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 - 02/17/2004 : 16:30:43 [Permalink]
|
Jmc,
YOur examples seem to suggest only evolution of a particular breed of species into many "like species" i.e. ape 1 to ape 2, ape 3 and so on, not ape 1 to man. Am I mistaken or confused? |
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 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 17:14:25 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
Because my example only covered the last 10mya, you will only see moderate differences between the ancestral lineages and the modern descendants. However what I was describing was evolution from ape species into various ape species including humans and their ancestors. The fact is, from both a morphological and physiologial aspect we are a "like species" of ape.
If you compare us to our closest living cousins (chimps) then you will find very little differences in morphology or physiology and the largest difference will be in culture mainly due to our highly social nature and large brains (but even that is less different than many people think).
So yes, from an ape perspective the last 10mya has seen little dramatic morpholigical change with the exception of bipedal locomotion, knuckle walking, brachiation (branch swinging), large brains, and a specialized herbivore diet (as seen in Gorillas). Other minor variations have evolved as well (e.g. body size, dental patterns, hair colors,etc.), but for the most part the last 10mya from an ape perspective has been one of extinction with only a handful of species left from what was once a very diverse lineage. For example just looking at the bipedal apes (the hominids) and we see that there was at least 3-4 species alive at various times, and now there is only one.
Strangely the opposite is true for monkeys, where there was only a handful of species around 10mya now there is quite a large diversity of species today.
On mammal evolution and your questions for Dr. Mabuse:
The first mammals appeared around 200mya. They were fairly small, still had numerous reptilian characteristics, were mostly nocturnal or burrowing insectivores. They remained as such until towards the end of the Mesozoic (~65 mya).
Around 80mya we begin to see the first mammals that we can possibly define as primates, although there is some debate there. Then around 55mya we see the first species that can be defined as prosimians. Later we see the first true monkeys and then about 25mye we see the first specimens with ape like characteristics.
Now to your example: Dogs would not evolve into horses, hippos, etc. (although they could evolve into animals with similar features possibly as Dr. Mabuse was stating and as he described with his racoon example). At some point in the last 65mya (and I am not sure when as primates are my area of interest) you would have an ancestral carnivore. From this carnivore lineage various other sub lineages evolved at various times (e.g. felines, canines, bears, etc.) During this, numerous species go extinct and new ones evolve and in some cases whole lineages go extinct or nearly so.
I'll add some more tomorrow |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 18:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dr. Mabuse,
Are you saying, then, that modern evolutionary theory about "transmutation" is exactly the same as Darwin's in the respect that over long periods of time, an original species transmutated into totally different species, such as the beginning being some form of mammal, then evolving into thousands of different forms of mammals, not even similar, except within the mammal category; instance being dog....evolving thru millions of years and becoming, horse, zebra, hippopotimas, giraffe, lion, bear, along with hundreds of types of dogs? Or, just evolving into the hundreds of types of dogs alone? This is a very important distinction, as I believe Darwin believed in the first scenareo. Does modern science also believe this? Or do they believe in multiple subcategories of mammals, say hundreds, evolving into various other species of the same subset?
Edit: ¤#$@¤ !!! Something happened to my relpy... I will have to come back on this... |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/18/2004 13:28:20 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 00:26:20 [Permalink]
|
| Darwin didn't figure out how the original beasties got here, he just took it from some midpoint in time and concluded by observation of over maybe 50 or less years, that it was as he surmised it to be, hundreds of thousands of species coming from a few original species, which he had no idea about how they got here and even allowed that it could be God that created them. One of you seems to suggest that the origin of life and evolution of life are directly tied together, while some think not. Without some explanation how the original animals, birds, bugs, lizards got here, it would seem that Darwin didn't see the need to go any further than a billion years back in time with his theory. However, most modern evolutionist seem to see a direct correlation with evolutionary theory and origin theory and cannot allow, as Darwin did, for a creator. Meanwhile, we have creationist/evolutionist who say God started everything, like Darwin suggested, and then it evolved over a long period of time. So, it would seem that most of you are in the non-Darwinian category and do not allow for a possible creator. You agree, however, with Darwin on most of his tenents of evolutionary theory with some modifications. My source for what Darwin thought regarding a creator/religion was taken from an old article in gif format. Anyone know how I can put that in a post? |
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 - 02/18/2004 : 04:22:34 [Permalink]
|
That God started evolution by kicking off abiogenesis is certainly a possibility, along an infinate number of others equally open to question, and not excluding scientific hypothesis. But as mentioned before, this has nothing to do with biological evolution. A thought I have had however, is that as investigation continues into abiogenesis, the ToE may move into molecular studies If it hasn't already.
It needs to be remembered that the investigative tools we take for granted today were not available to Darwin and his peers in the mid-1800s. Further, Darwin did not 'invent' the theory, as many believe. Others came up with it before him; he simply performed his own observations and put the whole thing together.
At this point, in order to head transistional species questions off at the pass -- we all know they're on their way -- I think I'll post once again, the Cuffey.
The Cuffey is a favorite of mine, an excellent, illustrated essay on reptile to mammal transition. Therefore, here it be's:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
quote:
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
quote:
Modern reptiles and mammals are very distinctive, easily diagnosable, and do not intergrade. Reptiles are covered by scales, mammals by hair; reptiles are cold-blooded, mammals warm-blooded; reptiles do not suckle their young, mammals have mammary glands; reptiles have sprawling posture, mammals have upright posture. Most of these features are soft part anatomy or physiology that very rarely fossilize (although dinosaur skin impressions are known from Cretaceous sediments, and imprints of mammal hair are known from Eocene bats from Germany; Franzen, 1990). In the fossil record, we must look to skeletal features.
It's a good read; enjoy!
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2004 : 09:06:52 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,
Darwin did not imply that a creator created the original birds, dogs, monkeys or anything of the such. He did imply the original life forms were ancient and most likely thus microscopic and simple single celled organisms.
quote:
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
(emphasis mine)
Note he was not taking this from some midpoint in time as you claim, but was extending his argument of common descent back to the very first life forms. I am not sure where you got this misconception. Maybe you can point out the exact text from Darwin's work? http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
As far as a creator goes, that is a question of philosophy/theology not of science. Even if an abiogenesis method for creating life was discovered it does not rule out that a creator was involved. Even if we could go back in time and witness the first life forms forming via abiogenesis it would not rule out a creator.
I personally rule out a creator from a philosophical viewpoint and an application of Occam's razor. Others may or may not rule out a creator. Science has nothing to do with it for me and it shouldn't for anyone else either (not saying some people do or do not). |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 00:25:46 [Permalink]
|
I finally scanned the nice picture of the phylogenic tree of "cytochrome c". Too bad I cannot upload it... (I have nowhere to store it)
Doomar, the idea you seem to have that all current species can be traced back to some "key-species" way back in time, is missing some key points. While we can trace several species to common ancestor fairly close in time, like Horse, Quagga, Zebra, others will be far apart. Just because we can trace them back to a pre-horse, just as fox, dog, jackal, and wolf can be traced back to a pre-wolf, and all kinds of birds can be traced back to a pre-bird, doesn't mean there were fewer species living 40 or 50 million years ago. There were probably just as many, or even more. Pre-bird, pre-horse, pre-wolf shared the planet with other, now extict species, like several distant cousins to the platypus, or other mammals that branched off before sheep and dogs closest common ancestor lived.
Remember how I said that the environment is very important to progress of evolution? An ever-changing environment demands that species adapt quickly in order to survive, like it did for most mammals when they emerged.
Since Australia broke away from the leftovers of Pangaea, several groups of mammals thrives there, and especially marsupials. The horse will have a common ancestor with the koala and kangaroo tens of millions of years back. Still, that ancestor will be far removed from reptilians. This is where the platypus gets interested. Some 65million years ago when mammals were still in their infancy, the platypus lineage diverged from the rest of the mammals. It came upon a fairly isolated and stable environment. The stable environment didn't demand much adaptations, so the current platypus is rather similar to it's 65 million year old ancestor. One of the ancient features that has stayed the same all this time is that the platypus is an egg-laying mammal. This is unique trait among mammals, that has been inherited from its reptilian ancestry.
All living entities have a common ancestor somewhere down the line, not only mammals and reptiles... The same goes for insects, plants, fungus.
About time: Until circa 1 billion years ago, there were only bacteria and single celled organisms. Then 1bya came the first multicellular organism; sponges and corals, which were unicellular colonies (that is, cells that were not specialised, but performed the same function). Then it took a few hundred million years to develop true multi-cellular organisms with specialised cells, and the jelly-fish appeared 700-600 million years ago. After that, you pretty much know the history.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 07:57:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I don't wish to make this forum a debate, but a learning place where the actual modern "hypotheses" can be noted and listed.
Except that we are not talking about a hypothesis, but a well established theory. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
