Problems with Evolution, Attacking and Defending evolution

Does anyone have any evidence at all for evolution in order to get this topic started?

Verdad

The evidence supporting evolution would fill volumes and there are thousands of tons of fossils, Dr. Dobzhansky said it very well over 30 years ago.

Dr. Lewontin also said it well some 20 years ago.

Hopes this helps.

Grumpy

That seems to be the general response to such questions, but: really? I mean, I completely agree that at the time that Darwin made his theory, the evidence pointed towards him. I agree that how Christians persecuted evolutionists at the time was wrong, I agree that micro-evolution is true, and I am pretty certain that I agree that the earth is billions of years old. But the evidence against evolution appears to be astounding! So much seems to be based on assumptions and people (excuse me for my political incorrectness) religiously following the work of predecessors, such as Urey, Miller, and Haeckel. I doubt that I could argue with Dobzhansky at the time he wrote those statements (which you said, was thirty years ago), but evolution seems incomprehensible on a molecular level in light of many new discoveries. For instance: how does the first cell come about? Even one protein forming by chance has horrible probabilities. How do you come by beneficial mutations often enough for macro-evolution to occur when DNA is so complex? How do you get DNA in the first place? I do not doubt that macro-evolution is possible. However I seriously doubt that that is the source of the complexity seen today. I can respect evolutionists; I just think that the theory of evolution is wrong. However, I find it hard to respect a man with such closed-minded opinions as Dobzhansky has. Please, if you have answers to any questions I have posed, feel free to answer them.

Verdad

Verdad

There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???

The only difference between micro and macro-evolution occur in the minds of ID adherents. There is no difference in science. Micro changes accumulate into macro changes.

Evolution as a fact is based on the huge amount of evidence found and nothing else. The theories explaining those facts can and do change as our understanding changes but the facts themselves do not go away. Einsteins theory of curved space time eventually replaced Newtons theory of gravity, but apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the scientific debates. Again, what valid scientific discoveries(if it doesn't meet the requirement of the scientific method, don't waste my time)

Evolution has nothing to say about that, that is biogenesis, take it up with them.

Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during thi period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.

He is not closed minded, He is speaking from fact, should he lie to accomidate any crackpot theory??? An open mind is not the same as an empty mind. Truth is truth and should be stated as such. Reread what he said because he is stating fact based on the evidence. Any theory is subject to change due to new evidence but the facts have not changed since he made this statement and no CSBS/ID pseudoscience will change the facts either.

Grumpy

Grumpy,

Perhaps you should pass that phrase on to those defending evolution in courts - it's a nice summary of all that is wrong with ID.
Kaeroll

Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael J Behe? Just a question. But anyways, I agree that microevolution can become macroevolution changes, but that random mutation could account for the diversity seen today is almost inconceivable. The probabilities of a beneficial random mutation is astounding. Sure, just like with any probability, it could happen. But for the neo-darwinist to just use random mutation to explain away everything concerning change within species seems ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying that creationists don't use things to just explain away everything, because many of us do that too. But neither one of us should do that.

Why is that such a rediculious contept?

- Amok

If there is any evidence that COMPLETELY invalidates evolution then if that person publishes that evidence would go down in the history books. The problem with ignorant people is that they don't understand that science is about evidence and what is right, not what seems right.

If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.

Remember, ID is not science, no amount of court rulings, or non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved will make it science.

I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power. Then to say that you somehow got all of these amino acids to all form peptide bonds has a similar probability. To form a peptide bond you must release a water molecule, yet amino acids are often soluble in water, making the liquid water media highly unlikely. Then, you must assume that you have them in the order of some protein, which has a very small probability, something like 10 to the 40th (I don't remember the exact number here). Then for the protein to fold up the right way has a very high probability, maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 or something like that. Now lets say you have one protein. Now you need a diversity of more proteins to get the results you want, to get a cell that is self-replicating. Within this time, you need massive amounts of information to form within the DNA by the form of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (or is it cyanine, or cytocine?). There is still the question of where this all took place. Obviously not on land or under shallow or medium liquid, because the long wave UV rays (very often not present in those experiments that create the amino acids) would disintegrate the amino acids. Probably not in a water medium, because of the solubility of many amino acid bonds. And almost all of the experiments include electricity added to the "mix." How did electricity from lightning reach into those depths?
And what do you mean by "it only has to happen once." It's survival of the fittest; it's natural selection. For these to take place you need more than just one, or even ten or fifty, for any sort of random mutation to take place within the colony so that the self-replicating molecules (Oh by the way, not to challenge or anything, just so that I know, what did they feed on?) could become something slightly different. There are many more problems besides these, but I'd say that's good for starters.

[QUOTE]If there is any evidence that COMPLETELY invalidates evolution then if that person publishes that evidence would go down in the history books. The problem with ignorant people is that they don't understand that science is about evidence and what is right, not what seems right.

If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.

Remember, ID is not science and no amount of court rulings will make it science[QUOTE]

You're completely right. ID is not science, court-rulings is not the way to go to prove or disprove creationism or evolutionism, and no one has any evidence that completely invalidates evolution. I don't even think creationism should be taught in schools. However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact? Even if you say yes, should false facts be taught in the textbooks? I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false. Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one. "Facts" such as these should not be taught in textbooks. Evolution, along with its problems, should be taught in schools. I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe.

Oh and by the way, "non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved" ?

Huh?

Of course he shouldn't lie, but with words like bigotry and ignorance applying to absolutely anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, it seems slightly closed-minded.

Verdad

Yes, I have. This is precisely what I mean by non peer reviewed junk science. Behe argues Irreducable Complexity and probabilities, both of which have been shown to be untrue. This is just what I meant when I said "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination". There are no structures seen in nature which are too complicated to be explained by natural processes, including DNA, the human eye or the Bombadier Beetle(look for these explanations elsewhere in these forums, I'm tired of repeating myself). Mathematical techniques require foreknowledge of the probabilities of occurances which it is impossible for Behe to even approximate, therefore GIGO. Trying to apply rigid mathematics to nonlinear lifeforms is doomed to failure.

Demski, Behe and other nonpeer reviewed authors have no scientific standing, they avoid peer review because they know their books and ideas will not stand up to real scientific review. They can write as many books as they like, until it passes peer review, it isn't accepted as scientifically valid, therefore junk, bogus or pseudoscience.

Random mutation is only one of many processes in natural selection, it explains only part of the changes which occur in evolution. Adoucette has posted some of the best explanations of other forces acting on organisms to affect change, look them up in the forums, I don't have the time.

Simple life+Natural selection+billions of years=all the different organisms in the fossil record+all the organisms we see today. These are the facts supported by the fossil record, we can argue about the how but the fact that it occured is not in doubt.

Grumpy

I am having trouble finding these explanations; you don't need to repeat yourself but if you would point me to which topic in the category creation/evolution these answers coulod be found under, I would be very appreciative.

Verdad

He was saying that the fact that evolution occured is self evident in the fossil record and cannot be denied by anyone who has studied and knows that evidence, and that the only ones who could deny that conclusion are those ignorant of the facts or those with preconcieved ideas who ignore that evidence. He is absolutely correct(if a little politically incorrect in his choice of words). The facts of evolution are undeniable if you have studied the fossil record, it is as well "proven"(supported by the evidence) as the Earth rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun. That is how certain we are of that fact.

To not accept the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is to deny reality. If that doesn't fit with your interpretation of scripture it is your interpretation which is wrong, not the facts of evolution.

Grumpy

I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power.

Verdad,

A couple of points in response to your posts. First, the idea that molecular chemistry obeys simple laws of combinatorics is false. Using combinatorics (how many coin flips, etc.) such as you have does produce 'astronomical' probabilities. But chemical bonds are not mere 'coin flips'. When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. (These have been detected in every observed post-supernova to date). The combinatoric probabilities of these forming would be so high they would never exist. But there they are. And guess what? The majority of these amino acids are left handed! (See the NASA website archives for a tentative theory on why) According to your 'mathematics' this is impossible, so your mathematical model is obviously incorrect. Physical evidence has a way of doing that. Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.

As we speak, there are hundreds of bacteria that are 'beneficially randomly mutating' and developing immunity to generation after generation of anti-biotics. This has all happened in the past sixty years since penicillin first started being used. Again, your misuse of combinatoric probabilities is falsified by the physical evidence.

Bruce