A big problem for Evolution?

[Reach]

I would say evolution is as much a 'fact' as you can get. You get sick (well, most of us do) every year because of evolution. Yes, that nasty little virus mutation there is microevolution. All living material is going to microevolve in the exact same manner, the difference being some of it is faster than others.

I suppose there is argument from some silly individuals that you can show microevolution is true but can't show that macroevolution is true, but what they're missing is that macroevolution is a direct consequence of the existance of microevolution 8)

[lbinator]

Was that article a joke? I don't know about anyone else but that article has convinced me even more that creationism and ID are complete bull****, if it was even possible to believe either for a second in the first place.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Reach

I suppose there is argument from some silly individuals that you can show microevolution is true but can't show that macroevolution is true, but what they're missing is that macroevolution is a direct consequence of the existance of microevolution 8)

It's actually not as straightforward as that. Sure we can see moths mutate into different colors, a mutation producing an extra limb, or shuffle around fly parts. But even with limitless extrapolation, these just aren't the kind of changes we need. Duplicating, deleting, and shuffling around fly parts might produce some weird new fly, but such processes are fundamentally not sufficient for creating a new basic type. If we extrapolate the duplication of fly limbs without limits, we will merely get a many-limbed fly--not a fundamentally different kind of organism.

Scientists have pointed to a number of organs in extant species that have deteriorated and become vestigial, but have we found any extant species that are in the process of developing new organs? These are the kinds of changes that would validate large-scale evolution (because here we would really have something to extrapolate), but we have not observed such changes. One could say that changes like those are so slow they cannot be observed. Perhaps, but the point is that one cannot just extrapolate the observable changes we see to create new basic types.

[TrueBOSS]

It irritates me that people believe that religion and science can't go together. True there isn't just about anything we can prove about any thoughts in the religious thoughts but that doesn't mean that they are false because we don't have what it takes to prove them true (actually, not many have even been PROVEN false. Until something is actually proven false, you should NEVER assume a theory is false) I believe that religion is the "Who did it". And science is the "How it was done". Talking like this gets people thinking so I say to any of you to say whatever the F^&% you want to about this.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Scientists have pointed to a number of organs in extant species that have deteriorated and become vestigial, but have we found any extant species that are in the process of developing new organs?

A half of a wing would be a pretty ****ty wing, but it could be an excellent heat dissipator.

Intermediate stages are rarely marked as intermediate stages, but they can easily be analyzed in retrospect.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

It's actually not as straightforward as that. Sure we can see moths mutate into different colors, a mutation producing an extra limb, or shuffle around fly parts. But even with limitless extrapolation, these just aren't the kind of changes we need. Duplicating, deleting, and shuffling around fly parts might produce some weird new fly, but such processes are fundamentally not sufficient for creating a new basic type. If we extrapolate the duplication of fly limbs without limits, we will merely get a many-limbed fly--not a fundamentally different kind of organism.

It really is that straight forward.

That 'fundamentally' different organism comes from a collection of changes from microevolution. 'Macroevolution' doesn't even really exist. Macroevolution is only the summation of microevolutionary changes over time.


Ok, there is some controversy over this. I am aware you could potentially argue I am wrong, because there is (almost none) some evidence to suggest the two might not be the same. The general consenus however, is that macroevolution (I.E. one organism becoming another) is only an accumlation of microevoluationary changes.

The human way of taxonomy however, kind of misleads people to assume that somehow 'homosapien' magically appeared one sparkling day without any intermediate formation.


Guido also makes a good point. Things like wings didn't evolve to make an organism fly. They had other uses before that, and then after a very long time of subtle change enabled animals to fly.

Also, you have to consider that many organisms living today are biologically fit, so rate of evolutionary change is very slow. Why would a shark suddenly develop a giant human brain? It doesn't make any sense. Of course we arn't seeing any of these animals magically developing organs; they don't need to, or at least not within a practical amount of time unless new pressures arise. Large evolutionary chances arise because of large pressures from the environment, they don't just magically appear so scientists can have a field day.


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html lots of good stuff.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

That is precisely why I don't like posting in threads involving religious beliefs. While sometimes people will go to the trouble of backing up their posts with articles or something of that nature, too often people like Carbo will post a few things asking questions about what I said. I'll then write about it and five or six people will proceed to call me stupid for having a religion.

And as for random mutation and natural selection: I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

I never said you were stupid for having a religion, did I? No. I'd rather see someone actually believe in Greek mythology than see someone shove words down my throat like that.

Did I even refer to religion at all in my post? Hmmm?

So, now, instead of beating around the bush, why don't you just answer the goddamn question?

[archbishopjabber]

First of all, if you have not at least taken a college biology class, you have no right to say that the theory of evolution is ludicrous. Yes there are holes, but there is absolutely no evidence to validate the intelligent design hypothesis. Evolution is a theory because there are massive quantities of data to back it up, intelligent design is a hypothesis because it has virtually nothing other than ambiguous generalizations and fictional texts to back it up.

The codons of messenger RNA (which allows for the replication of DNA) are the same across all species with exception of mitochondria and chloroplasts (which supports the endosymbiont theory) For example, in Escherichia coli (found in the lower intestine and in fecal material) a series of the bases guanine, uracil and cytosine codes for the amino acid valine. That same combination instructs the cell in homo homo sapiens sapiens to create the amino acid valine. Valine is a key component of many of the proteins that make our body work. Our cells use the same instructions to create those proteins as a primitive bacteria. The fact that all organisms use these instructions indicates that they have a common origin. If they did not have a common evolutionary origin they would utilize different genetic coding (like mitochondria does.) This is just one example of many that have validated evolution as a theory. Do you have any proof of intelligent design?

[BluE_MeaniE]

Originally Posted by TrueBOSS

Until something is actually proven false, you should NEVER assume a theory is false

I've got to interject here. That's EXACTLY what you should do.

Proving something false is generally either very difficult, near impossible or totally impossible. You have to wait FOR evidence. Not the other way around. This is how science works.

[archbishopjabber]

I think everyone is using the words theory and hypothesis synonymously which is a big mistake. A hypothesis does not become a theory until it has irrefutable proof.

[talisman]

Addressing the macro vs micro debate... this is straight from my textbook:

"Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists who have studied the problem think so. The differences between breeds produced by artificial selection--such as chihuahuas, mastiffs, and greyhounds--are more distinctive than the differences between some wild species, and laboratory selection experiments sometimes create forms that cannot interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus, production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly. To object that evolution still does not explain major differences, such as those between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to [the fact that] these changes take millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record."

I also want to go back and address an earlier point that was raised repeatedly by tehddrkid. He claims that DNA cannot add information, merely delete or rearrange it. This is, quite simply, flatly inaccurate.

Also from my book:

"The genome changes that provide the raw material for this evolution arise in at least six ways:

1. mutation of a single gene;
2. when regions of DNA duplicate;
3. when large chunks of chromosomes duplicate;
4. when individual chromosomes duplicate;
5. when whole genomes duplicate or combine with the genome of another species to create polyploids (cells with three or more complete copies of a genome);
6. when DNA from other species becomes integrated into genomes."

So there's the list of all the ways in which information is added to DNA. To claim that information cannot be added to DNA is to be wrong.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Jewpin, read.

Don't patronize me. Evolution is not a fact. Mind you, I'm a Darwinist. I will argue in favor of Evolution until I am blue in the face. I think Creationists are intellectual dunces. I love my opposable thumb, and I swing my arms when I walk, but I will not say Evolution is a fact, because it's not. Don't stoop to the ignorance of the theologians.

[TrueBOSS]

"Until something is actually proven false, you should NEVER assume a theory is false"

Originally Posted by BluE_MeaniE

Proving something false is generally either very difficult, near impossible or totally impossible. You have to wait FOR evidence. Not the other way around. This is how science works.

I'm not trying to demote any one or anything. I just wanna say that these scientific rules of thumb used by many big scale scientists that goes along these lines, "Nothing may will ever be proven 100% true or 100% false. Without facts, evidence, and/or experiments to back it up, never assume a theory is true or false. And never assume that just because a theory has been proven true that it is actually true (meaning later data may prove it false) also never assume that a hypothesis is actually false when it is proven false (meaning later data could prove it true). These are scientific rules actually used so don't go saying I'm wrong about this because I'm not the one that came up with these. Just wanna say that before I get any more crap about some flaw in my logic.

[jewpinthethird]

What TrueBOSS said is true.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Reach

It really is that straight forward.

That 'fundamentally' different organism comes from a collection of changes from microevolution.

But as I said in the text you quoted, extrapolating the changes we observe won't yield a fundamentally different type of organism. Thus, "macroevolution is a direct consequence of the existance of microevolution" isn't quite true. There is no inconsistency about accepting the type of evolution we see and the rejection of large scale (e.g. evolving new basic types) evolution. Sure we can get a many-limbed fly--no doubt about that. But what about evolving new organs? As said earlier, we have pointed to many organs that have deteriorated and become vestigial in extant organisms, but have we been able to point out any new organs now evolving (however slowly)? The answer is no. The evolution of new organs could be extrapolated to the evolution of new basic types; mutating an extra limb cannot. This isn't to say that evolving new organs via mutation and natural selection cannot be done, only that mere extrapolation of observed changes does not yield such fundamental differences. One could argue they happen too slowly to be observed, but none of that changes what I said about extrapolation of observed changes.

The general consenus however, is that macroevolution (I.E. one organism becoming another) is only an accumlation of microevoluationary changes.

That may very well be the consensus, however we must realize that the case cannot be made from merely extrapolating the changes we see, because the types of changes required are simply not observed. Again, one could argue they happen too slowly to be observed, but none of that changes what I said about extrapolation of observed changes.

[talisman]

Oh but they are observed. Plain as day, in the fossil record, one can trace macroevolutionary changes. And they do happen slowly. Over millions of years.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

Oh but they are observed. Plain as day, in the fossil record, one can trace macroevolutionary changes.

Here's where we get into the problems of interpretation as I suggested earlier. "Evolution can be seen in the fossil record." How? At best it can only be observed that evolution did happen, not how it happened. Thus, the fossil record does not itself establish that the mechanism used to change the organisms was mutation and natural section rather than something else (e.g. intelligent design).

And then there's the issue of systematic gaps in the fossil record. One could explain this away using the "imperfection of the fossil record" (i.e. fossilization doesn't happen all the time) but this (like many creationist arguments) fails to deal with the pertinent details. It isn't just the mere presence of the gaps, it's the pattern of the gaps that is unexpected for a straightforward Darwinian theory. The usual pattern is that we see many fossils with minor changes, then huge gaps between major groups. Fundamentally new basic types tend to appear suddenly with little transition in the fossil record. To use an analogy, we might see lots of D's, with C's and E's floating nearby. Then a huge gap and then we see fossils of X's with with variety's of Y's and W's. This is what we would expect from a limited evolution model, but it is not what we would naturally expect from a Darwinian perspective. Gaps due to mere imperfection would look more like A's, C's, I's, M's, R's and V's spread out fairly evenly. Small gaps between species and large gaps between major groups is not what we would naturally expect.

Michael Denton, though not an evolutionist, brings up the point here,

"The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in terms of an insufficient search or in terms of the imperfection of the record is their systematic character - the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse (a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none"

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, pp. 192-193

Denton is not entirely correct methinks, because there are now some claimed transitional forms between the two. However, the fact remains that the fossil record between major groups is quite spotty and characteristically has large gaps.

Some sources (this time from scientists who are evolutionists) support the idea of gaps between major groups:

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. "

George Gaylord Simpson in "The History of Life" (in Volume I of Evolution after Darwin, University of Chicago Press, 1960)

"Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."

Eldredge, N., 1995 Reinventing Darwin Wiley, New York, p. 95 Eldredge, N., 1995

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." - Dr. T.S. Kemp (Curator of Zoological Collections at Oxford University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, p246, 1999

This is not to say that the fossil record straightforwardly points to creationist theories, however. One problem that creationists do not adequately deal with is the order of the fossil record. Their explanations here tend to be strained and vague, not adequately addressing the details involved. Who knows? Perhaps some combination of intelligent design and evolution is true.

[talisman]

One cannot rely on so-called "gaps" in the fossil record to disprove evolution (or rather, cast enough doubt on it that it should not be so widely accepted). Fossilization is rare, as it relies on a specific combination of geological events. What examples we do have of complete fossil records support evolution well (the horse, for example).

In addition to fossil records, DNA evidence is perhaps the most telling. The fact that certain things are conserved across all life forms surely indicates a common ancestor.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

One cannot rely on so-called "gaps" in the fossil record to disprove evolution (or rather, cast enough doubt on it that it should not be so widely accepted). Fossilization is rare, as it relies on a specific combination of geological events.

Hm, perhaps you did pay close enough attention to what I just said. I'll quote it for you.

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

One could explain this away using the "imperfection of the fossil record" (i.e. fossilization doesn't happen all the time) but this (like many creationist arguments) fails to deal with the pertinent details. It isn't just the mere presence of the gaps, it's the pattern of the gaps that is unexpected for a straightforward Darwinian theory. The usual pattern is that we see many fossils with minor changes, then huge gaps between major groups. Fundamentally new basic types tend to appear suddenly with little transition in the fossil record. To use an analogy, we might see lots of D's, with C's and E's floating nearby. Then a huge gap and then we see fossils of X's with with variety's of Y's and W's. This is what we would expect from a limited evolution model, but it is not what we would naturally expect from a Darwinian perspective. Gaps due to mere imperfection would look more like A's, C's, I's, M's, R's and V's spread out fairly evenly. Small gaps between species and large gaps between major groups is not what we would naturally expect.

Michael Denton, though not an evolutionist, brings up the point here,

"The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in terms of an insufficient search or in terms of the imperfection of the record is their systematic character - the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse (a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none"

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, pp. 192-193

Denton is not entirely correct methinks, because there are now some claimed transitional forms between the two. However, the fact remains that the fossil record between major groups is quite spotty and characteristically has large gaps.

Some sources (this time from scientists who are evolutionists) support the idea of gaps between major groups:

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution...This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. "

George Gaylord Simpson in "The History of Life" (in Volume I of Evolution after Darwin, University of Chicago Press, 1960)

"Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."

Eldredge, N., 1995 Reinventing Darwin Wiley, New York, p. 95 Eldredge, N., 1995

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." - Dr. T.S. Kemp (Curator of Zoological Collections at Oxford University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, p246, 1999

[talisman]

No I understood, thanks.

You're trying to suggest that gaps in the fossil record show that evolution was not continuous. I'm saying that this is clearly not the case. The fossil record contains discontinuities not because there were discontinuities in the evolutionary process, but because there were discontinuities in fossilization itself. This would lead to the "pattern of gaps" you describe. The presence of these missing links is not nearly enough to derail evolution, as the overall trend of increasing complexity is still present, and because there do exist cases where we can see clearly the evolution of a new species in the fossil record.