The Truth about Evolution

[rocker]

This is intended as a thread to debate evolution.  All views are welcome, but this topic can and often does get heated.  Please debate only facts and do not attack others personally.  Conversely, do not assume that an attack on your views is an attack on you personally.

The scientific consensus is this:

The universe is about 15 billion years old.  The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  The earliest known life appeared on Earth when it was about a billion years old - although scientists seem to be discovering earlier life forms all the time.

This story of the universe is supported by many sciences: geology, chemistry, cosmology (a type of astronomy), evolutionary science, physics, and many others.

"Evolution" is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.  This has been observed in several species. It is clearly shown in the fossil record. It is a fact.

"Theories of evolution" are attempts to explain how that happens.  The first theory of evolution, formulated by Charles Darwin, is known popularly as "survival of the fittest".  At its most basic, it states that a small random change (mutation) may result in an animal being better suited for its environment (a faster predator, say).  That change will help the animal live a little longer, and thus have more children to pass the trait on to.  Eventually, more of the animals will be faster than the original species.

There are other theories of evolution.  Most notably, Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution does not happen gradually, but very quickly (within a few generations).

When a population has accumulated enough new traits that members can no longer breed with members of the original population (usually because a population has become isolated - for example, they live on an island, or the two populations are separated by a mountain range or something similar), the populations are said to now be different species.

Evolution does not have a "direction".  We do not evolve "from" lower animals "into" more sophisticated animals.  We only change to better fit our environment.

Most people who believe in God have no problem with evolution.  The Catholic Church has endorsed the the theory of evolution, and has declared it compatible with the Bible.  Charles Darwin was a Christian.

A few Christians believe that evolution proves there is no God.

Let the games begin.

  - rocker

[tyefly]

    Thank You     Rocker......

[dwcrawford]

thank you rocker... just  marking my spot now cause I need coffee and my bananna,  but I'll be back...  WILL IT BE DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION AS YOUR INITIAL POST OR WILL THERE SIMPLY BE POSTINGS OF OTHER PAPERS.  Speaking of staying on TOPIC...

For anyone who plays the word association game... I say God, you reply Church, I reply Baptist, you reply Jesus, I reply salvation, you replay creation, I reply divine, you reply intervention, I reply evolution, ...  get my point.  Staying on topic is different for each individual.  You say god, I say higher power, ...

[kristina]

Before the first punch is thrown...

let me please say that we should not forget Robert Chambers,
who wrote “The Vestiges...”, which is an account about Evolution,
and which was a major best-seller in the 19th century,
and it was an inspiration for Charles Darwin.

We must also take into account that both,
Chambers and Darwin never discounted the existence of a God.
On the contrary, they intimate there may be a God.

Robert Chambers was a thinker and a man of Letters,
and Charles Darwin was a scientist who observed
and tried to explain his observations.
Darwin acknowledged there were many gaps
in the notion he was putting forward.
And there were many other strange occurrences
which he similarly could not explain.
 
It is a misconception that Darwin, or Darwin’s opinion
were set against the notion that there is a God.

Over to everyone...

[fc2821]

   Thank you Rocker. 
   Kristina you have pointed out some very important facts, as has Rocker. 

  We see evolution in the microscopic world all the time, resistant germs for example.

[cariad]

This topic is way too big for me to have the energy to take on right now, but I think rocker did very well introducing a few points.

A few minor corrections so we don't get bogged down in fending off attacks on terms and details. Natural selection is the Darwinian term, and the measure of evolutionary success is how well an organism's genes are represented in the next generation. So, an individual lifespan is somewhat irrelevant to evolution, a human could die at twenty-five, but if he (and it would almost certainly have to be a 'he') managed to produce dozens of offspring in his brief life, he is an evolutionary success.

There is so much more to the evolution debate than the pace, and I'm not sure how it became an issue (in the other thread, and not by you, rocker) of Gould vs. Darwin, a dichotomy that I am quite sure that Gould would find both preposterous and offensive. In one of Gould's texts, he writes of "my own stubborn invocation of Darwinian evolution as a subject to fit nearly any context or controversy." (P.4, The Hedgehog, The Fox, and the Magister's Pox) He devoted his life to supporting Darwin, but came up with an alternative theory on one aspect of evolution that he felt better explained the fossil evidence that was available at the time (the mid-1970s). Gould's (and Niles Eldredge's) theory, punctuated equilibrium, says that organisms experienced long stretches of stasis with rapid bursts of evolutionary activity. (Rapid in evolutionary terms means thousands of years rather than millions.) He in no way disproved evolution, nor argued that Darwin's overarching theory was in any way unsound. Darwin came up with the four core criteria required for natural selection to drive adaptation, and those remain untouched and undisputed to this day. Find me the discipline (scientific, theological, or otherwise) that does not contain robust debate throughout and I'll show you a subject that has ceased to advance.

As an aside, Darwin was not the only person, or even necessarily the first, to develop the theory of evolution. It is often called Darwin and Wallace's theory. Typical of many major developments in history, several individuals began to notice the same evidence at the same time.

Darwin not only believed in God, he once studied to become a priest. Creationism (which I thought was now exclusively called Intelligent Design) is a belief system, evolution is a scientifically measurable event. The two can co-exist, they are not at odds with each other, but there is no sense in thinking that one can take the place of the other.

The interesting thing to me about evolution is how it does not backtrack well. Natural selection may go down a pathway, only to find the exit closed behind it and no way to go but forward. This is the theory behind why we still have an appendix (a basically useless organ that can kill you is an evolutionary oops) or why part of the eye is inside out. Interesting stuff, but I lack the energy to go into further detail. Thanks for starting this topic, rocker.

[rocker]

Thank you, cariad!

I was trying to keep the introduction simple, and then elaborate as events demanded. 

That is excellent further detail, and certainly squares with what I know of the topic.

I was reading the Catholic position on evolution earlier, and they trace evolutionary theory back to the writings of St Augustine.    Everyone wants part of the credit, I guess.  Which is fair, since as Newton said of his scientific predecessors: If I have seen far, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.

I also have never been quite sure how the invocation of SJG (who was a brilliant evolutionary scientist) is supposed to be an argument against evolution.  Can anyone clarify?

 - rocker

[willowtreewren]

Dear Rocker, actually I believe it is not correct to state that the majority of people don't view the issue of evolution and is there a God.  Here in America, most do not accept evolution as fact much to the chagrin of folks that try to speak otherwise.  Here on IHD, those that believe in a God far outweigh those that don't 72% to 24%.

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

I suspect that the vocal minority keeps many of the gentle majority from speaking up on their views.  Not easy to step into the lions den so to speak and present what is displayed in the media as a settled issue, but not in the minds of most Americans who accept the God of the Bible.

I'm transferring this from the God thread and adding this from the some website quoted above:

Researchers compared the results of past surveys of attitudes toward evolution taken in the U.S. since 1985 and similar surveys in Japan and 32 European countries.

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.

The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.

The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.

But in all truth, scientific understand is not done by majority rule. Likewise the statistics of 72% God thread members who believe in god vs. 24% who don't in no way proves who is correct.

The statistics of the number of people in the US who accept the theory of evolution is most likely a result of the dismal state of science education in the US. That state is the result of a vocal minority pushing an agenda through school boards.

[dwcrawford]

This thread is way to cerebral for me.  Understand my degrees are in music and then, mostly applied music.  However, I'm so happy to see the intellectual elite have removed themselves from a thread that offends most every one (well, certainly 94% of Christians and then all others.  Hey, I'll be reading here, but doubt I ever have anything to add.)  We learned about evolution when I was a kid.  So it's changing... big deal.  Doesn't most things change -- many constantly and some over many centuries.  It is still changes.

So hey, I'll continue to lurk in  her but now go back to downloading, (stealing) music.  Only an ape would do that!

May new attempt at communication from a keyboard is to italicize every thing I intend as a smartass comment.  HM, second thought it might be faster to reverse and italicize for everything I'm serious about.

[Hemodoc]

The difficulty with the theory of evolution is the vast complexity that we are dealing with.  Random mutations are acted upon by various evolutionary mechanisms.

Take an example of the bacteria flagellum.  Here is a video showing how complex the process is:

Enjoy,

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=6da0a25216521ee6fbe4

[Bill Peckham]

If you're interested in the topic of evolution as opposed to intelligent design you should watch this Nova episode when it comes around again. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ or check out the segments online.

To me, someone who has never doubted we live on an old earth and that man descended from a long line of amazing creatures, it is the predictions that Darwin's theory made , predictions that turn out to be true again and again, that give the the theory the strongest support.

He figured it out in the 1830s when the earth was assumed to be thousands or at the most maybe millions of years old. Darwin understood that for his theory to be true the earth would have to be much older. Today, many different scientific disciplines have shown the earth and the universe to be far older than anyone imagined in the 1800s. That's an amazing achievement of logic and human thought.

Darwin didn't know it at the time but his theory created numerous testable predictions. Hundreds really. Predictions that have now been supported by research in fields from astronomy to geology to today the human genome. This excerpt from Nova gives one very strong example of a prediction forced by Darwin's theory.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

If there was not a fused chromosome then something would have been very wrong with the theory of evolution. That's science. If the evidence doesn't fit you gotta change the theory but time after time, with each more careful experiment evolution has been supported. For a theory to be taken seriously it must make testable predictions (a well know example would be Einsteins prediction for the bending of light ... it took numerous scientific expeditions to view solar eclipses but he predicted the outcome and today Einstein is correctly regarded as a genius)  Darwin's theory has made hundreds of predictions and one after another as technology improved the theory is shown to be correct.

Willowtreewren's data is something that I find very difficult to understand.

[willowtreewren]

Bill,
I was simply re-posting data that Peter, aka Hemodoc, had posted in the God thread showing that more folks in the United States do not support the Theory of Evolution. The text in the quote boxes came from him.

I, on the other hand, am a strong supporter of Evolution. I helped my good friend evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci organize the first Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee back in 1997.

http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/index.htm

I met Massimo at a lecture by Richard Dawkins here in Knoxville. Invited him to a philosophy discussion group that my husband and I had started, thus beginning a long and stimulating friendship that has survived his move to SUNY Stonybrook. But that is off topic, except that Massimo is one of the most brilliant people I know. He has written a couple of books on evolution for lay people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Pigliucci

Aleta aka Willowtreewren

[rocker]

The difficulty with the theory of evolution is the vast complexity that we are dealing with.  Random mutations are acted upon by various evolutionary mechanisms.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.  "Random mutations are acted upon by various evolutionary mechanisms."?  Random mutations simply happen.  They may be the result of transcription errors, or cosmic rays, or other mechanisms we're not yet aware of. Do you accept the existence of random mutations? (I really do not know.)

The vast, vast majority of random mutations are harmful, even fatal, to the organism.  These mutations are selected out quite quickly. Many mutations make no difference at all.  But once in a great while, a mutation may convey a slight reproductive advantage to an organism.  That organism reproduces more successfully, which leads to a few more copies of that mutation in each generation, until what was once a mutation becomes a common species trait.

Take an example of the bacteria flagellum.  Here is a video showing how complex the process is:

Enjoy,

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=6da0a25216521ee6fbe4

I have never heard of tangle.com, and this video had no sound when I played it from that site.  It appears to be an altered outtake from this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

which is a molecular biology video describing the bacterial flagellum.

However, it contains no mention of evolution.  Is there some argument here that I'm missing, or is it simply a statement of "I can't imagine how this could have evolved."?

[cariad]

Aleta, absolutely science is not an issue of what the majority believe.  Along those same lines, Internet polls are unscientific and therefore bad data. They cannot be used to prove anything.

I don't see complexity as any kind of 'difficulty' with the theory of evolution. Like rocker, I really do not understand what is being said there.

The majority of mutations actually are neutral (over 95% if memory serves), as they either occur in the vast regions of non-coding DNA or do not have an affect on the fitness of the individual. I believe positive and negative mutations occur in about equal numbers, but would have to check on that. It oversimplifies the matter (though I know the nature of this discussion demands that) to see mutations as either good or bad.

Take sickle-cell anemia, the darling of evolutionary biology. It is a recessive trait, so one needs a mutated copy from both father and mother to contract the full-blown disease. Who gets sickle-cell anemia? Black people. Why? Because black people descend from those early humans who stayed in Africa rather than migrate up into Europe and Asia. If one receives two copies of the non-mutated allele, no sickle-cell anemia, and that individual is not a carrier. If one receives one mutated allele and one non-mutated allele - and this is where natural selection is so fascinating - that individual will be resistant to the strain of malaria found in Africa and will not develop sickle-cell anemia. As we know, malaria is an old, old disease, and the African strain is the most virulent. Sickle-cell may be horrible, but it does not kill individuals early enough to stop them from reproducing. Therefore, the gene for sickle cell remains in the black population, and the carriers have an evolutionary advantage so long as they remain in the malarial zone. In Africa, sickle-cell would be under positive selection. In the African diaspora, it would be under negative selection.

To me, natural selection elegantly explains how organisms interact with one another and the environment. It tells the story of why we are the way we are, and why humans and other organisms make the choices that they do.

[rocker]

Aleta, absolutely science is not an issue of what the majority believe.  Along those same lines, Internet polls are unscientific and therefore bad data. They cannot be used to prove anything.

I don't see complexity as any kind of 'difficulty' with the theory of evolution. Like rocker, I really do not understand what is being said there.

The majority of mutations actually are neutral (over 95% if memory serves), as they either occur in the vast regions of non-coding DNA or do not have an affect on the fitness of the individual. I believe positive and negative mutations occur in about equal numbers, but would have to check on that. It oversimplifies the matter (though I know the nature of this discussion demands that) to see mutations as either good or bad.

cariad, this is certainly not my field of expertise.  So I am curious - does that take into account embryo lossage?  Some estimates are that in humans, as many as 75% of fertilized ova fail to reach the embryonic stage.  I would imagine mutations play a significant role there, as well as environmental factors.

Also, I suspect that introns still hold some surprises.  It's possible they are entirely non-coding, but it is also possible there is knowledge there yet to be discovered.

Take sickle-cell anemia, the darling of evolutionary biology. It is a recessive trait, so one needs a mutated copy from both father and mother to contract the full-blown disease. Who gets sickle-cell anemia? Black people. Why? Because black people descend from those early humans who stayed in Africa rather than migrate up into Europe and Asia. If one receives two copies of the non-mutated allele, no sickle-cell anemia, and that individual is not a carrier. If one receives one mutated allele and one non-mutated allele - and this is where natural selection is so fascinating - that individual will be resistant to the strain of malaria found in Africa and will not develop sickle-cell anemia. As we know, malaria is an old, old disease, and the African strain is the most virulent. Sickle-cell may be horrible, but it does not kill individuals early enough to stop them from reproducing. Therefore, the gene for sickle cell remains in the black population, and the carriers have an evolutionary advantage so long as they remain in the malarial zone. In Africa, sickle-cell would be under positive selection. In the African diaspora, it would be under negative selection.

Very true.  I had forgotten about dual-use genes in my response. Thank you.

To me, natural selection elegantly explains how organisms interact with one another and the environment. It tells the story of why we are the way we are, and why humans and other organisms make the choices that they do.

Again, somewhat of an oversimplification, unless you want to move on to Dawkins' selfish genes... 

[Hemodoc]

Here is another video on the bacterial flagellum. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNi0YXYadg0&feature=related

The concept that through successive random mutations which are then acted upon by evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift for example, the mathematical possibility of these being by chance alone is simply beyond the realm of possibility.  Science has designated anything with a chance smaller than 10 to the minus 50th as impossible by convention.

The cell has many such machines that do all of the work inside of the cell.  Ribosomes, Golgi apparatus, etc.  All working together in an amazing choreography all of which are programmed by DNA.  A single celled organism is much more complex than the space shuttle.  Of a truth, no one would see the space shuttle and believe it was anything but complex engineering and deliberate design.  Not only is the bacterial flagellum incredibly complex, but it is all regulated by information contained in the DNA. Where did that information come from?  That is a very simple question that I do not is possible without an intelligent designer. 

[Hemodoc]

If you're interested in the topic of evolution as opposed to intelligent design you should watch this Nova episode when it comes around again. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ or check out the segments online.

To me, someone who has never doubted we live on an old earth and that man descended from a long line of amazing creatures, it is the predictions that Darwin's theory made , predictions that turn out to be true again and again, that give the the theory the strongest support.

He figured it out in the 1830s when the earth was assumed to be thousands or at the most maybe millions of years old. Darwin understood that for his theory to be true the earth would have to be much older. Today, many different scientific disciplines have shown the earth and the universe to be far older than anyone imagined in the 1800s. That's an amazing achievement of logic and human thought.

Darwin didn't know it at the time but his theory created numerous testable predictions. Hundreds really. Predictions that have now been supported by research in fields from astronomy to geology to today the human genome. This excerpt from Nova gives one very strong example of a prediction forced by Darwin's theory.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

If there was not a fused chromosome then something would have been very wrong with the theory of evolution. That's science. If the evidence doesn't fit you gotta change the theory but time after time, with each more careful experiment evolution has been supported. For a theory to be taken seriously it must make testable predictions (a well know example would be Einsteins prediction for the bending of light ... it took numerous scientific expeditions to view solar eclipses but he predicted the outcome and today Einstein is correctly regarded as a genius)  Darwin's theory has made hundreds of predictions and one after another as technology improved the theory is shown to be correct.

Willowtreewren's data is something that I find very difficult to understand.

Dear Bill, 15 years ago, I was on the same side of the equation as you and all the rest on this thread are through all of my undergrad and medical studies.  Many theories over time have looked good with interlocking data that later were shown to be false.  Many in this category were able to make predictions that looked good from the evidence.

There are many issues with evolution that are becoming increasingly difficult to explain by Darwinian mechanisms or those of neo-Darwinism as well.  The complexity of the cell and the myriad number of molecular machines is an incredible discovery in the last few decades.  In my opinion, they simply defy the possibility of coming into existence with out the design of an intelligent creator.  There is much evidence to consider such a concept that many high level scientists concede after years of study trying to prove otherwise.

The issue of chromosome number two does suggest a possible fusion, but it does not tell us when or in what common ancestor, human or ape or chimp.  Indeed, there are many similarities between primate chromosomal patterns beyond that of #2.  Proof of fusion is not proof of common ancestry.  An alternative explanation of common design is not excluded by this evidence.

It is also readily apparent that there is really no room for real debate on IHD with these issues since looking at all sides of the issue is taken too personally by too many as well as the issue of whether there is a God.  In such, I will gracefully bow out of further debate with the only rejoinder that the things that most people feel are completely settled may not be in fact as settled as some feel that they are.  I would only state that examining what we believe and why is a smart position to take.

Thank you all, I will simply continue my own personal search of these issues on my own.  I wish you all the best.

God bless,

Peter

[dwcrawford]

I have a basic simple question certainly not on par with the enlightened discussion of this thread.  I certainly have no problems with anything being said.  My question is more of a “why” question.

Everything changes -- everything being both energies and matter.  Whether it be water to ice in the freezer, flesh and bone to dust, amphibian to human or even three toes to four.   Since time is such a nebulous thing I can’t really see the difference.  Was it a divine design or random happenstance?  Debatable from a religious vs. secular point of view and also from scientist to scientist theory, but doesn’t actually alter anything. 

Now here is my question.  Don’t expect it to be earth shaking.  Remember, I am not a scholar but just a citizen with a musician/artist soul:
My question then is if the morphing of energies and matter happens, why are such enlightened and   learned scholars as being quoted here spending so much time and effort?  Are they looking to control change thereby becoming the greater power?  Is it just intellectual curiosity?  Or perhaps they are hoping their theories and discoveries with benefit humanity such as altering the environment?   Perhaps it is a theological issue?  In my opinion not one thing I’ve read in here would either prove or disprove the existence of God.  (If this is totally stupid, just ignore it.)

No disrespect intended to anyone.  For certainty I can see why people are interested in theories.  Just intellectual curiosity is admirable.  Obviously too, you are all having fun with it and fun is always good.  And yet my question is truly serious.

[kimcanada]

Why am I so confused by this post, maybe my hemoglobin is down    but I will continue to try to get it!

[dwcrawford]

Perhaps it is too simple.  Perhaps it makes no sense.  Perhaps it wasn't a valid question are all.  Being a simpleton perhaps all I wanted to know is "what does it matter to m?" or "how does it affect my live or my future lives"?

Don't worry.  Forget it.  I did.

[glitter]

I am enjoying this thread, I am hearing things I have never heard before, debate is a beautiful thing- makes me think. Thinking makes me feel alive...please continue.   

[fc2821]

Dan,
      If I understand you correctly you are asking wht difference does it make in your life, one way or another?  Well, Are you curious?  Do you want to know how things work and why?  If not then it doesn't make any difference.  But I am curious and would like to know.   
       Hemodoc, change happens because of the influence of invoenment.  Are you sayinhg tht change happens becsause of "randomness"? 

[dwcrawford]

No, my question wasn't about you or the posters or about my self.  It was why do these obviouslly high powered scientist devote so much effort to it.  I mean what do they expect from it.  It really was a serious question but perhaps I don't know how to express it.  They are so intelligent then there must be something others than knowing or makes me work on these theories.

Forget it.  Not a deep question .. Is it the same reason that someone writes a symphony?  That's be a good answer if it is true.

Yes, its fun to know.  Maybe I'm confused since I don't have the cuuriosity about scientific matters that I should.  Don't try to answer as I'm not even sure what or why I am asking it.

[fc2821]

No, my question wasn't about you or the posters or about my self.  It was why do these obviouslly high powered scientist devote so much effort to it.  I mean what do they expect from it.  It really was a serious question but perhaps I don't know how to express it.  They are so intelligent then there must be something others than knowing or makes me work on these theories.

Forget it.  Not a deep question .. Is it the same reason that someone writes a symphony?  That's be a good answer if it is true.

Yes, its fun to know.  Maybe I'm confused since I don't have the cuuriosity about scientific matters that I should.  Don't try to answer as I'm not even sure what or why I am asking it.

    It appears I misunderstood, sory.

[dwcrawford]

As I said at first, it's not an intellectual question.  I think you and Kim were trying to make it something you can sink your teeth into.

If change really and truly happens because of the influence of energies on matter as dictated by the time factor, would that be "random".  I doubt it but don't that question seriously either as it comes from my shallow little brain.

And I never saw you at the party last night.

In retrospect, I think my problems in the God business may have been the same... people thinking I thought of myself on an equal level intellectually as they were.  Actually my comments are most often non serious unless they are of a humanitarian nature.  Hell, two of my favorite musicans were Victor Borge the pianist and Jack Benny the violinist.