The Truth about Evolution

[Hemodoc]

Dear Rocker, I am beginning to believe that you just don't understand your own statements.  You have separated abiogenesis from evolution which a hundred times over I have acknowledged is the current teaching, but it was not 30 years ago when I went through my studies on evolution.  In fact, before you even mentioned this, I had already acknowledged that in a prior post by using the politically correct abiogenesis term already in one of my discussions.  The only issue I have placed on abiogenesis is the historical context it had with the teaching of evolution in the past a continuum from the big bang to the higher order animals.

Secondly, I have postulated that although many writers on evolution postulate this artificial separation form abiogenesis in their writings, all of the evolution books that I have read recently had an in depth chapter on abiogenesis.  When I asked you where evolution starts simply for a point of reference of discussion, you came up with the RNA world as part of the evolutionary path as you so spoke prior to a cell with DNA.  Do you want me to quote that post again for clarification?  Your answer went back to abiogenesis.  Your dissociative posts since on my alleged misunderstanding of this issue is becoming more comical all the time.

So, tell us where evolution begins as a point of reference on the issue of discussing evolution.  I will grant you the beginnings of life for purposes of discussion only through one of the aspects of unproven abiogenesis but I leave it to you to state where you want to start, prokaryotic, eukaryotic, etc.  Can we start somewhere with evolution please at the place of your choosing.  That is all I have asked for several days.  Once again, for point of reference in discussing evolution, where do you want to begin? 

Thank you,

Peter

[Hemodoc]

It seems to me- an atheist most days, an agnostic on other days- that you are disrespecting Hemodocs right to have a different view then others ,  I do not agree with his views, but I do not have to, just respect his right to have them, and express them. There are a lot of Christains who think if your not saved your going to hell and THAT IS THEIR BELEIF- they believe their is only ONE way to salvation- and I must respect that as a fundamental part of their belief system.

I find all the information being posted to be very interesting, I am not educated enough to really participate, and I am not reading it as an argument, but as a chance to learn someone else's opinions. I wish it would stop veering off into personal attacks, & snide remarks- the purpose of which I do not understand.

Please, tell us more about the theories that are trying to disprove evolution, and the proof of God as a designer.....I am totally open to reading all of your opinions on evolution and such...

Dear Glitter, I was actually an agnostic until I was 36 years old and had completed my degree in biology, med school and my post grad training in internal medicine.  Another doctor that I worked with in my first duty assignment began coming over to my quarters and all he spoke of was Bible prophecy.  He was quite pleasant so to keep up with him, I began to read books on prophecy myself just to be able to keep up with him when he was talking about it.  There was not much at all to do out in our desert post, so company of any kind was appreciated.

A year and half later, in a very specific manner, the Lord truly showed me the truth of His Word. The very first issue that I had to settle was that of evolution.  How could the Bible be true and evolution at the same time.  I read about 8 books on evolution over two months, with only one of them being from a Christian perspective.  The most influential was actually Stephen J. Gould's where he defended punctuated equilibrium against other theories of evolution.  If you have ever read any of his books, he has quite direct and biting comments against his detractors. The biggest issue that he went over was the fossil record and how it does not show slow gradual changes.  He then went into several wonders of evolution such as fish scales, the human eye, shark sensory systems, etc.  Simply looking at the incredible complexity and features quite suggestive of design is an amazing study if you wished to look at one isolated example. 

Thus, having both the testimony of what the Bible says through prophecy and the amazing creatures and creations,  I now see that the God of the Bible is the best explanation for these things in my mindset learned not by authority, but by study and example.  I stand in awe of both the Bible and God's creation.  There is much to learn in both.

May God bless,

Peter

[Hemodoc]

Rocker stated that all views are welcome

He also stated to .. "Please debate only facts".

Has anybody read Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show On Earth?

Dear Lady Noir,

Here is one quote from Dawkins on DNA.  Let me know what you think?

What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.
-- Richard Dawkins, Life: A Gene-Centric View Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich (Moderator: John Brockman) "This event was a continuation of the Edge 'Life: What a Concept!' meeting in August, 2008." [sic]

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

My question to Richard Dawkins is where did all of that information come from digit by digit and byte for byte.  Who wrote the code?

Take care,

Peter

[monrein]

Disclaimer....I have not read this book but would like to.   This is a review of the book and a response to said review.

All of the responses may be found here   http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KSWPO3F506CD

"Why Evolution is True"  by  Dr. Jerry Coyne  (biologist)


    
296 of 309 people found the following review helpful:
 THE intro book for the evolution-curious, but uninformed!, March 14, 2009
By    Esk
I was raised in a very conservative Christian environment and taught Young-Earth Creationism (anti-evolution, anti-Big Bang, etc.). I bought into it for a long time. In college, I finally began to investigate some of the claims for myself---reading what was _really_ being said by "the other side", rather than what I was being told was being said.

The disparity I discovered can hardly be exaggerated: what I had been taught bore essentially zero resemblance to the real thing. Genuine evolutionary theory was virtually unrecognizable in the creationists' caricatures of it. I learned that I had been lied to---intentionally, or not, I do not know---and that the quantity, diversity, and quality of evidence in support of evolution was simply crushing. It wasn't just that it could not be ignored or dismissed as trivial; it was that it was so cohesive and mutually supportive and overwhelmingly convincing that it simply HAD to be accepted as true. (As Gould said, it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent.")

This discovery sparked a long (and ongoing) journey of reading books on the topic of evolution---books by authors such as Stephen Jay Gould, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Neil Shubin, and others. I was enthralled with the elegant simplicity and beauty and shear explanatory power of the ideas I was learning. They not only made sense, but had tremendous evidentiary support in nature and the lab (as well as mathematical modeling, game theory, use in other disciplines, etc.).

But, as my journey progressed, and I continued to absorb ever more information and improve my understanding, I began to realize something. As I interfaced with many of those from my upbringing (i.e., those uninformed on evolution), it dawned on me that I hadn't yet found a truly excellent "introductory book" that clearly and accessibly discussed what evolution is (and is not) while relying heavily upon concrete evidentiary examples across many different disciplines. I had read many great books specializing in this or that discipline, or focusing more on the understanding of evolutionary concepts (but with looser reliance upon examples in nature), or whatever. But, I wanted a single, superb book to provide a solid overview of evolution that was inseparably intertwined with many diverse supporting evidentiary examples.

When a curious friend actually asked, voluntarily, for such a book suggestion, and I could not provide a single title (as opposed to a long list, which is too much to ask of the casually curious), I decided my desire for such a book had transformed into a bona fide need.

"Why Evolution Is True" is that book.

It covers so much in so few pages in such an accessible way that it is difficult to capture in only a few words. Dr. Coyne eloquently writes on:
* what evolution is, and is not (specific defining features, testability, etc.; chapter 1 is all about this)
* the fossil record (including specific examples and discussion of transitional forms and lineages (dinosaur feathers, whales, etc.), stratigraphy, and more; specific predictions and their fulfillments, such as Tiktaalik's discovery and marsupial fossils in Antarctica; etc.)
* vestigial and atavistic features (e.g. human tails and appendices, and whale pelvises and dolphin legs)
* "bad design" (e.g. flat fish skulls and eyes, and the route of the vagus nerve in humans, as well as problems with both genders' reproductive systems)
* developmental oddities (e.g. dolphin embryos beginning growth of hind legs that are later changed, human embryonic growth and subsequent absorption of tails, as well as the growth and loss of a full coat of hair)
* pseudogenes (e.g. bird pseudogenes for growing teeth, pseudo-GLO for (failed) vitamin C production in humans/fruit bats/guinea pigs, substantial presence of endogenous retroviruses in our genome (and chimpanzees, in the same places), extensive olfactory receptor pseudogenes in humans (and even more so in dolphins), mammalian pseudogenes for vitellogenin production (nutritious protein filling the yolk sac in birds/reptiles/monotremes) and our embryonic growth of a yolk sac)
* biogeography (including discussion of species distributions (duh!), continental drift, and continental and oceanic islands)
* specific examples of evolution in action, both in nature and in the lab (through natural selection (e.g. different bee species, mouse and lizard coloration, etc.), genetic drift (e.g. several genetically-bottle-necked human sub-populations), and artificial selection (e.g. domestic dogs, agriculture, etc.); he writes of lab experiments, bacterial drug resistance (and even more dramatic changes), beak-length changes, and much more)
* micro- vs macro-evolution (including differences, expectations, and evidence)
* selection building complexity (including discussion of ID's claims about the bacterial flagellum and the blood clot cascade, and the eye)
* sexual selection (what it is, how it works, advantages it offers, and many examples; parthenogenesis; etc.)
* speciation (discussion and examples; allopatric and sympatric speciation; autopolyploid and allopolyploid speciation; etc.)
* human evolution (fossil and genetic evidence, along with detailed discussion; "races"; "pastoralism" coinciding with "lactose tolerance"; malarial and HIV resistance, through genetic mutations; historical advantages that now are detriments; etc.)
* the 'moral/emotional' resistance to acceptance of evolution (noting and discussing that all the evidence in the universe is still not enough if a person is staunchly ideologically opposed)
* and much, much more

Clearly, the book covers a stunning array of material in its few pages. And, due to my particular reasons for wanting such a book, I was even more pleased to discover that Dr. Coyne does not shy away from periodically pointing-out (respectfully, but matter-of-factly) that creationism simply offers no good explanation for almost everything discussed---whereas evolution beautifully explains it all. Dr. Coyne remains focused on evolution, rather than dwelling upon creationism's failures; but, I felt that the little space he did devote to explicitly noting creationism's total inability to reasonably explain the evidence was worthwhile.

The book is not the be-all, end-all of evolutionary books, of course. It can't cover absolutely everything. To learn about evolution in its full depth and breadth requires the reading of many books (several of which Dr. Coyne suggests, and many more of which can be found in his book's bibliography). But, it nearly perfectly fulfilled my personal requirements for a "suggested single title for the curious" as an introductory book on evolution---one with heavy reliance upon numerous examples of interdisciplinary, mutually-supporting evidence that still communicates many of the important evolutionary concepts in a way easily accessible to the layman.

Indeed, the book covers so much so well that even though it is targeted to be a broad overview of the evidence, and even after my having read several other more topic-specific books on evolution, I still learned quite a bit from "Why Evolution Is True". Very highly recommended, whether you're new to evolution or not.



Review DetailsItem

Why Evolution Is True
  (95 customer reviews)
5 star:   
 (70)
4 star:   
 (9)
3 star:   
 (6)
2 star:   
 (4)
1 star:   
 (6)
    
 
 
$27.95 $18.45
 
49 used & new available from $8.09
Reviewer

Esk

New Reviewer Rank: 2,074,281
Classic Reviewer Rank: 517,641
See all my reviews

 
Comments
Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 4 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 70 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 15, 2009 5:23 AM PDT
 Kenneth L. Carson says:
Excellent review Esk. The problem with most fundamentalist young-earth Christians is that they positively refuse to open their minds enough to investigate the "other side". I even heard a song once on the radio that in essence was praising the fact that true believers always leave those godless "evolution" books on library shelves UNREAD. Now if that attitude is not one of complete ignorance and total closed-mindedness I don't know what would be. So sadly, no matter how much you or I or any other evolutionist may recommend a book on evolution they will most probably not read it. Of course to them it is we evolutionists who are the ignorant and closed-minded ones!

But still, some of the staunchist Biblical literalists somehow muster the courage to investigate the "other side". It's tough to do this because it often entails alienating family and friends in the process. I have fundamentalist Christian relatives who would probably think I had "gone bad" and was "going to Hell" for not believing in the literal truth of the Bible. I love them but I will not renounce my reason and common sense just to stay in their good graces. I admittedly tread lightly on the subject of evolution when around them but when they say something that obviously testifies to their complete ignorance of it, such as "We know we didn't come from apes, don't we Kenneth!", I don't hesitate to try and educate them.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
20 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?   
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2009 9:15 AM PDT
 Esk says:
Yeah, Ken. You're right, of course. But, I can't completely lose hope because I myself am one of those who emerged from that world of misinformation, and I have some friends who have as well (including some who are just getting on their way).

Like you, I try not to be abrasive about it with them; but, I can't just be apathetic or silent about it either. (This is often because *they* won't let it go when they're around me, as it appears is the case for you, as well.) I still have plenty of creationist friends and family members, and they're people that I care about. But, they are abysmally uninformed/misinformed on the topic, and it can sometimes be very frustrating to get into discussions with them.

They sometimes flat-out admit that they've never learned anything about evolution (e.g. never read a single book on it, written by an evolutionary biologist), and refuse to do so, but still adamantly insist that they know what they're talking about. I think that sometimes that cognitive dissonance can be leveraged to get a person to begrudgingly consider reading something, though. So, perhaps now that I have such a great suggestion available, I can use it to prod some additional people into reading something on the topic. (And, of course, every once in awhile there is that person who's willing to read a little, anyway. And now I have a good book suggestion for her/him.)

[rocker]

Dear Rocker, I am beginning to believe that you just don't understand your own statements.  You have separated abiogenesis from evolution which a hundred times over I have acknowledged is the current teaching, but it was not 30 years ago when I went through my studies on evolution.  In fact, before you even mentioned this, I had already acknowledged that in a prior post by using the politically correct abiogenesis term already in one of my discussions.  The only issue I have placed on abiogenesis is the historical context it had with the teaching of evolution in the past a continuum from the big bang to the higher order animals.

Secondly, I have postulated that although many writers on evolution postulate this artificial separation form abiogenesis in their writings, all of the evolution books that I have read recently had an in depth chapter on abiogenesis.  When I asked you where evolution starts simply for a point of reference of discussion, you came up with the RNA world as part of the evolutionary path as you so spoke prior to a cell with DNA. 

Actually, as I have previously pointed out, you stated your skepticism that full-fledged cells arose spontaneously as the first life.  Several people pointed out that no one claims that.  You asked "where evolution started" if not cells, and I pointed to RNA as a potential candidate for an early self-replicating entity.

Do you want me to quote that post again for clarification?  Your answer went back to abiogenesis. 

Not if the RNA landed in the ocean from elsewhere.  You post continually on panspermia, panspermia certainly allows for this possibility.

Your dissociative posts since on my alleged misunderstanding of this issue is becoming more comical all the time.

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself also, I personally am having a ball!

So, tell us where evolution begins as a point of reference on the issue of discussing evolution.  I will grant you the beginnings of life for purposes of discussion only through one of the aspects of unproven abiogenesis but I leave it to you to state where you want to start, prokaryotic, eukaryotic, etc.  Can we start somewhere with evolution please at the place of your choosing.  That is all I have asked for several days.  Once again, for point of reference in discussing evolution, where do you want to begin? 

Thank you,

Peter

Well, since you admit that I have now offered you two possible answers, and you have apparently rejected both of them, I will leave this one to you.

Where do you want to begin discussing evolution?

  - rocker

[Hemodoc]

Let's start with a eukaryotic single cell organism.  RNA does not get you to where you want to start and once again, by your own admonition, it is a topic in abiogenesis.

[Chris]

Rocker stated that all views are welcome

He also stated to .. "Please debate only facts".

Ummm I already made that mistake of thinking rocker was male in chat  but if you look to the left, rocker is female.

Rocker, I like how you quote and respond to a post. It is easier for one to follow what you are debating over/ responding to

[tyefly]

  Could use  prokaryoic cells .....simplier

[Hanify]

I'm not sure where anyone has got the impression that Dan was anti Christianity!!  I am a Christian and I certainly have never had that feeling from him.  He is genuinely interested in how and why poeple think different things.  Evolution - hmmm, not sure I really care how we got here - am more interested in what we do now!

[Chris]

Don't know Hanify, but he thinks I don't like talking about serious things   

[dwcrawford]

Christ, its a little ambiguous there due to immediate previous post but I hope you aren't talking about me.  I respect your input on all subjects....

[Stoday]

Let's start with a eukaryotic single cell organism. 

Can I check my understanding of this start position?

At this point the following have evolved:

1.   RNA as a self-replicating enzyme
2.   RNA as a gene, conveying information
3.   Chromosomes, so that all genes in a cell replicate at the same time.
4.   DNA and the mechanism to create proteins coded by the DNA
5.   Prokaryotes, cells with no nucleus and a single chromosome (bacteria)
6.   Eukaryotes single cells with a nucleus

And we discuss the evolution of the following from single cell eukaryotes

1.   Intracellular structures mitochondria and, for plants, chloroplasts
2.   Multicellular organisms
3.   Sexual reproduction
4.   Plants and animals including fish

Right?

[Hemodoc]

Let's start with a eukaryotic single cell organism. 

Can I check my understanding of this start position?

At this point the following have evolved:

1.   RNA as a self-replicating enzyme
2.   RNA as a gene, conveying information
3.   Chromosomes, so that all genes in a cell replicate at the same time.
4.   DNA and the mechanism to create proteins coded by the DNA
5.   Prokaryotes, cells with no nucleus and a single chromosome (bacteria)
6.   Eukaryotes single cells with a nucleus

And we discuss the evolution of the following from single cell eukaryotes

1.   Intracellular structures mitochondria and, for plants, chloroplasts
2.   Multicellular organisms
3.   Sexual reproduction
4.   Plants and animals including fish

Right?

Great start for building our cell, but we need to have complete eukaryotic cell to begin our discussion on evolution as defined as a change in gene frequencies over time.

So, we need someone to build some mitochondria, ribosomes, nucleosomes, our lipid cell membrane, our Golgi apparatus and the rest of the essentials of a single celled eukaryote that will be able to evolve.  So, let's get the entire cell together to make sure it has all of the correct parts to survive.

Any volunteers to start building our cell?

[Hemodoc]

Let's start with a eukaryotic single cell organism. 

Can I check my understanding of this start position?

At this point the following have evolved:

1.   RNA as a self-replicating enzyme
2.   RNA as a gene, conveying information
3.   Chromosomes, so that all genes in a cell replicate at the same time.
4.   DNA and the mechanism to create proteins coded by the DNA
5.   Prokaryotes, cells with no nucleus and a single chromosome (bacteria)
6.   Eukaryotes single cells with a nucleus

And we discuss the evolution of the following from single cell eukaryotes

1.   Intracellular structures mitochondria and, for plants, chloroplasts
2.   Multicellular organisms
3.   Sexual reproduction
4.   Plants and animals including fish

Right?

Dear Stoday,

Take a look at this video presentation by a medical illustrator working with Harvard to break down in animation the workings of a cell.  Please note how many times he talks about the micro machines that are at the center of life and without them life is not possible.  They all work independently but in synchrony with the rest of the cell.  Since we are at the level of the eukaryotic cell for discussion purposes, mitochondria are already in place as well as plants since our cell will need a food source.  Hope this helps to start to show the inner workings of the cell.

David Bolinsky: Fantastic voyage inside a cell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE&feature=related

[Hemodoc]

Here is the full view of the Harvard video seen above.

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html

[Hemodoc]

Here is an excellent video on the machines involved in a eukaryotic cell illustrating the "central dogma" of biology.  By the convention of evolution, this central dogma of biology came about by only naturalistic mechanisms gathering all of the information that keeps the cell alive.

Design or random mutations acted on by selection and drift?  Note the interaction of DNA, messenger RNA, transfer RNA and the ribosomal subunits.  All in place in the simplest of unicellular eukaryotic organisms.

From DNA to Protein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM&feature=related

[rocker]

Let's start with a eukaryotic single cell organism. 

Can I check my understanding of this start position?

At this point the following have evolved:

1.   RNA as a self-replicating enzyme
2.   RNA as a gene, conveying information
3.   Chromosomes, so that all genes in a cell replicate at the same time.
4.   DNA and the mechanism to create proteins coded by the DNA
5.   Prokaryotes, cells with no nucleus and a single chromosome (bacteria)
6.   Eukaryotes single cells with a nucleus

And we discuss the evolution of the following from single cell eukaryotes

1.   Intracellular structures mitochondria and, for plants, chloroplasts
2.   Multicellular organisms
3.   Sexual reproduction
4.   Plants and animals including fish

Right?

Great start for building our cell, but we need to have complete eukaryotic cell to begin our discussion on evolution as defined as a change in gene frequencies over time.

This is where you said you wanted to "start" your "discussion of evolution". 

So, we need someone to build some mitochondria, ribosomes, nucleosomes, our lipid cell membrane, our Golgi apparatus and the rest of the essentials of a single celled eukaryote that will be able to evolve.  So, let's get the entire cell together to make sure it has all of the correct parts to survive.

So again, we are not "starting" here.

Over and over you have said you wanted to discuss evolution, but you can only go back to abiogenesis.  When called on it, you claim that you're not especially interested in abiogenesis, but others keep bringing it up.  When you are asked where you want to start, you name a starting point.  When someone starts there, your response is AHA!  We can't start there!  ABIOGENESIS!!

If abiogenesis is all you want to talk about, fine.  Talk about it.  Don't blizzard us with posts claiming how you are a poor victim of all the other people who keep bringing it up.

Any volunteers to start building our cell?

RNA world.  Discuss.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Rocker, we agreed to start with a complete, eukaryotic, living cell capable of your alleged evolution.  Further, when did I ever say that I am not interested in abiogenesis.  I have said over and over again, that you really don't have any place to start with evolution since abiogenesis has so many difficulties with it.

Get a grip Rocker, look at the videos and perhaps you will hear a comment that these little machines are needed for ALL living cells. Organelles are not going to abiogenesis. If you simply don't understand what is inside of a living cell then this discussion may actually be educational to you.  In fact, there may actually be people that will enjoy learning what is inside of a living eukaryotic cell and might appreciate being able to learn in peace and quiet.  So, consider that you are not the only one on this site and speak quietly so that all can listen.

In fact, these videos are just the basic starting point of what is inside of a living cell.

So, quit being such a stick in the mud, look at what is inside of a living cell and behold that this has nothing to do with abiogenesis, I am simply starting the description of what life is and what is inside of a living cell allegedly capable of evolving.

So who is the one that doesn't understand these "simple" concepts. So go back, count to ten, and look at what is inside of an intact cell.  So yes, we need to build it so that people have an understanding of what life is.  The video on how they made the Harvard cell video says it distinctly.  ALL life has these little micro machines doing the work of a living cell.

Are you done counting to ten yet? We are discussing organelles and living wonders inside of a cell, this is not at all a discussion on abiogenesis.  So, if you want to talk about the RNA world, then please start a thread on abiogenesis since abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to you and others.

[Hemodoc]

Here is a basic video on the components of a complete living cell for any one interested in understanding the complexity of life.  Once again, this is just the basics of a single eukaryotic cell.  Much more to learn once we get past the basic components of a living cell.  We then need to look at function of these basic parts.

How the Body Works: The Cell

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

[rocker]

Dear Rocker, we agreed to start with a complete, eukaryotic, living cell capable of your alleged evolution.

To which you responded, we can't start there, because how did you get to that cell in the first place?

  Further, when did I ever say that I am not interested in abiogenesis.  I have said over and over again, that you really don't have any place to start with evolution since abiogenesis has so many difficulties with it.

So your real problem is with abiogenesis, and not evolution per se.

Which makes sense for a creationist, as "evolution" itself says nothing about the existence of a God to set it in motion.  But if life can start without a god....that could be very threatening to some people.

Get a grip Rocker, look at the videos and perhaps you will hear a comment that these little machines are needed for ALL living cells.

  [musings about cells deleted]

Peter, you can spend hours every day posting proof that "cells are complicated" and "cells could not have sprung whole from the primordial soup."  Feel free.

What you seem to be ignoring is that no one is arguing with that.  But if it makes you feel better to repeat it, that's great.

Again, you completely fail to address actual theories of abiogenesis, like RNA World.

[Hemodoc]

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

Dear Rocker, we agreed to start with a complete, eukaryotic, living cell capable of your alleged evolution.

To which you responded, we can't start there, because how did you get to that cell in the first place?

  Further, when did I ever say that I am not interested in abiogenesis.  I have said over and over again, that you really don't have any place to start with evolution since abiogenesis has so many difficulties with it.

So your real problem is with abiogenesis, and not evolution per se.

Which makes sense for a creationist, as "evolution" itself says nothing about the existence of a God to set it in motion.  But if life can start without a god....that could be very threatening to some people.

Get a grip Rocker, look at the videos and perhaps you will hear a comment that these little machines are needed for ALL living cells.

  [musings about cells deleted]

Peter, you can spend hours every day posting proof that "cells are complicated" and "cells could not have sprung whole from the primordial soup."  Feel free.

What you seem to be ignoring is that no one is arguing with that.  But if it makes you feel better to repeat it, that's great.

Again, you completely fail to address actual theories of abiogenesis, like RNA World.

Dear Rocker, this is a thread about evolution with the definition you yourself set out.  If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a thread on abiogenesis.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another excellent video on the basic cell organelles needed for life in a eukaryotic cell.

Tour of an Animal Cell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXbv95P3uhI

[willowtreewren]

Peter,

I am confused. You chose to to start the discussion of evolution at the eukaryotic cell. My understanding of this choice is that the discussion by your choice will be limited to the evolution of organisms from that point.

Fair enough. There is plenty to discuss. But now you are crying unfair, because you are not convinced that evolution is possible up to that point.

So, what is it that you want? If you actually wanted to discuss evolution prior to the eukaryotic cell, why did you choose that point from which to progress?

Why have you offered all sorts of creationist "evidence" that evolution could not have worked up to that point? This seems a bit disingenuous. I'm quoting something you said to Rocker, "I am beginning to believe that you just don't understand your own statements" Only I think you DO understand what you are doing, and you are throwing up a smoke screen to derail the discussion as you limited it.

Rocker has been very patient in trying to point this out to you, but you act as though she and others in the discussion are just not getting your point. It really seems to me that you do not want to discuss evolution because you aren't even willing to discuss it from the point you were given the opportunity to choose.

Could you please limit your discussion to evolution after the appearance of the eukaryotic cell as you defined the parameters of said discussion?

I am interested in following THAT discussion evolution, not the one about the origins of life, abiogenesis, that you seem so determined to discuss.

You suggested that Rocker should start a thread on abiogenisis:

Dear Rocker, this is a thread about evolution with the definition you yourself set out.  If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a thread on abiogenesis.

I contend that she was just trying to address your insistence on going back from the eukaryotic cell that prompted her comments on abiogenesis to begin with.

So, Peter, this is a thread about evolution starting at the point that you yourself set out. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start such a thread.

Thank you.

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

Peter,

I am confused. You chose to to start the discussion of evolution at the eukaryotic cell. My understanding of this choice is that the discussion by your choice will be limited to the evolution of organisms from that point.

Fair enough. There is plenty to discuss. But now you are crying unfair, because you are not convinced that evolution is possible up to that point.

So, what is it that you want? If you actually wanted to discuss evolution prior to the eukaryotic cell, why did you choose that point from which to progress?

Why have you offered all sorts of creationist "evidence" that evolution could not have worked up to that point? This seems a bit disingenuous. I'm quoting something you said to Rocker, "I am beginning to believe that you just don't understand your own statements" Only I think you DO understand what you are doing, and you are throwing up a smoke screen to derail the discussion as you limited it.

Rocker has been very patient in trying to point this out to you, but you act as though she and others in the discussion are just not getting your point. It really seems to me that you do not want to discuss evolution because you aren't even willing to discuss it from the point you were given the opportunity to choose.

Could you please limit your discussion to evolution after the appearance of the eukaryotic cell as you defined the parameters of said discussion?

I am interested in following THAT discussion evolution, not the one about the origins of life, abiogenesis, that you seem so determined to discuss.

You suggested that Rocker should start she should start a thread on abiogenisis:

Dear Rocker, this is a thread about evolution with the definition you yourself set out.  If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a thread on abiogenesis.

I contend that she was just trying to address your insistence on going back from the eukaryotic cell that prompted her comments to begin with.

So, Peter, this is a thread about evolution starting at the point that you yourself set out. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start such a thread.

Thank you.

Aleta

Dear Aleta, it appears that you may indeed be confused.  These are not creation videos, quite on the contrary, the first one is by an evolutionist medical illustrator talking of his project for Harvard.  This is starting at a eukaryotic cell.   These are the inner workings of an intact eukaryotic cell.  Nothing on these videos has anything to do with abiogenesis.  We are at the cell level, complete, intact and ready to go evolve. These are the basic components of a eukaryotic cell.  In fact, I haven't even mentioned or not mentioned any aspect of evolution and I have especially not spoken even one word on abiogenesis in these last few posts.  Both you and Rocker appear not to comprehend the basic components of a eukaryotic cell.  I wonder if you even took a look at the videos to see what is on them?

Yes, abiogenesis is absolutely improbable.  Yet, I have not posted any thing on abiogenesis.  We are looking at living, functioning, basic cellular elements of a eukaryotic cell.  Most folks don't really know what is inside of a cell.  Perhaps there are some folks that may actually enjoy learning what is inside of a cell.  It is made of incredible tiny molecular machines.  Way past the alleged state of abiogenesis.  This is the real thing, up and running. Let's all get with the program please, we are talking about the basic aspects of a cell.  We are going to talk about the central dogma of biology which is at the root of all of your alleged evolution theories.  If you don't understand what is going on at the cellular and molecular level, then there really is no way anyone can understand the basic let alone higher forms of evolutionary studies.

[rocker]

In fact, I haven't even mentioned or not mentioned any aspect of evolution and I have especially not spoken even one word on abiogenesis in these last few posts. 

I think we have all noticed that you haven't addressed any particular topic beyond "cells are complicated" in the last several posts.

This happened right after you were asked to comment on some specific theories of abiogenesis, did it not?

  [deleted more repetitions of "cells are complicated!"]

We all agree.  Cells are complicated.

I guess that's it, then?