695 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Certainly not refuting it; explaining it.



Evolutionary biology does satisfactorily explain the origin of species (hence the title of Darwin's origin book, if you'll recall). Did I not explain it adequately? A species is a breeding population of organisms. Ergo, two different species of sufficient genetic difference (say, a chimpanzee and a macaque), cannot mate (except under very rare instance, such as will mules, in which two distinct species are closely enough related to produce viable offspring; though mules are sterile). That is the distinction of species. Let's make a hypothetical: there is a species of gecko which lives in the deserts of California. These geckos live and reproduce perfectly normal, over time perhaps changing slightly to adapt better to their environment. Say, however, that due to, for instance, a shortage of water in one region, a small fragment population of the geckos migrates into a shrubland, and settles there. Over time, those geckos will adapt to their new habitat. Eventually, the differences in adaptation and evolution will have compounded in such a way that, even if the two groups were to be reintroduced to one another, they would not be able to mate and to yield viable offspring. That is the process known as speciation.



Simple, fragmentary populations of a species can sometimes adapt to better fill region-specific niches which better allow them to proliferate; thus, one species may become multiple, and each of those new species might, in time, go on to have their differences with the original species become so significant that they branch off into entire new genera, families, orders, etc.



You still seem to be taking a rather erroneous, teleological view. Evolution is not a set path; a monkey-like ancestor need not yield humans among its descendants, however, due to a chain of events involving environment, adaptation, speciation, and a number of other factors, humans happen to have been one among the numerous descendants of the lineage in question. And yes, for the niche they are adapted to inhabit, monkeys are far better fit to survive than humans; if you lived in a tree and leaped from branch to branch for your whole life, chances are you might end up wishing you were a monkey... after all, they're much, much better at it than we are.



I'm not even sure what you're saying now... Would you be so kind as to rephrase that question?



We do share common ancestry with dinosaurs, just as we do with all other life on the planet. However, the ancestor which diverged into the two lineages which would ultimately yield dinosaurs, and us, respectively, would likely have been something like an iguana-like animal, hundreds of millions of years ago. And yes, there are bountiful supplies of so-called "intermediate" or "transitional" fossils; here's a tentative list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo is a virtually worthless work, as I gather it; particularly if it is making claims about evolution which bear any resemblance to yours. In any case, from what I know of Cremo, he's not a credible scholar; as a Hindu myself, it is overwhelmingly clear that his interpretations, from what I understand of them, are extremely farfetched and radical.



Yes, I can say that mutation has a part in evolution; this is because it serves a function in heredity, which is the fundamental driving force of allelic frequency shifts and gene flow which are the principal mechanisms of evolution.



You might rather believe that human were the first, and all others are descended from them, but you'd be mistaken. It simply didn't happen that way. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that (nor would that explain the origin of humans themselves), and mountains of evidence substantiating the current evolutionary model. And I did not say that it took billions of years for any species to differentiate from the parent; I said that it took billions of years to arrive at the stage at which we currently are. It can take as little as a matter of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years for significant evolutionary changes to compound; millions of years are more typically required for larger changes (for example, the divergence of caniforms and feliforms).

Okay let me put it in simple terms to you can you point an example of a new species that has formed through evolution and it's immediate predecessor.Now if you compare the genetic code of one with other you will see that there are entirely new segments of DNA (more specifically coding genes),how do you suggest that these genes came into existance.Any observable examples of speciation and their intermediatory states?When you give the gecko example has it ever happened in Gecko's practically?Has origin of a new species been documented during our time as the billion year timer must definately be getting over for atleast for a few species? Evolutionist shouldn't talk about objective proof.I can in a similar way explain to you how God created the universe,would you believe it?Say we did have a apelike ancestor and so did monkeys...but then how do you explain the stark amount of difference in their coding genes and our coding genes,where have the additions happened?Where are the intermediates?
Heredity is a process which gaurds against mutation as we inherit what our fathers,mothers already have,so please stop saying heredity,you can probably say genetic recombination instead.All the other concepts you invoke are based on wild assumptions rather then rational and objective proof.I thought i was a liberal but evolutionist put me to shame.Finding fossils of different species and saying that one evolved from the other is not objective proof.Which mountains of evidence are you talking about?You can show me proofs for adaptation which makes a lot of sense but there is absolutely no proof for speciation or evolution of one species to another.If you show evidence of even one instance of speciation that can be observed presently then i and probably the whole world would not be able to deny Darwin's Gospel,but the reason that it is not happening is that there is no objective proof for evolution or more specifically speciation.At best what you can demonstrate is adaptation.Just saying that a group from or organisms from one species got seperated and eveolved into another species over millions of years is not enough.
Even if evolution is real then what is the probability of evolution of human beings?Is it anything less then a miracle?

http://www.newgeolog...entation32.html

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 13 September 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Harte]

Quote

Nevermind. Was reffering to Isaac Askimov the science fiction writer who wrote the foundation series with a protagonist called 'The Mule'.

The Mule, on 12 September 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

That would be Asimov.

Depends on how often you asked him, I suppose.

Harte

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Okay let me put it in simple terms to you can you point an example of a new species that has formed through evolution and it's immediate predecessor.

The apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella, is one example. It's ancestors, fruit flies which fed primarily on hawthorn, diverged when apples were introduced to their environment; the apple-eating population of the flies speciated from their hawthorn-eating ancestors, and today eat almost exclusively apples, and can no longer interbreed with the hawthorn-eating variety. As for its "immediate predecessor", the question is malformed. It doesn't really work that way, although it is clear that the apple maggot is descended from the basal population of the genus Rhagoletis. That is as clear an answer as makes any sort of sense at all.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Now if you compare the genetic code of one with other you will see that there are entirely new segments of DNA (more specifically coding genes),how do you suggest that these genes came into existance.Any observable examples of speciation and their intermediatory states?When you give the gecko example has it ever happened in Gecko's practically?

The salamanders of the genus Ensatina provide an adequate example. In the mountains surrounding California's Central Valley, there are a total of roughly twenty major populations of the salamanders, many of which can interbreed, however, on one end of the valley we find Ensatina eschscholtzii, while on the other we find Ensatina klauberi; two distinct species, diverged from a common ancestor within the collective populations of salamanders in the Central Valley of California, which are incapable of breeding.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Has origin of a new species been documented during our time as the billion year timer must definately be getting over for atleast for a few species? Evolutionist shouldn't talk about objective proof.I can in a similar way explain to you how God created the universe,would you believe it?

No, I wouldn't believe it if you said that God created the universe; and yes, evolutionary biology can discuss objective proof, given that it, unlike God, has it. I'm not sure I understood your first sentence above here... if you're asking about observed speciation, again, I gave you several examples (not the best examples, but they illustrate the concept better than others).

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Say we did have a apelike ancestor and so did monkeys...but then how do you explain the stark amount of difference in their coding genes and our coding genes,where have the additions happened?Where are the intermediates?

Not sure precisely what you mean to refer to by "coding genes". If you're referring to protein-coding genes, then there is, at worst, only a 95% difference between humans and monkeys; as for chimpanzees, it's more like 98 or 99% identical. Humans diverged from chimpanzees roughly 4.1 million years ago, with gorillas having diverged from the same lineage closer to 6 million years ago, and oragutans and gibbons a long while before that. Approximately 80 genes are known to have been lost in humans through the process of inactivation since our divergence from chimpanzees, 36 of which were related to olfaction. Segmental duplication of various genes are also known to have compounded in the human line after its divergence from chimpanzees. The most important thing to note in human evolution is that shortly after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged and began to effectively speciate, the hominin (pre-human) genera which arose did so in a drastically differing environment from that which was previously inhabited by chimpanzees and humans prior to the divergence (i.e., the savanna and open grasslands as opposed to the forest). This radical change in habitat would have been the most significant factor in deciding the direction which natural selection would act upon most effectively.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Heredity is a process which gaurds against mutation as we inherit what our fathers,mothers already have,so please stop saying heredity,you can probably say genetic recombination instead.

Heredity does not guard against mutation. Evolution can be brought about both within the allelic expression shifts of various inherited genes, as well as the proliferation of new genes which arise through mutation (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc.).

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

All the other concepts you invoke are based on wild assumptions rather then rational and objective proof.I thought i was a liberal but evolutionist put me to shame.

Name one concept I have "invoked" which was based on a "wild assumption" rather than rational and objective proof.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Finding fossils of different species and saying that one evolved from the other is not objective proof.Which mountains of evidence are you talking about?You can show me proofs for adaptation which makes a lot of sense but there is absolutely no proof for speciation or evolution of one species to another.

I don't think you really understand how paleontology works. Most species which are discovered in fossil specimens did not, and are not claimed to have, descended directly from, or given rise directly to, another fossil species. Again, most species which are discovered are part of speciated lines, diverged from other lineages gradually. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence of speciation (which, incidentally, is the same thing as "evolution of one species to another", basically; you didn't need to say it twice). Which mountains of evidence am I talking about? Well, here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

If you show evidence of even one instance of speciation that can be observed presently then i and probably the whole world would not be able to deny Darwin's Gospel,but the reason that it is not happening is that there is no objective proof for evolution or more specifically speciation.

Darwin certainly didn't ever have any "Gospel". The fact that you can claim, with seriousness, that he did, only further demonstrates your ignorance of the facts about evolutionary biology. I have given several examples of speciation already, but I'll give another: the Madeira house mice, a new population group of mice, descended from the bulk population of the common house mouse, Mus musculus, speciated after its colonization of the island of Madeira in the 15th Century. It is thought that there might in fact be six distinct species or subspecies within the Madeira population of mice, each having undergone impressive Robertsonian translocations of chromosomes (in which chromosome[s] either fuse or split; this process is among the primary differences in human and chimpanzee genomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24 pairs, due to the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans).

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

At best what you can demonstrate is adaptation.Just saying that a group from or organisms from one species got seperated and eveolved into another species over millions of years is not enough.
Even if evolution is real then what is the probability of evolution of human beings?Is it anything less then a miracle?

Yes, adaptation can be demonstrated, and has, and it is a subset of evolution. Well "just saying" isn't all I've done to show my point; have a look at all of the materials I've linked. They should be quite educational.

You keep bringing up the "probability" of humans evolving. Why would the probability of humans evolving have to be so low? And again (third time I've said it), evolution is not a set course; humans didn't have to evolve. Humans evolving need not be any more likely or unlikely than gorillas or flatworms evolving.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

http://www.newgeolog...entation32.html

Is that really the best you can do? Post a fringe, creationist "debunking" of evolutionary biology as if it means something? It doesn't. Every single "point" in that cesspool of an "article" has been thoroughly refuted and debunked hundreds of times. There isn't anything "new" there. It's all just old, pathetic, long-ago-debunked crap. That you were able to consciously and honestly post it (presumably having read it) is nothing short of alarming, simply due to the appallingly poor knowledge of evolution it would require for anyone to actually believe anything written in that article.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Sesh i agree with you when you say that since you are only keen on history of civilizations your ancient maybe 10000 bc at the max but evolution takes millions of years to bring about a small change and to be able to observe it in a complex multicellular organism over a small period of time like 10000 years is very difficult without external intervention but what i was talking about is genetic retardation which can be hastened by interferrence of humanity and civilization.

P.S-evoltuion or cretion of modern human has major implications on our knowledge of human history and civilization so you might wan't to look into it in further detail as a part of your study of near eastern civilization to have a more hollistic approach.

During my first college degree I minored in anthropology, which included large doses of evolution. It's not that I'm unfamiliar with the science, I'm just not that interested in it. Although I have to admit those college studies were many years ago, and as my interests took me in other directions and I never kept up with the advances in evolutionary theory, I'm sure my understanding of it is outdated. This is also why I tend not to comment much on evolution debates.

But the salient points in my previous posts do not involve evolution. Yes, the evolution of modern humans is directly related to the topic, but the advent of socio-political civilizations is not. Had nothing changed since the Bronze Age and mankind would still be experiencing the same life conditions for tens of thousands of years, it's altogether possible humans would've been subjected to evolutionary changes. But that's not the case. Advances in all fields of sciences from medicine to biology have negated potential evolutionary changes from the Bronze Age—a timespan representing the blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not sure I quite understood... I apologize.

Sorry out of loop for a little bit.

what I was saying was modern evolutionist have so many theories explaining how a speicies developed or even a part of an animal (such as the eye). that a evolutionists could spend a life time just trying debunk each other and never really get anywhere. because in the end evolution is a dead end . anyone that can take a 2 inch "skull" fragment and build an entire animal with it's eating habits and family history is a freaking magician not a scientist. and since in the entire scope of human history despite the terrible effect we have on any enviroment we move to we have never noticed a higher lifeform evolve. die off yes but never evolve. mudskippers are still mudskippers they all haven't taken to land or water. bats haven't grown feathers they still have fur. chimpanzees despite being geneticaly close to humans are still chimpanzees. and if you use the same old argument you don't understand evolution science you just prove my point which is:


If you can't facinate them with fact baffle them with BULL&*%$#!

[Abramelin]

MiskatonicGrad, on 14 September 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Sorry out of loop for a little bit.

what I was saying was modern evolutionist have so many theories explaining how a speicies developed or even a part of an animal (such as the eye). that a evolutionists could spend a life time just trying debunk each other and never really get anywhere. because in the end evolution is a dead end . anyone that can take a 2 inch "skull" fragment and build an entire animal with it's eating habits and family history is a freaking magician not a scientist. and since in the entire scope of human history despite the terrible effect we have on any enviroment we move to we have never noticed a higher lifeform evolve. die off yes but never evolve. mudskippers are still mudskippers they all haven't taken to land or water. bats haven't grown feathers they still have fur. chimpanzees despite being geneticaly close to humans are still chimpanzees. and if you use the same old argument you don't understand evolution science you just prove my point which is:


If you can't facinate them with fact baffle them with BULL&*%$#!

What you wrote is as 'fascinating' (and  also unbelievabe) as what you think these evolutionists created around a 2 inch skull fragment.

You should try to inform yourself about what really has been found.

And you argue that certain life forms are still around, and haven't evolved in your lifetime? But evolution didn't stop millions of years ago, it is an ongoing proces. Given the chance these mudskippers will evolve into something else, but you won't be around to notice it.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 14 September 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Arbitran]

MiskatonicGrad, on 14 September 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Sorry out of loop for a little bit.

what I was saying was modern evolutionist have so many theories explaining how a speicies developed or even a part of an animal (such as the eye). that a evolutionists could spend a life time just trying debunk each other and never really get anywhere. because in the end evolution is a dead end . anyone that can take a 2 inch "skull" fragment and build an entire animal with it's eating habits and family history is a freaking magician not a scientist. and since in the entire scope of human history despite the terrible effect we have on any enviroment we move to we have never noticed a higher lifeform evolve. die off yes but never evolve. mudskippers are still mudskippers they all haven't taken to land or water. bats haven't grown feathers they still have fur. chimpanzees despite being geneticaly close to humans are still chimpanzees. and if you use the same old argument you don't understand evolution science you just prove my point which is:


If you can't facinate them with fact baffle them with BULL&*%$#!

Interesting. Well, I must use the "old" (and entirely accurate) you don't understand evolutionary science. And we don't give any sort of "bull****". I personally find fact infinitely more fascinating and remarkable. Incidentally, when you refer to "two inch skull fragments", those are paleontologists at work, not necessarily evolutionary biologists, such as myself (though I have worked with a number of fossil specimens in my day). And things like shape and dietary habits are not reconstructed fully from fragmentary fossils; they are simply inferred, based on what information can be gleaned from the fossil itself, and from the close relatives of the specimen in question. Human history has lasted about 200,000 (roughly) years. We have only been studying evolutionary science for a century and a half. You'd really expect mudskippers to sprout legs in that period of time (they probably won't, by the way)? I reiterate: you don't understand evolutionary science.

[MiskatonicGrad]

But that is one of my biggest problems with this argument. you people say that evolution takes millions of years to occur. but the outside influences that push spieces to evolve change faster than that. in human history how many ice ages have we had how many droughts. the earth is a very dynamic place and your slow progession from one creature to another just couldn't keep up. the mastedon didn't just appear with the last ice age and just diappear because they couldn't adapt. did they? That doesn't make sense. were they hairy before the ice came? boy that was some luck. after the earth warmed back up they couldn't adapt? tough luck. whales and dolphins noses are on top of their head how the crap did that happen in the time it took for thier nose to migrate to it's current position and grow the flipper thingys what ever drove them to the water would have changed. And who told their bodies " if your nose is on top of your head you can survive in the water better" but didn't tell the seals or turtles. bats use to be little rodent like animals really? who told them to sprout wings and navigate with sonar? in the end it just sounds like a lot of hocus pocus.

what if all the animals that are on the planet now have always been here and the fossil record just shows the ones that didn't adapt and over come.

oops that's creationism and we all know that's just religion and can't possibly be true.

[Arbitran]

MiskatonicGrad, on 14 September 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

But that is one of my biggest problems with this argument. you people say that evolution takes millions of years to occur. but the outside influences that push spieces to evolve change faster than that. in human history how many ice ages have we had how many droughts. the earth is a very dynamic place and your slow progession from one creature to another just couldn't keep up. the mastedon didn't just appear with the last ice age and just diappear because they couldn't adapt. did they? That doesn't make sense. were they hairy before the ice came? boy that was some luck. after the earth warmed back up they couldn't adapt? tough luck. whales and dolphins noses are on top of their head how the crap did that happen in the time it took for thier nose to migrate to it's current position and grow the flipper thingys what ever drove them to the water would have changed. And who told their bodies " if your nose is on top of your head you can survive in the water better" but didn't tell the seals or turtles. bats use to be little rodent like animals really? who told them to sprout wings and navigate with sonar? in the end it just sounds like a lot of hocus pocus.

what if all the animals that are on the planet now have always been here and the fossil record just shows the ones that didn't adapt and over come.

oops that's creationism and we all know that's just religion and can't possibly be true.

I reiterate: you don't understand evolutionary science.

If you have actual questions, then please don't shove them all on me at once; something more specific please.

Edited by Arbitran, 14 September 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 14 September 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Interesting. Well, I must use the "old" (and entirely accurate) you don't understand evolutionary science. And we don't give any sort of "bull****". I personally find fact infinitely more fascinating and remarkable. Incidentally, when you refer to "two inch skull fragments", those are paleontologists at work, not necessarily evolutionary biologists, such as myself (though I have worked with a number of fossil specimens in my day). And things like shape and dietary habits are not reconstructed fully from fragmentary fossils; they are simply inferred, based on what information can be gleaned from the fossil itself, and from the close relatives of the specimen in question. Human history has lasted about 200,000 (roughly) years. We have only been studying evolutionary science for a century and a half. You'd really expect mudskippers to sprout legs in that period of time (they probably won't, by the way)? I reiterate: you don't understand evolutionary science.

You argue evolutionary theory very well, Arbitran. Better than many here at UM. I stick to what I know, and I am not up on all of the latest facts in the science.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dead-set on ignoring evolution. Obviously creationists and bible scientists have a stake in this argument and will go to extremes to ignore even basic scientific principles, but I don't think a lot of the posters arguing against evolution here are creationists or bible scientists. Not well informed? Absolutely, but I wonder what their motivations are.

[Arbitran]

kmt_sesh, on 14 September 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

You argue evolutionary theory very well, Arbitran. Better than many here at UM. I stick to what I know, and I am not up on all of the latest facts in the science.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dead-set on ignoring evolution. Obviously creationists and bible scientists have a stake in this argument and will go to extremes to ignore even basic scientific principles, but I don't think a lot of the posters arguing against evolution here are creationists or bible scientists. Not well informed? Absolutely, but I wonder what their motivations are.

Thank you very much. That is high praise indeed, coming from you, kmt_sesh. I'll say the same of your arguments for Egyptology.

And indeed, the motivation of certain of these anti-evolutionists is a perplexing conundrum. Because some of them aren't creationists (though several of them are). And what's worse is that it's hard to tell the difference; for instance, I have no idea whether or not Harsh86_Patel is a genuine creationist or simply an anti-evolutionist (which frankly opens up an entire new realm of argument; what on earth constitutes non-creationist anti-evolutionism, I wonder?). In any case, I hope I can be at least a bit educational for those here who are in fact willing to listen (and, with any luck, eventually get through to those who aren't...).

I have been having a nagging question, as a note, that I thought I'd ask: as an Egyptologist, what is your opinion of the god Set? What animal is he represented as? I haven't done a great deal of research on it myself, but I would be fascinated to hear your take on it. I've heard a number of hypotheses, ranging from an okapi, to an aardvark, a donkey, or an Egyptian cryptid called a salawa. I personally think it resembles an African wild dog, Lycaon pictus, or perhaps even a brown hyena, Hyaena brunnea (it is, however, endemic to southern Africa; ergo, how would it have been known of in Egypt? Trade?). In any case, I look forward to your views on the matter.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella, is one example. It's ancestors, fruit flies which fed primarily on hawthorn, diverged when apples were introduced to their environment; the apple-eating population of the flies speciated from their hawthorn-eating ancestors, and today eat almost exclusively apples, and can no longer interbreed with the hawthorn-eating variety. As for its "immediate predecessor", the question is malformed. It doesn't really work that way, although it is clear that the apple maggot is descended from the basal population of the genus Rhagoletis. That is as clear an answer as makes any sort of sense at all.



The salamanders of the genus Ensatina provide an adequate example. In the mountains surrounding California's Central Valley, there are a total of roughly twenty major populations of the salamanders, many of which can interbreed, however, on one end of the valley we find Ensatina eschscholtzii, while on the other we find Ensatina klauberi; two distinct species, diverged from a common ancestor within the collective populations of salamanders in the Central Valley of California, which are incapable of breeding.



No, I wouldn't believe it if you said that God created the universe; and yes, evolutionary biology can discuss objective proof, given that it, unlike God, has it. I'm not sure I understood your first sentence above here... if you're asking about observed speciation, again, I gave you several examples (not the best examples, but they illustrate the concept better than others).



Not sure precisely what you mean to refer to by "coding genes". If you're referring to protein-coding genes, then there is, at worst, only a 95% difference between humans and monkeys; as for chimpanzees, it's more like 98 or 99% identical. Humans diverged from chimpanzees roughly 4.1 million years ago, with gorillas having diverged from the same lineage closer to 6 million years ago, and oragutans and gibbons a long while before that. Approximately 80 genes are known to have been lost in humans through the process of inactivation since our divergence from chimpanzees, 36 of which were related to olfaction. Segmental duplication of various genes are also known to have compounded in the human line after its divergence from chimpanzees. The most important thing to note in human evolution is that shortly after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged and began to effectively speciate, the hominin (pre-human) genera which arose did so in a drastically differing environment from that which was previously inhabited by chimpanzees and humans prior to the divergence (i.e., the savanna and open grasslands as opposed to the forest). This radical change in habitat would have been the most significant factor in deciding the direction which natural selection would act upon most effectively.



Heredity does not guard against mutation. Evolution can be brought about both within the allelic expression shifts of various inherited genes, as well as the proliferation of new genes which arise through mutation (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc.).



Name one concept I have "invoked" which was based on a "wild assumption" rather than rational and objective proof.



I don't think you really understand how paleontology works. Most species which are discovered in fossil specimens did not, and are not claimed to have, descended directly from, or given rise directly to, another fossil species. Again, most species which are discovered are part of speciated lines, diverged from other lineages gradually. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence of speciation (which, incidentally, is the same thing as "evolution of one species to another", basically; you didn't need to say it twice). Which mountains of evidence am I talking about? Well, here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent



Darwin certainly didn't ever have any "Gospel". The fact that you can claim, with seriousness, that he did, only further demonstrates your ignorance of the facts about evolutionary biology. I have given several examples of speciation already, but I'll give another: the Madeira house mice, a new population group of mice, descended from the bulk population of the common house mouse, Mus musculus, speciated after its colonization of the island of Madeira in the 15th Century. It is thought that there might in fact be six distinct species or subspecies within the Madeira population of mice, each having undergone impressive Robertsonian translocations of chromosomes (in which chromosome[s] either fuse or split; this process is among the primary differences in human and chimpanzee genomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24 pairs, due to the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans).



Yes, adaptation can be demonstrated, and has, and it is a subset of evolution. Well "just saying" isn't all I've done to show my point; have a look at all of the materials I've linked. They should be quite educational.

You keep bringing up the "probability" of humans evolving. Why would the probability of humans evolving have to be so low? And again (third time I've said it), evolution is not a set course; humans didn't have to evolve. Humans evolving need not be any more likely or unlikely than gorillas or flatworms evolving.



Is that really the best you can do? Post a fringe, creationist "debunking" of evolutionary biology as if it means something? It doesn't. Every single "point" in that cesspool of an "article" has been thoroughly refuted and debunked hundreds of times. There isn't anything "new" there. It's all just old, pathetic, long-ago-debunked crap. That you were able to consciously and honestly post it (presumably having read it) is nothing short of alarming, simply due to the appallingly poor knowledge of evolution it would require for anyone to actually believe anything written in that article.

Omg same old lies of evolution where are the fossils with half formed intermediate organs,everything evolution has stated is a lie,again you point out different species and say one evolved from another,you are the perfect candidate to state a monkey can turn into a man.Lol the cess pool of lies that you pass of as evolution will not stand for 10 more years in modern biology,soon the jokers called evolutionists sitting in high post will retire and will take this stupid doctrine to the grave along with them.
Probably you are a really old biologist from before the 70's when molecular biology,systems biology and cell biology were not so advanced and the cell was considered a simple membrane bound protoplasm,hence you still hang on this theory.I don't think Darwin would continue believing in his own theory if had the knowledge we have today of biology and life but you still want to crusade on.
I am surprised how you can decline modern established knowledge of molecular biology and systems biology as unbelievable,this is the present Grandpa and the past bull**** is long gone,arguing for genetic evolutiuon or spontaneous creation of life are like still arguing that the Earth is flat.
And about the great examples you have given me,in each case you have pointed out two different completely formed species and said one evolved from the other (like i predicted you would).I think your knowledge of the objections and glaring holes in the theory of evolution is very outdated thankfully most of the top notch researchers of evolutionary biology have accepted all the objections to the theory raised in the above article i posted (i don't care which site the information comes from as long as it is true) and are spending millions of dollars on research to try and modify the theory to better to explain these (but are still constantly failing).
What is the probability of a 100 pepetide protein to form or evolve randomly in nature?Do you realise when you talk about a multicellular organism evolving naturally what is the impossibility of the scenario.You talk about not having a teleological view and thinking of evolution of life as a chance based process,but all the shining examples of evolutionists have already declared that evolution of life cannot be explained by chance.

P.S -Sesh this is modern biology don't really on good editing as a testament to anything.All the information provided in the link i provided is cent percent true and the most modern research in biology is a testament to it.Every single thing mentioned in that link has 100's of research papers published on it (i.e. molecular biology,systems biology,epi genetics,cell biology) so do not fall for sour losers refuting perfectly valid and mainstream accepted proof.Arbitran trying to manipulate by declaring perfectly tried and tested knowledge as Fringe,but Tran this is not history where things are long gone and we have to rely on what majority of the so called scholars think,this is modern biology and each fact is experimentally verified.

And since top notch evolutionist accept these objections that are very valid,you seem to be better then all of them.If you could explain away these objections for which the evolutionist are desperately trying to find answers (not to mention spending millions of dollars) they would definately give you the Nobel price.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 14 September 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 14 September 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

You argue evolutionary theory very well, Arbitran. Better than many here at UM. I stick to what I know, and I am not up on all of the latest facts in the science.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dead-set on ignoring evolution. Obviously creationists and bible scientists have a stake in this argument and will go to extremes to ignore even basic scientific principles, but I don't think a lot of the posters arguing against evolution here are creationists or bible scientists. Not well informed? Absolutely, but I wonder what their motivations are.

Sesh the evolutionist and evolutionary scientists who have spend their entire life living by the doctrine and sadly are presently occupying positions where they can decide upon who gets research grants and who doesn't have a way bigger and practical stake in this outdated and stupid doctrine,every new find in modern biology raises huge problems for this doctrine literally on a daily basis,thankfully biology has been split into many different categories and research funding in other catagories is almost completely indpendant from these evolutionary biology wing and hence the new discoveries and research from these wings refutes everything the Doctrine of evolution has to offer.Any confirmation to Darwin's theory after having all this knowledge of biology(which we have in present) is like still claiming that the world is flat.

Tell me sesh which evolutionary biology site will publish their own Pet theory to be wrong?The only sites that will provide such information is creationist sites to satisy their own ulterior motives and relegion,but that doesn't mean that the objections they raise are false or wrong,you don't really have to be a supporter of any theory of creation to know that and accept that there are glaring holes and inconsistencies and extreme reliance on chance when you ascribe to the theory of evolution.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 14 September 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Evolutionist claim that life created itself,but scores of evolutionist spending millions of dollars are unable to create life with all our present knowledge and modern scintific equipment even under laboratory conditions,the crux of their theory lies in the assumption that a proto cell created itself under natural conditions on the earth prevailing at that time entirely relying on chance,but they have not been able to create the simplest of life in the Lab even now.Until the so called evolutionist create life artificially in a lab from previously non-living components,the theroy of evolution stands refuted.The onus of proof lies on the Evolutionist and not on it's detractors.
If life cannot be created in Lab conditions using all our present knowledge and modern equipments with the aid of technical people,what are the chances of life being created in an external environment by it's own accord?

[Harsh86_Patel]

"Heredity does not guard against mutation. Evolution can be brought about both within the allelic expression shifts of various inherited genes, as well as the proliferation of new genes which arise through mutation (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc.). "

Arbitran you should just give up,heredity is the inheritance of existing genes and alleles from parents to offspring and has nothing to do with mutations (addition) or evolution (speciations).Our body and cells have remarkably effiecient and complex mechanism to gaurd against mutations (which are by default almost bad for us) like tumor suppressor proteins,rectifying mechanism in DNA polymerase etc if you look into the functioning of a single proharyotic (considered to be the simplest cell) bacterial cell accounting for all the details we presently have regarding its complexity then you would definately hang your gloves trying to explain these using evolution and natural selection.

"Not sure precisely what you mean to refer to by "coding genes". If you're referring to protein-coding genes, then there is, at worst, only a 95% difference between humans and monkeys; as for chimpanzees, it's more like 98 or 99% identical. Humans diverged from chimpanzees roughly 4.1 million years ago, with gorillas having diverged from the same lineage closer to 6 million years ago, and oragutans and gibbons a long while before that. Approximately 80 genes are known to have been lost in humans through the process of inactivation since our divergence from chimpanzees, 36 of which were related to olfaction. Segmental duplication of various genes are also known to have compounded in the human line after its divergence from chimpanzees. The most important thing to note in human evolution is that shortly after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged and began to effectively speciate, the hominin (pre-human) genera which arose did so in a drastically differing environment from that which was previously inhabited by chimpanzees and humans prior to the divergence (i.e., the savanna and open grasslands as opposed to the forest). This radical change in habitat would have been the most significant factor in deciding the direction which natural selection would act upon most effectively."

Notice the second sentence of the para carefully.Here Arbitran very slyly and using technical terms smuggles in the most ridiculous concept by his own admission- "a monkey did really turn into a man" at some point of time.Are you aware that that 98 percent of our DNA which was previously considered to be 'Junk' and not coding is actually a 'Coding' part of our DNA and is actively taking part in all the processes of life.The comparison you gave of our genome with that of a Chimp is something that i would coment you for as you reitterated the same thing i said,even if there is one protein coding gene which we have andis completely missing in our so called ancestors,how do you suggest that the new gene evolved?Was it by 'random mutations' which are beneficial?What are the chances for the same.

Like i said that a genetic explaination of evolution has been long abandoned,you should probably read into the concept where evolutionists claim that small beneficial random mutations are accumulated in our genetic code (in form of duplicate genes) which suddenly spring into action and cause speciation,which though slightly better then it's predeccesor theory is equally ridiculous.Also i would like to also call on the word 'Speciation" which you use heavily through your argument,and for which i have been telling you to provide any objective proof other then pointing out two different species and saying one evolved from the other.