The only time you hear about a "general" theory of evolution is when you are talking to people who are only superficially familiar with biology. The entire purpose of theories is to explain specific phenomena with specific evidence. There is no "general" about it.



I've not yet come to a decision on the matter. Regardless, how life originated is irrelevant to evolution.



No. I believe that if life originated from non-living, inanimate, matter, it did so through the basic chemical reactions that we are familiar with, not through "evolution", with its connotations of speciation.



Of course it was. So was gravity. So was the Pythagorean Theorum. That is how one teaches children. Through the assumption of fact. Now, when you get to college, the time for rote learning is over. At that point, you are introduced to the myriad of different options existing out there. That is how our system of education works.



I suppose. Of course, that's like saying that some kid could build a Buick, once he knows how to do it. It's a bit exagerated.



My mistake. From your overall tone, I got the impression that your point was that since we could not do it, there was no possible way it could ever be done. That's really the impression I got (and still am feeling) from you.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of scientific replication. Experiments aren't spontaneous, ever. Events can or may not be spontaneous, but when all is said and done, what actually set the events in motion that eventually became the phenomena that science investigates is, largely, irrelevant.

For instance, if one is studying why snowflakes form, one subjects water vapor to frigid temperatures (science ruthlessly compressed). Having done that, one can see snow. Now, what causes the frigid temperatures is not important. Whether it is because of the altitude or because of the compressor in your freezer, cold air is cold air. We aren't trying to figure out what caused the environment; we are trying to figure out why it snows.

Same thing with any experiment you care to think of. As long as one can justify that the environment one creates artificially is not contributing any variables that did not exist in the original environment that created the phenomena, your experiment is still valid.

Just because something happens spontaneously doesn't mean it can't be tested intentionally.

that quote right there is why these threads are pointless...you don't want to believe anything else, everytime I'm come to one of these threads is the same stuff dulled up again, just from a different pile, if your stuck in your ways thats fine, just don't claim to be open-minded, telling people you'll mind could change if, the right evidence came along, because no amount of evidence will ever be enough, I'm pretty sure if God came down and told you evolution was right, you'd still shrug it off as a delusion.

And we know that if he came down and told you it was a delusion you would call him a lier.

ummm, no Daniel you fail to realize I'm Pagan, which means i believe in a higher power. You know it is possible to believe in science and a higher power.

The problem is that God has been known to lie. Evolution may be correct or incorrect, but at least you don't have to take the word of someone who has been caught pulling fast ones.

yes




what lies.

ummm then why would you go and say that I would call God a liar? that doesn't make sense.

sorry there are some on here that would just say it was some old pea that they ate.

im a little unclear about what your trying to say, but im gonna take that as an apology.

Seriously, sometimes I just love reading your mysteriously cryptic posts.

........either that or they make me cry. But what on earth does an old pea have to do with anything?!?!?

scrouge. I know he didn't say pea but close enough.

The problem is that you didn't get my point. I'm not asking for tens of thousands of transtitional fossils. But I do expect something more than what we have so far, which amount to diddly squat.



No, that's junk science.

You can't "establish a clear descent through various anatomical features". It requires much more than pointing out similar features.

Suppose chimpanzees/orangutans/etc. were extinct, and fossils of each species were found. Chimp fossils were dated to 2 million years old, orangutan fossils were dated to 1 million years, etc. They have similar anatomical features to humans. Would that "establish a clear descent through various anatomical features"?

No.

But it seems that is exactly what you are trying to do. Start with fossils of an extinct species which have similar anatomical features to humans. Then date the samples. If the species can "fit" into the timeline, it becomes a link in the "Human Evolution" chart.



Your comment "....trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric variables across generations of this lineage.." is remarkably similar to a comment from an article you cited..."..researchers can trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric variables across hundreds of thousands of years." Did you just snip it from the article and change a few words? Just curious. Anyway...

After saying P. boisei is "a very poor example" for my argument, you cite an article titled "Paranthropus boisei: An example of evolutionary stasis?"

Of the presently recognised early hominid species, Paranthropus boisei is one of the better known from the fossil record and arguably the most distinctive; the latter interpretation rests on the numbers of apparently derived characters it incorporates. The species as traditionally diagnosed is distributed across approximately one million years and is presently confined to samples from East African sites. The hypodigm has been examined for evidence of intraspecific phyletic evolution, with particular emphasis on the areas best represented in the fossil record, namely the teeth and mandible. The results of this examination of 55 mandibular and dental variables which uses the gamma test statistic for the detection of trend, and nonparametric spline regression (Loess regression) for investigating pattern and rate of temporal change, show that within Paranthropus boisei sensu stricto most evidence of temporally related morphological trends relates to the morphology of the P4 crown. There is little or no evidence of any tendency to increase in overall size through time. Fossils from the Omo Shungura Formation and West Turkana which have been recovered from a time period earlier than the P. boisei sensu stricto hypodigm resemble the latter taxon in some features, but differ from it in aspects of cranial morphology. There is insufficient fossil evidence of the earlier taxon to tell whether it changes through time, but when trends of 47 mandibular and dental variables are assessed across the combined East African "robust" australopithecine sample, there is evidence for a relatively abrupt change around 2.2-2.3 Myr in approximately 25% of the dental and mandibular remains. Some of these changes correspond with the temporal trends within P. boisei sensu stricto, but others, such as mandible height, do not. If the earlier material is ancestral to P. boisei sensu stricto, evidence from the teeth and jaws is consistent with a punctuated origin for the latter taxon.


- they compare the older samples to the newer samples, looking for evidence of evolution (intraspecific phyletic evolution). The samples in best condition for comparison are the teeth and mandible. They note that "...most evidence of temporally related morphological trends relates to the morphology of the P4 crown."

In other words, the best evidence they have for P. boisei "evolving" over a span of 1 million years is....a change in one tooth. There is "insufficient" evidence, and "little or no evidence", for any other changes.

P. boisei is a superb example to cite for the argument against human evolution - a species of hominid which remained virtually unchanged for at least 1 million years.

So you argue evolution began with a single living cell and eventually progressed into every other life form?

No. As I said before, I'm not in the Creationist camp. They believe in the Biblical account, whereas I don't.

No. I do think it is possible. We just don't know how to do it yet. Someday we might. But it's not just gonna happen, by some random chance reaction in a chemical soup, that's for sure.

Why not?

Start with the one where God says "Eat from this tree right here and you'll die in 24 hours."

Incidentally, this passage also shows how God is against humans gaining knowledge, even though it is correct.

I'm confused. Are you saying that we might someday discover how life first originated on planet Earth, but it won't be through random luck?

I would imagine not. With a few well-known exceptions, the vast majority of scientific discoveries did not come through luck, but through painstaking research and hard, hard work.

Turbo,

You still do not seem to get the point. Go back and read the color analogy again. Every single color in the past is a transitional form. Every fossil we have is transitional in some way. All life is in a transitional state. Asking for a missing link though, implies that evolution works in large steps, which is not the case. Let me know that you understand all fossils are transitional.



No it is not. Because as I said, asking for a missing link means you need a fossil representative of every generation ever. Which is never going to happen. But, we do not need every a representative of every generation. Let's go back to the color bar for a moment.

Let's suppose we were looking at past populations of red organisms and the extant population is green. Without showing every color in between can you show a clear line of descent for red to green? You seem like a decently smart guy, I bet you could do it with just 5 or 6 colors.



When looking at fossils, it does not matter if a group is a direct ancestral group if they have some shared feature. Because that will show us approximate times said trait arose. Let's use an example and draw it out for you, you don't seem to understand the basics here.

Let's say we have 5 organisms which we will call Organism 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Their number association has no bearing on which came first, just feeling too lazy to think of creative names).
1 has traits A, B, E
2 has traits A, B, C, D, E
3 has traits A, B
4 has traits A, B, C, E
5 has traits A, B, F


We can make a tree to depict these relationships.


Now let's say we never found a fossil representative of organism 3. Also for this example we can say we have two extant species 2 and 4. So we have fossils of 1 and 5 as well as the extant members of 2 and 4. So based on that evidence is it still possible to build the tree (obviously with no 3)? The answer is yes. But, let's make a twist --Let's say I had a time machine that we could go back in time and look at the relationship between 5 and 3 and we found the real relationship was actually this;




So 5 is not a direct ancestor to groups 2 or 4. Does that change though, our understand of the timeline in which the traits arose? No. With fossil evidence alone we can never be sure if one group is the direct ancestor to another, that does not change though our understanding though of when traits can arise. Do you understand this? If not let me know.




No, we date the fossils then look at the features of the fossils. Then we can say "our best evidences shows that this trait(s) arose around this time". Then using traits we can place fossils into nested sets, which give us the common "tree" depiction of evolution. Such as I have done above, only with thousands of more traits and thousands of more fossils.

Those fossils do have similar anatomical features of humans and other hominids. And is it not funny that the ages of the fossils (which does not relay on the anatomical features) end up the way they do? If you were correct, we would see no progression of features and dates. If everything was "created" or designed then we would not find such progressions in the nested sets that depict life on earth. Unfortunately reality does not agree with your worldview here.



Having read all the articles I linked to you, I was unsure how else to describe said variables to you. In science we use lots of terminology, metric and nonmetric variables are some of that terminology -Do you have another name for them which you would prefer us to use?



All you have done is read an authors abstract did you actually read the article?




Do you know teeth are great for understanding the anatomy of and evolution of an animal? I'll let you look that one up and report back here to us.

I guess though, you did not read the full abstract. You just perused for words to quote mine. Let me help you out;



Why is this the only article you have looked at as well?

You should be sure to check out Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis by Wood et al. As they discuss more cranial and post-cranial features of the fossils. You would also note if you had taken the time to read the articles that no one in the field is claiming P. boisei to be a direct ancestor of the homo genus.

No. It is a common misconception that evolution can only act on "living" organisms. Evolution by natural selection requires some properties which are shared in the definition of living organisms, though it does not require for something to be alive.

Whoever the first self-replicator was arose by chemistry -But because the properties he had (some life like ones) evolution was able to act upon him.

That does not matter, because you are still using their arguments. Whether you consider yourself a creationist or not makes no difference. You are arguing against evolution by trying argue against abiogenesis -They are not one in the same and making that argument simply shows you don't really understand what you are talking about.

I agree to an extent Doug, but science is specific -In its use in terminology and nomenclature especially. We (people) often do lump abiogenesis and evolution together under organic evolution, but this does not make them nor their mechanisms one and the same.

Abiogenesis is a chemical process which resulted in the first self-replicator, while evolution is the changes that occurred to the replicator and its descendants.



I agree, but a prerequesit for evolution by natural selection is not that something by alive by our definition of life. Remember it need only have variation, heritability, non-random survival and reproduction and live in an environment which cannot support all offspring equally. This is different than the requirements we have for "life". A virus is capable of those things above, but is non-living by how we define life in biology often.



That's what I hoped to convey with the "color bar" analogy back on page 2. Does not seem to have worked in this case.



That is something important to understand, that I think many are missing. That species do not exist in nature -They are a very man-made concept that nature cares little for. Evolution works at the population level and 2 or more populations can be similar because of gene flow between them. If the gene flow stops though, as you said "The differences accumulate" and ultimately result in new species -Though I think it would best to say that it results in a branching of lineages.



Another great example of evolution in action. As always, pleasure to read your posts Doug!

I think we need to agree on a definition here. What are your definitions of "life," "abiogenesis," and "evolution?" And what's your source for them?
Doug

No he said that in that day you will die. Depending on whose day we are talking about he did. Also on that day he was kicked out of the garden and removed from the presence of God.


Think of it like this you have a great relationship with your father. Then you make a major mistake and he no longer talks to you.

Well to define life, that can be tricky. I rather like Hill's description though in Animal physiology and would consider it is one of the better definitions I have come across. To summerize his definition;

1. Must be able to convert energy from one for to another
2. Must be able to reproduce with a high degree of fidelity
3. Creates waste from cataboloic and anabolic processes and is capable of dealing with wastes
4. The cell is the smallest unit
5. And life evolves (though it is important to note that while all life evolves, being alive is not the prerequisite for evolving --Your example with viruses here is perfect)

Abiogenesis is, as Huxley original used the term, the origin of life from nonliving matter. Though today, I think we (biologists) tend to lay more emphasis on the chemical process which leads to the origin of the first life-like particle. We are not talking about spontaneous generation where life suddenly springs from nonlife, but rather a chemical process which results in the origin of a molecule with life-like properties. It is not important that the molecule actually be alive -Only that it have some properties of life, so that evolution may act upon it. Namely reproduction with a degree of fidelity.

It is important to note, as I said in the prior post that the mechanisms in abiogenesis and evolution are not the same. Abiogenesis deals with chemical reactions which result in a molecule that can copy itself. While evolution deals with the changes to the molecule and it's descendants.


Evolution is a word that simply means change. We can talk of stellar evolution, cultural evolution, religious evolution etc. So I think first and foremost it is important to distinguish biological evolution from those "other types of evolution".

Those guys at Berkeley run a great page on biological evolution found HERE. Under the section entitled evolution 101 (which someone with a high school biology can follow along) they define biological evolution as;


And I would largely agree with that. What I would disagree with, is the simplicity it is put as it appears to add to the confusion of "micro vs macro" evolution. Descent with modification is a great definition because it is a very simple way of saying "For a given population allele frequencies change from generation to generation", Descent="from generation to generation", With modification= changes to allele frequencies.

Their second part though about "large-scale evolution", while important is confusing. Because "large-scale evolution" or "the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations" is due to the changes in allele frequencies for a given population. It is a collection of these changes that, over time, makes two or more populations "very different".

I feel also, if they are to include "large-scale evolution" as part of the definition of biological evolution then they would have to include reproductive isolation and all of its mechanisms as well. Because, isolation or the limiting of gene-flow between groups is how these changes in allele frequency are allowed to accumulate. And that just muddies up the waters even more. So I say, at its most simple level biological evolution is simply allele frequencies change from generation to generation for a given population. The rest we can include in the theory of evolution, which can contain hypotheses like allopatric speciation -explains how physical extrinsic environmental barriers can isolate a population such that changes in the allele frequencies over generations result in (even with the removal of the barriers) a parent and offspring population that can no longer interbreed.

Now when we define evolution as a process or a scientific theory it is also important to note how we are talking about evolution. Evolution by NS? By Sexual selection? By genetic drift? Etc. Because each of these theories have their own definitions as well. The important part is though, that none of their definitions are abiogenesis. They are, again, two difference processes. Natural selection, probably the largest de facto cause for change to biological systems is great at just that; changing biological systems. However, it sucks at starting life! There is no mechanism in natural selection to explain the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. And this is why a distinct should be made, because they are explaining two different things.


I find (in no way am I inferring that you are a creationist here Doug, just thought that this was an interesting point) that the point most people are unable to "stay on the boat" with "organic evolution" is this point, Abiogenesis. If you believe in a Creator God, then I think for most it is imperative that the Creator creates life. Because what does a Creator do? Creates universe and life, and without those two things to do -He/she/it does not appear to be much of a creator.

I think this is why we see such a push from creationists/cdesign proponentists(ID'ers) to push abiogenesis and evolution in bed together. I think they realize that this is the point that hits home for many people and this is why they play it up, because here they perceive a weak spot that will allow them a conduit to the hearts and minds of the public. And I think they are correct (in that they found a weak spot).

For this reason, and for the reason that people should understand the complex nomenclature used in science to some degree -I think it is important to say; while we may loosely refer to both as "organic evolution" they are not one big scientific theory.

as always copa love to read your posts , i learn so much....

Adam lived to be 930 years old. If you are comfortable with that level of accuracy( 1 day +/- 930 years), then it's all on you.



Yeah, about that...Adam was kicked out, but why exactly? Well, remember when God was talking to Adam and said, "...on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die"? Well, what did he say a few versus later, when Adam wasn't around?

"See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

Let's set aside the whole "One day to God is like 930 years to man" nonsense. Let's not ask who God was talking about (or to) when he said "us". God here is not only admitting that he lied (not only did Adam not die that 930 year long day, but if he had kept eating, he would have apperantly lived forever!), but God is also very clearly saying that the real problem is that humans had gained knowledge. God did not want man to learn. When man did learn (thanks to the snake, who did not lie, but was punished for encouraging Adam to learn more), God kicked him out.

So, here is the situation. We know God has a pretty major agenda. We know he has acted before to try and limit how much knowledge man could have. We know that he has openly lied about knowledge in an attempt to prevent man from attaining it. God comes down out of the sky and tells us that evolution is a delusion.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



I'm not seeing the relevance.

In all cases, when dealing with science, the credibility of the source is extremely important. If the source is known to have lied in order to advance a political agenda, you need to be very careful when he attempts to pull the same trick a second time.

One of God's days is 1000 of our years.



God didn't want Adam to eat from the tree of life and live forever in sin.

Already answered. If you are comfortable with that level of accuracy, then it's all on you.



And the sin was that Adam would gain knowledge. So God lied to keep that from happening.

He did it once. He can do it again.

No, I'm saying that we might be able to create life someday. But only through deliberate scientfic efforts to create life, not by some naturally occuring reaction in pond scum.

Or fossils are not transitional - they're just fossils of an extinct species, with no solid evidence of change. Like P. boisei.



Your analogy doesn't hold up.

First of all, we already know and can duplicate the transition of one color into the next. We don't know and can't duplicate the transition of one life form into another.

We wouldn't know how red can turn into green without first knowing/identifying all the transitional steps (color changes) between them. Since we have identified those steps, we can and have established "a clear line of descent".

But we haven't identified all the transitional steps required to establish a clear line of descent between life forms. We don't know if X species really DOES or CAN turn into X1 species, because a clear and quantifiable transition hasn't been established. Not even close. The gaps between them are enormous.

Actually they are. Not only does fossil evidence tell us this but genetic evidence as well.




Well actually Turbo,

The analogy works great at describing descent and how every color would be a transitional fossil. Also it works well for explaining why do not need a fossil representative of every generation. You argue we do to show a clear line of descent, that is fine you can hold that opinion. There is lots more evidence to support common descent, but since you seem unwilling to open your eyes to the most basic of it, I feel that would likely be a wasted endeavor. All you have done (reading back through your posts on this topic) is express your opinion with nothing to back it up.....You did not read the articles, you have not provided any scientific evidence for your claims, you don't actually seem interested in learning what you are talking about before you open your mouth to talk. I think at this point our conversation has come to a close, I'll go on providing evidence and explaining how science works and you'll go on stating your opinion about it --Not really productive.

Back here in the real world, scientists will continue to slug away at understanding life's history here on planet Earth. Regardless of whether some people choose to accept evidence or take the time to understand it or not.

Anyway, best of luck to you. Maybe in the future you will be more ready to learn about science and how and why we know what we know. If ever that day comes and I am still perusing the forums at UM feel free to drop me a line if you need any help in understanding anything.

~Copasetic


Edit: That part up there italicized is again, incorrect. We don't need every color in between to demonstrate the transition -Nor do we need to know it in advance. But, I'll leave that to you to figure out why again you have missed it.

I have a problem with the fossil record. It shows that t-rex was working on becoming the birds. Only problem birds were already around.

No, your analogy doesn't work.

The transition(s) between colors is a bidirectional, continuous loop - from red to orange to yellow, etc., and the reverse (from yellow to orange to red, etc.). The transition(s) in your evolution theory is unidirectional (from one representative generation to the next) and linear.

A color does not "descent". Yellow does not "descent" into Orange. The term "descent" applies to matters of ancestral/hereditary lineage, and evolution theory. Not to colors.

And as I said earlier - the colors have proven, identified, and repeatable transitions. There are thousands (or millions) of transitions absent in your evolution theory. You have no case with a half-million year gap (or more) between each example.



No, it doesn't.



And I do.



Don't spout off about how you're "explaining how science works" when you can't even understand why a color chart is a ridiculous analogy.



Arrogance and condescending comments galore.

I love the irony of it all.

I think you misinterpreted something here. Birds and t-rex had a common ancestor, but t-rex went extinct at the end of the Creatceous. Birds didn't. Birds do not descend from t-rex.
Doug

If one wants to know how evolution works, one should study examples that have occurred in the 20th century, both naturally-occurring and laboratory-induced evolution. That way, one does not have to bring the religion thing into the argument and nobody gets offended. Also, by doing that, the fossil record is eliminated from the process, so those uncertainties are not part of the equation.

Once one understands how it worked in the 20th century, one then asks: is there any reason that it couldn't have worked in the 19th century? 18th century? 17th century? 2000 BC? 10,000 BC, 1,000,000 BC? etc.

True. The fossil record is part of how science first came to relaize that there was such a thing as evolution. But we have now built a bridge with other sciences and no longer need to rely on those stepping stones to get there.

Evolution does not stand on the fossil record alone, but on natural evidence from many disciplines. Even if you can prove the fossil record is inaccurate, or misinterpreted, you are not going to undermine evolution. It is about as solid as a theory gets.

Personally, I would put my efforts into something more productive than trying to argue against evolution.
Doug

Sound advice Doug,

I guess there are those who prefer a one-sided challenge however.

I am not arguing against evolution. But it is a long way from a beak size change to making a fish into an amphibian.

You keep using this kind of language Daniel. "Working on", "making". You are coming from a completely wrong angle and I think it one of the reasons you're having issues grasping the concepts.

T-Rex wasn't "working on" becoming a bird. Nothing is "making" a fish into an amphibian. There is no sentient force at play here, that wilfully changes one species into another. You're thinking about it along the lines of there being a god, something that can make decisions.

Species adapt and change slowly. A species of fish may find that in a certain area, there is more food in the shallow waters than in the deep waters. For this reason over a VERY long time, it adapts to be able to reach that food. The members of the species that make these changes survive and pass the changes on. The ones that don't are less succesful.

It isn't just a case of some mystical natural force thinking to itself "well, what T-Rex really needs right now is a pair of wings".

No it isn't Daniel. The changes in the size of beaks is a minor one. That be passed generationally. The changes that have to be made between a dinosaur and a bird are enormous and take millions of years. The process is the same however. Its like the difference between putting one brick on top of another brick, and building a house.

The beak change I am talking about took 7 years. These are probable the changes that they forced to happen in the labs. They have yet to make a fish into a frog.

*pulls hair out*

ONE - I know that the beak changes were over a small amount of time, this is what I stated.

TWO - No-one, not a scientist, a force of nature, no-one is trying to "make a fish into a frog".

You simply can't grasp this can you? You can't grasp that nothing is trying to "make" anything into anything else. Nature and species change and adapt. It is a constant state of flux. Now, 1000 years ago, 2 million years ago. It isn't about an animal suddenly changing into another one.

The biologists at the time said it would take 100 years.

Emma, you are woefully misinformed. One kind of animal does instantly transform into another via the process of ............................magic!

Where did you learn about this? What's the original source? Doug

a Galapagos finch went extinct on one of the islands and the other two on that island replaced it in 7 years the biologists claimed it would take 100 years to happen.


Now assuming that they were off by that much on all evolution. Has there been enough time for evolution.

percentage wise that is 93% off. So 1 million years is now 300 thousand years.

Can you please give a source for this? And I am confused - if it happened too quick you think it didn't happen at all? Are you using this to say "evolution did not occur in the right time frame therefor it didn't happen at all?" So what are you trying to say here? Trying to decipher your posts is beyond taxing sometimes.

According to science and those on here it takes millions of years for evolution to take place. Specifically to make a fish a frog. But as we can see evolution at least that which we have observed takes place a lot faster and is only down with little things. There is a tree on an island in the Indian ocean. don't know the name of it, but the tree is waiting for the dodo bird to eat it's fruit for the seeds to be freed to so they can take root. Sorry about my spelling.



this isn't the one i was talking about but will do.


http://www.livescience.com/animals/060713_darwin_finch.html

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment


Transitional Forms!

To the machine world rulers 300 thousand years in our future!

Their one fatal flaw in logic - they neglected to consider the "designer" component.