Anti-evolution: Why?

Great Debates
161

Which you are certainly free to do. But that, in itself, lends zero weight to your argument.

You should have no problem, then, in presenting that evidence here.

Perhaps true, but irrelevant to the present discussion. You have been presented with the current phylogeny. If you have a problem with the logic behind that phylogeny, feel free to spell it out. But don’t claim you don’t buy it just because schools are using outdated texts. That has absolutely no bearing on the actual evidence.

If you spent more time reading and comprehending, and less time trying to come up with pithy, sarcastic, and ill-informed rebuttals, you might actually learn something. “Closely related” is a relative concept. Mesonychians and dogs are more closely related to each other than either is to a fruit fly, but that doesn’t mean they are one another’s closest relatives.

If you think it is ignorant, than I presume you are fully aware of the actual logic behind the arguments for common descent. Because it would be the height of folly to argue against that which you haven’t a clue, right? So to enlighten those of us who you feel are so ignorant as to accept such, why don’t you detail the problems with common descent. Consider it your small part in fighting ignorance.

I’m educated enough to know what I do and do not understand, and to not argue against any theory which I do not fully understand. Are you?

No one here is nullifying your opinion. If you want to claim that common descent is bunk, great. But don’t expect to win anyone over simply because you don’t agree with it. Many of us here have studied evolutionary science and know the evidence which supports it.

If you wish to make a case, you’re going to have to do better than “I don’t believe it, well, just because.” Which is really all you have done thus far.

162

I am very aware of what scientists think in regards to the earliest life on earth and how they came into being. That does not mean I agree with those ideas, or that they are right.
Can scientists produce an idea environment from which they can make life similar to how life was started on earth? In theory they could, but they have not. Also, scientists have been wrong in the past before. It was once believed that heat was some substance that emitted from fires, and we now know that heat is energy and is not any substance, but rather molecules moving around faster than normal.

I cannot deny that the structure of whale fins are similar to human hands. Also, the skeleton structure of bats wings are also similar to hand, and the arms of alligators are extreamly similar to a human arm. Why is this so?
Some say it is the working of evolution, but my answer differs.

Let me start by saying these three things:

  1. The human skeleton is probably the most well-engineered device on the entire planet. Any medicle professional (as well as crash test dummy producers who try to mimmic the body) can confirm this. They exact design of the skeleton allows maxium protection while allowing maxium effeciency. The concept of functionality and effeciency is not unique to the human skeleton, but the skeletons of other organisms as well.

  2. Physics acts the same way on all organisms. Nothing on earth is truly transcendient of the natural laws of Earth (i.e. gravity, accleration, etc).

  3. When two organisms compete, the one with greater efficiency will eventually replace the other.

I think it is reasonable to think that the similarity in bone structure is not the result of some kind of common ancestory, but rather more coincendence than anything else. We all have the same forces of physics working on us, we all have to be as efficient as possible, and skeletal structure is not going to be disciminatory. I’m not very good at conveying ideas. What I am trying to get at is this: all organisms with endoskeletons are undergoing a stabilizing selection, where the average value is the most efficient skeletal structure, and because physics works the same on all creatures, the skeleton of organism “x” is going to be extreamly similar to the skeleton of organism “y”.

That seems logical (to me anyway) and supports me views on evolution.

163

Those may be falsifiable claims made by ID proponents, but in no case does their hypothetical falsification support ID. ID does not get to “win” by default if it demonstrates other theories are false. All the falsification of the current theories of abiogenesis would accomplish is showing that the current theories of abiogenesis are false. And nothing more.

164

Diogenes what I am saying is there is evidence that early earth conditions did not match the laboratory conditions. In particular laboratory experiments did not include the existance of inhibitors (like oxygen) which are now believed to have existed in significant quantities at the time.

It isn’t fair to say, “We are pretty sure A, B and C existed back then, and we were able to use them to create the building blocks of life,” when D also existed and would have prevented the creation.

165

Those may be falsifiable claims made by ID proponents, but in no case does their hypothetical falsification support ID. ID does not get to “win” by default if it demonstrates other theories are false. All the falsification of the current theories of abiogenesis would accomplish is showing that the current theories of abiogenesis are false. And nothing more.

166

Dostromin:

I’m curious about the “concepts” of evolution that you believe in. Maybe I missed some of your posts, but it doesn’t seem that you’ve stated them other than something about “speciation”.

Most of what I read in your post is comparisons between widly differing oranisms (eq, humans and bananas). Stay with me for a few minutes, and let’s try to focus on something specific and somewhat narrow-- just mammals. What would say are the most widely divergent mammals that you can “believe” are related thru common descent?

For example. You have dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes. Would they qualify? How about horses, zebras, donkeys? Whales and dolphins?

167

Darwin’s I mean that if those were falsified, ID would suffer a terrible setback. It would mean abiogenesis was basically possible.

168

I guess claim one cannot be proven true. It could be falsified by finding prebiotic molecules or evidence of them in nature.

The second claim is more powerful I think. Imagine for a moment if earth went from molten rock to the basic state it is in now. That would basically leave no room for abiogenesis. By discerning what early earth was like, we can get a better idea of whether or not abiogenesis was possible.

169

**

Every day Science makes leaps of discovery. The field of biochemistry might very well provide you with further evidence of the optimization of RNA and DNA tommorrow. Such data may already exist. Biochem and I didn’t get along too well, and it has been a while anyway.

But to refine my argument, what if there were “nonoptimal” codon arrangements that *did[i/] exist at the same time/place in natural history as the observed optimal pattern that we are discussing, but the error rate in the nonoptimal lineages was too high to support survival? Would that be a plausible evolutionary/non ID explanation for the observable state?

The fact of the matter is, no one interested in the origins of life can give us a play-by-play account of what occured. We weren’t there. Science chips at away one observable and reproduceable phenominon at a time. In order for such insights to be applied in hindsight with any sort of accuracy, it takes a lot of time and research. Again, there might very well be enough evidence already published to better satisfy you in regards to this. I apologize that I don’t have any sites to give you at the moment.

There will always be room for questions and tweaking and refining of Evolutionary Theory. These are the kinds of questions that my instructors would respond to with shrugs and say, “I don’t know. Sounds like a good thesis.” I always hated that answer.

170

honeydewgrrl, if plenty of non-optimal (and seemingly random) genetic codes were discovered, I would consider that a strong evidence for the evolution of the code (IMO).

I agree that we weren’t there, but we have a pretty good picture of early earth conditions via geology, deep core samples and the like. They can basically pin down likely times for reverses of the earth’s magnetic field, various heavy meteor bombardments, all sorts of good stuff.

I hate the “Sounds like a good thesis” answer too, even though I am looking for a dissertation topic.

171

At best, all this would prove is that some experiments in abiogenesis produced erroneous conclusions. It would not prove that pre-biotic earth conditions could not produce amino acids and RNA, and it says nothing at all about ID.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution anyway. Even if God zapped the waters and produce the first self-replicating proto-organisms, evolution would then have occured exactly the same way.

Here’s an anlaogy, let’s say that you see a large boulder at the bottom of a hill. You can see a track through the vegetation on the hill that ends where the rock is resting. You can see a large rock face at the top of the hill which has a fracture that matches perfectly with a fracture on the rock. You conclude that the rock rolled down the hill. It doesn’t matter what caused the rock to roll down the hill. “Proving” that no one was at the top of the hill to push it or that no natural process could have caused it to roll would not negate the fact that it had rolled down the hill. proving that God caused it to roll would still not negate the fact that it rolled down the hill.

Evolution is a rock that rolled down a hill. We know for a fact that it happened. What started it is irrelevant.

172

The presence of a single, optimal code is still consistent with evolutionary thought.

It inevitably won, that’s all. The battle to determine the “correct” coding scheme was probably one of the earlier conclusions in the history of Earth’s life.

Hey, Tertius01, what are your thoughts regarding mitochrondria?

173

Diogenes, I thought about posting my initial post in a new thread, now it looks like I should have. Should I repost this somewhat hijacking subthread somewhere else?

174

I rather suspect most medical professionals (especially osteoloigsts) would quite disgaree with you.

What you are arguing for is adaptation. What you are neglecting in your argument is the fact that those digit bones in a whale’s fin have nothing to do with physics. Nor does the hip bone of those same whales. Nor do the genes, present in birds but seldom expressed, to produce teeth. Nor the “extra” toes that occassionally appear in various perrisodactyls (e.g., horses).

What physical forces does a whale experience that necessitate a seemingly-vestigial hip bone? What forces dictate that the fin of a whale must more closely resemble the hand of a man, rather than the fin of a fish - especially considering it is the fish, not the man, which shares an environment, and subsequent physical forces, with the whale.

Adaptation establishes a form which matches function, but if that is all that was involved, similar lifestyles should produce similar, if not exact, results. There is no physical reason for whale fins to resemble man hands. There is no physical reason for a pterosaur wing to consist of a membrane supported by a single finger, a bird wing to consist of feathery integument supported by two fingers, and a bat’s wing to to consist of a large membrane supported by three fingers. There is no physical reason for birds to possess the genes to produce teeth and clawed fingers, yet supress their phenotypic expression. And so on.

The reasons behind these wildly varying solutions for similar problems cannot be understood simply by looking at environments. Only by looking at history as well do we begin to understand why things look as they do. When one examines the skeletons of maniraptoran dinosaurs, one sees numerous features that are also present in birds, and vice versa. When one examines the skeletons of whales, one sees numerous similarities with land-bound mammals. It makes sense, then, that the present forms are dictated not only by physical laws, but by limitations of history, as well. A bird’s wing does not look like a bat’s wing because the progenitors of birds did not look like the progenitors of bats. Both built on what had come before, which produced differing solutions to the same engineering problem of flight.

175

TVAA, all I know about mitochondria are that they are the cells “power source” and there is such thing as mitochondrial DNA. I seem to recall them being depicted as a kidney bean with wiggly lines inside. My knowledge of biology comes from two years in high school and the very occassional article in a general science type magazine.

Am I right in saying that we cannot recover DNA information from fossils anyway, so there is no way of directly observing if there was larger variation in genetic codes in the past? covers his head in shame of Jurassic Park being a significant source of biology knowledge

176

The human backbone is a nightmare. Yes, it’s a marvel of design, but our musculature is still poorly designed for it. We’ve adapted only partially to standing upright, and many people suffer for it.

177

Mitochrondria were once independently living organisms that (for some unknown reason) were co-opted by early cells and became symbiotes.

Every cell in your body is a community.

Why was it designed that way? It seems rather inefficient for human DNA not to contain enough information to construct these tiny creatures that are necessary for our survival.

178

It’s probably not necessary. These evolution threads always end up rehashing all these exact same arguments. I don’t think the discussion is really off topic anyway. The OP asks why some people don’t accept evolution. Balking at abiogenesis is a common objection even though it doesn’t, strictly speaking, affect evolution.

I give you credit though, your objections have been decidedly more thoughtful and informed than some of the stuff we typically see in these debates. You haven’t mentioned the second law of thermodynamic even once, for example, and you haven’t said “evolution is only a theory.”

179

There should have been a winky with my last post. Here it is. :wink:

180

I quite agree. It’s been a pleasure discussing this with Tertius01.

Additional to Tertius01: Don’t feel bad about being ignorant of biology. It’s the same for every human being: the things they don’t know could fill most of a universe.