Cite? Not that this has anything to do with evolution, I’m just interested. I know there are some hypotheses about interstellar vira, but as far as I know we don’t “know”.
And this has what to do with evolution?
You said that the basic structure of life has not changed. I say what makes you think it ever has. I don’t get to use lunacy much.
And I am saying that some people have and do dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Here are several examples I found by a simple search:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/25966
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html
http://www.creationequation.com/EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm
http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html
Again, I was not questioning the validity of evolution in my post, I was simply stating that some people have challenged it.
Those aren’t holes, those are incoherent ramblings from misinformed people. Every single site you listed comes from some creationist site and every single of one of the “holes” they say have been refuted on talkorigins and hold no weight for anybody with a biology background. I don’t know what “holes” you had in mind for your first article, but when you do a google search for particular terms, perhaps you should read the link to make sure it is supporting your arguments.
Your links: dead horses.
Let me say that I have no problems with ID or Creation being taught at Church or at Home. My concern is with State promotion of religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, this morning’ s paper had an article that Cecil County Maryland school board members wish to push for alternative explanations to evolution.
As I understand your position, you do not necessarily have evidence to support your belief. Life is just too complicated for you to imagine that it occurs as a natural process based on the laws of physics. I respect your belief.
Do you understand that this belief does not belong in public schools?
Peace through Liberty
rwjefferson
P.S. To all: Thanks for carrying on this discussion. It will take a while for me to read all of the responses. I have a busy day.
- It is a basic evolutionary understanding that an organism that finds the best fit for a particular niche will remain adapted to that niche. The answer is simply that those niches still exist and there is no better solution to utilize that niche. Those organisms will remain stable until the niche changes or a better adapted organism comes along.
This explanation, is what students should be learning in school. Alternative explanations are only necessary for those that do not know the obvious (and data supported) answer.
- Death, by definition, is change: Was alive, now dead; was an organism, now fertilizer, was organic now recycled again and again; forever.
Liberty through Knowledge
rwjefferson
I would disagree, partially because that is a vast oversimplification of niche theory (and there is debate as to whether niches do, in fact, exist independently of the organisms which inhabit them), but mostly because, ultimately, it’s just really not the reason why “lower” forms exist. Primitive forms exist because evolution produces bushes, not ladders; lineages branch and diversify, not transform whilst gradually ascending some “evolutionary ladder”. Also, many lineages remain remarkably conservative over their temporal span (the reasons for which often go beyond their already being “well-enough adapted”). Constraints on variation and fortuitousness in both the appearance of new variations as well as the survival of neighboring species both play major rolls in determining the evolutionary directions a given lineage might take.
Ultimately, the question of why, if evolution is true, primitive forms exist, is not a counter to evolutionary theories, as there is nothing implicit or inherent in those theories which states that such should not or could not be the case.
However, the phrase you used was not that people have challenged evolutionary theory, (many have), but that people had “poked holes” in it. The citations you have provided range from the misinformed through the deluded to the truly dishonest, but none of those challenges has successfully poked a hole in the Theory of Evolution. That is what has prompted the responses you are receiving.
Thank you 633sqadron for your comments. I tend to agree.
The IR question seems to more accurately reflect on the knowledge and imagination and hubris of the person than on reality. “I (science) do not (currently) understand this, so it must be magic…I mean God.”
Sorry, I’m lost. If a less complex system cannot be explained, how did a more complex system arise? Did they say which more obvious predecessors?
Although, I suspect there will never be a specific answer (assuming life only arose once) for earth, life is a natural and inevitable process under physical laws. Molecules that were once thought to be only produced as a by-product of life have been found to permeate the universe. Even now, researchers are producing more and more complex molecules under conditions that simulate any number of naturally occurring environments. It is only a matter of time until the next breakthrough in understanding.
rwjefferson
Creation involves specific intervention by God. Evolution relies on the Natural Laws of God, no specific intervention required. Since there is no evidence or need (other than emotional comfort) to invoke supernatural intervention, science leaves that to the church (where it belongs).
Yes, there are gaps and pieces still missing in the picture of evolution, but there are no holes that I Am aware of. Let us start with what you see as the biggest hole, and we will take it from there.
rwjefferson
those are very relevant and valid links.
All I’ve seen from the opposing side is contradictory drivel from a bunch of religous zealots. not a sign of anything that coud even remotely be considered evidence. Actually there is a very long and growing list of respectable scientists that question the possibility of evolution.
Sorry bob, I do not see the argument against evolution in that statement. Can you explain further?
Also I was not aware that the viri “probably” traveled here. I am aware of the conjecture, but not of the likelihood.
Please, more information.
r~
As I stated in the OP:
I quickly glanced at the first three sites; they are fetid with untruth. It always amazes me when “Christians” so blatantly lie.
r~
Thanks to those that have previously commented for evolution. I wish only to add to your comments.
Read it, he said there was no difference in the basic structure of the cell. Where is the evolution in that. You have blinded yourselves, you have fought this cause for so long you have become jaded, unable to see it is becomming an out dated idea. As out dated as the belief that the world is flat. I think I know which side you would have been on in that debate.
Name some.
Although it is indeed a simplification, I do not understand your disagreement. I said nothing about ladders. Please review my basic understanding and please be more specific over “our” disagreement. I’m not sure we differ that greatly.
Thanks
r~
I don’t see that the list is any longer or any more respectable than it’s ever been. Since the 1900s, creationists have been claiming this exact same thing: a growing number of scientists are rejecting Darwinism, etc. etc. But when you go to check these lists out, they are stuffed full of Christian diploma-mill titles and occasional 300 year old physicist who doesn’t have a clue about biology. As far as legitimate critics with actual arguments of any merit… not so much. Behe was probably the closest in a long while, and his arguments were so transparently weak that he still hasn’t published anything on the subject in a journal. In fact, Behe was particularly annoying, in that he demanded evolutionary explanations for features like the flagellum… before scientists had even worked out how flagellum funcitoned in the first place, much less how they might have evolved their functions. Worse, he claimed no one had any idea how blood clotting might have evolved, ignoring the fact that the very scientist Behe had cited had spent a lifetime working on fleshing that out.
I wish to read it, unfortunately, I have somehow overlooked the full quote. Please start over and assume that I am not familiar with the quote or the viri.
I was not aware that it was the evolutionists that were blind. Please tell me what you see.
r~
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
“I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
There are a few.
All life posses DNA, that DNA is made up of proteins, the proteins are made up of amino acid chains. One of these well studied amino acid chains is called cytochrome C, because it occurs with most organisms, the results can be compared side by side with the results from other organisms and a percent difference can be tallied up and compared.
Corn shares 66.7% of our cytochrome C chain
Did you know that Tetrahymena thermophila a unicellular, ciliated freshwater protozoan, shares 42.6% of the same DNA amino acid chain that Maize (corn) has! 1
We as humans become quite relieved to find that we share 47.5% of our amino acid chain with that same protozoan. This means that there are more similarities between people and a unicellular protozoan then corn and that same protozoan. 1
These are switches not the dna itsself. The dna is virtually the same for all life.
only the setup differs from organism to oragnism. There is no sign of evolution in dna structure, there is some speculation, but that is not evidence is it.