Author Topic: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution  (Read 5258 times)

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15736
    • View Profile
#1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« on: May 29, 2012, 08:43:11 PM »
That is molecules to man evolution.  Give me ONLY your very best piece of evidence.  I have read countless times that the evidence supports evolution.  I have never seen it.  Many say it does.  It doesn't.....nada.

WARNING - dopey, name calling posts will only validate my claim.  Those on my "ignore" list, I will not read nor respond to your posts.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline Cruocified

  • National Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2012, 10:23:16 PM »
   - Those on my "ignore" list, I will not read nor respond to your posts.

I have a feeling any evidence supporting evolution will receive the same treatment.  Either that or their will be some smug response to the evidence using whatever pseudoscience is currently popular in the creationist tool kit that doesn't actually prove anything but your unwavering faith and inability to understand actual science.
I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2012, 04:43:36 PM »
A donkey and a horse can have a mule that can not reproduce.  They are genetically close enough to reproduce, but not genetically close enough to have fertile offspring.  By definition, they are not of the same species and it appears they could be a product of divergent evolution which is a Darwin concept that is key to the theory of speciation.  WE can see micorevolution occur in a petri dish as bacteria become resistance to antibiotics.  What we have never SEEN is one species turn into another.  Until we see that, macroevolution as we know it is only a theory.  But the example above is the closest thing I can think of to seeing it.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 04:55:00 PM by cwilson »

Offline SVV

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 7302
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2012, 05:28:16 PM »
Quote
What we have never SEEN is one species turn into another.

Given the proposed time-lines, macroevolution will not be seen.  One animal doesn't just turn into another in observable manner.  There are many minuscule changes, most probably not observable in the manner that we could physically see, that take place over the course of thousands/millions of years.
Of course this is how I understand evolution to work which is very elementary.

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2012, 05:42:39 PM »
Quote
What we have never SEEN is one species turn into another.

Given the proposed time-lines, macroevolution will not be seen.  One animal doesn't just turn into another in observable manner.  There are many minuscule changes, most probably not observable in the manner that we could physically see, that take place over the course of thousands/millions of years.
Of course this is how I understand evolution to work which is very elementary.

And I think that is where CTC and so many others come from.  If they can't see it happen, it just can't be.  But our lives are just a drop in the bucket and so many can't see that.  The Donkey -Horse - Mule example is the closest thing to seeing it that I can think of. 

CTC asked for the best evidence to prove molecule to man - macroevolution.  I think that is it.  Two living species that appear to be diverging.  Not fossils.  But two living things that could be showing us Darwin's idea of speciation which is the main point in macroevolution.  Without speciation, the idea of macroevlolution simply can not be.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 05:44:56 PM by cwilson »

Offline SVV

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 7302
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2012, 05:50:37 PM »
I'm not sure if that example is a true example of macro but I'm all ears and eyes for the ensuing discussion.

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2012, 06:59:07 PM »
And also consider a philosophical approach to this discussion.  Leave all scientific and biblical evidence aside.

The earth has been changing drastically since it's creation.  Most of us accept that.  If I were to make the perfect creation of life as the perfect creator would do, that life would not be without the ability to change over time, because creating it in that manner would be sentencing it to death.  I see our creation as the perfect creation, and the perfect creation includes the ability of a population to change as our environment drastically changes.  Without that, it can not be perfect.

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2012, 10:10:27 AM »
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

Could this mean that the earth has the abiltiy to sprout new forms of life?  There are several translations to this verse.  All of which point to the earth bringing forth life.  Very interesting.  Could this mean that the creation of life was not at a snap of a finger, but actually a process?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 10:11:57 AM by cwilson »

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15736
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2012, 03:50:31 PM »
Sorry, will respond shortly.  Swamped.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline Hardcore

  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 3505
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2012, 09:18:43 PM »
A swamp would be a good place to look for evidence of evolution. Modern day primordial soup. Hope you are wearing your hip boots and keeping a eye out for gators ctc.

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15736
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2012, 08:50:26 AM »
A donkey and a horse can have a mule that can not reproduce.  They are genetically close enough to reproduce, but not genetically close enough to have fertile offspring.  By definition, they are not of the same species and it appears they could be a product of divergent evolution which is a Darwin concept that is key to the theory of speciation.  WE can see micorevolution occur in a petri dish as bacteria become resistance to antibiotics.  What we have never SEEN is one species turn into another.  Until we see that, macroevolution as we know it is only a theory.  But the example above is the closest thing I can think of to seeing it.
Sorry for the delay.  I am surprised that you used this as your #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution.  Interesting choice.  Here is my view on your post.

A donkey and a horse can have a mule that can not reproduce.  They are genetically close enough to reproduce, but not genetically close enough to have fertile offspring.

They are of the same kind.  The problem is that there is an imbalance in chromosomes that usually but not always results in infertility.  This is an example of micro evolution of which all creationists believe in.  To go from molecules to man, there necessitates a changing from one kind into another kind.  The mule becomes a dead end street with no ability to survive.  There is no changing of kind and thus the Scriptures are correct in declaring "after their own kind".

IThanks for the response.  I am told that "all the evidence supports evolution".  I want to see it and not just hear the meaningless claim.

I think my strongest evidence against Darwinian evolution is the formation of life.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2012, 10:04:24 AM »
You and I both agree that life's original seed or seeds must have been from intelligent design.  Nobody is ever going to find those original seeds, so it could have been one cell that gave rise to all of this, or multiple.  That is a data point that will never be found which leads to the common phrase, "what came first, the chicken or the egg".  As science continues to evolve, we continue to learn about the complexity of living things and the DNA code.  To thiink that this was a chance event is a statistical nightmare.  The bible tells us that God created the heavens, the earth, and life as we know it.  HOwever, the Bible does not tell us how it was done.  This is where science comes in, and it doesn't mean you are drawn to the devil if you are seeking information about the "How", as this information is not included in the Bible.

 I mean really, do you think Moses was going to reveal the secrets of the DNA code when the Bible was written?  Of course not.  We have a hard time understanding it now let alone back then.  There was no audience that was capable of understanding that.   And for this reason, I believe that some of the statements about creation were simple and often used imagery and parallelisms to make points.  Which is why reading the Bible is sometimes not easy.  Is it fact or imagery.  What is a day? What is cattle?  What is a beast?  It is a fascinating piece of literature that requires you to read, reread, and reread to fully understand..  And this lead to questions, and questions lead to expeimentation and scientific thinking.  So we are today talking about the origin of it all, and it is okay.

CTC and I also agree that Darwinian Evolution, as to the way he wrote it from his original work, is not exactly how evolution works.  He even talks about the weaknesses of his theory in his own writings.  Darwin was a genius, and his work was flawless.  Not only did include what he found.  He included what he didn't find - those missing links.  He was not the devil.  His body of work was awesome and it paved the way for many of the things we do today.  Some of his speculations may be spot on.  THey may all be spot on.  He may have missed some things.  Without being there, it is really hard to tell.  It's all how you read the data.

And this is where it is so easy to prove microevloution, but so difficult to prove macroevolution.  YOur strongest body of evidence is going to be the fossil record which is very imcomplete at best and is not going to portray a perfectly accurate picture of the changes that take place.  And it is possible that changes didn't even take place.  It may simply be that environmental conditions changed drastically to favor a pheonotype that typically did not survive and therefore did not fossilize.  The enviroment changes, and now you see a different phenotype selected for.  The fossil record shows that the organisms are changing, but it may just show that nature suddenly, for some reason, began favoring a different phenotype in the population that was always there in the first place.  It is crazy.  It is all speculation.  The data can be read in many ways, and you can come up with all sorts of speculations which is most likely not 100% accurate.

The reason I bring up the horse and the donkey and I can add the zebra, is because these are not of like kind any more.  They have different chromosome numbers, most likely due to geographic isolaton and isolated microevolution.  But what is interesting,despite havig different  karyotypes, they can still reproduce, which is indication that they are of like kind as you say.  But the fact that they have different karyotypes points towards divergent evolution, which is a key component in macroevolution.  The fact that they have different karyotypes could cause some to say they are not of the same kind, and you can't argue that.  Scientists do not consider Horses, Donkeys, and Zebras as the same species.  IN the scientific world, they are not of the same kind.

Also consider this.

Donkeys have 62 chromosomes while horses have 64 chromosomes. As well as different numbers, the chromosomes have different structures. Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes that are a mixture of one from each parent. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 foals born to female mules around the world and probably additional unreported ones. However, mollies have a strong maternal drive and will kidnap foals of horses and donkeys sharing the same paddock.

So at this time, whether or not donkeys, zebras, and horses are of like kind is really up for debate.  They can reproduce, but clearly are moving in a path of divergence.  The fact that they are domesticated isolates them from each other indicating that the lines will continue separate from each other to the point where reproduction may not be possible at all in the future.  Of course, the people engaging in this discussion will be dead by then.

So are they of the same species or not.  The definition of a species is when two organisms of a population can interbreed and have fertile offspring.  IN the case of these animals, they usually do not result in fertile offspring, but it does happen.  They also have different choromosome counts.

NOw understand, I am a strong Christian that also happens to be a scientist by trade, so I very much appreciate both stands and have the ability to stay neutral in this discussion which by the way, I feel is a fascinating discussion, especially if a person is open minded and willing to look at all facts.

When I was a young man, I was often told you can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution. Because of this, I doubted the existance of the Lord.  Why do people do that to young kids that are drawn to science?  Anybody that studies science knows for a fact that there is something to do with this evolution thing.  If you make a scientist choose, he will choose what the data reveals.   But through science, I have discovered God because I was willing to look at everything and ignore those Christians that were pushing me away from God (by the way a good Christian should not do that!).  Bottom line, when you look at all of the facts, there is a strong possibility that evolution is a tool that the Lord has used in the creation of life.  Who else could make a DNA molecule capable of all of this?

And Darwin didn't hit the bullseye, but he was pretty close.  Give him the credit he deserves.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 10:39:02 AM by cwilson »

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 11:47:01 AM »
I also would like to add that just because I believe that Donkeys, Horses, and Zebra are no longer of like kind does not mean that the bible is flawed when it says that animals will reproduce according to their kind.  That has always happened.  THe notion of a horse suddenly birthing a Zebra is just stupid.  But when you put 1000's of generations on top of each other in an isolated setting, the product of birth 1000 generations later could certainly be different in two separate populations, especially if environmental conditions were different as natural selection would take a different course.  Natural selection does not happen within individuals.  It is a phenomonen that occurs in populations, which many fail to recognize.  It can change the gene pool, and when the gene pool changes, a population can definitely deviate from the origninal norm.  We call this microevolution.

but can microevolution be the catalyst to macroevolution.  Oh, and now the debate begins.  Because now the answers become more difficult.  The Horse, Zebra, Donkey debate continues!

Offline cwilson

  • Junior High
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2012, 08:17:12 AM »
I'm not sure if that example is a true example of macro but I'm all ears and eyes for the ensuing discussion.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.[4]

Offline SVV

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 7302
    • View Profile
Re: #1 evidence for Darwinian evolution
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2012, 11:11:12 AM »
Thanks.  Again, I am all eyes and ears. 
cwilson, you seem to see evolution at the micro and macro levels as working mechanisms within the evolutionary theory, so how does god fit into it in your view?  You've touched on it briefly, but would you mind expanding on that idea?