Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[kramerfan86]

And to once again point this out to people, science is not arguing that God doesnt exist, or that he didnt play a role in the beginning. Science simply tries to discover what the process is and how it works. Plenty of scientists have religious faith and I think most overall dont think if they prove ____ God must not exist. I mean you have fringes of athiests who try to use scientific discovery to hammer away at religious belief, but most dont do that. The wide majority of people turning this into a science v religion throwdown are religious, and they use horrific logic to justify it.

 

[beingofone]

Civ2:

I'm. Not. Speaking. About. The. Chance. Of. "Life appeared on Earth rather than on Mars".
I'm speaking about the chance of a single CELL (living, functioning, yet very simple ORGANISM) to appear ON EARTH, out of EARTH's materials, by a supposed SEQUENCE of chemical reactions that would END UP as that poor little cell!
Simplifying again:
You need a sequence of a million of molecules arranged in the RIGHT way, through multitude of reactions.
All I get is, "it just happened".
Well, DUH!!!

And that is the only answer you will get other than:"go read a biology textbook" or "the question does not require an answer" or "God did it" or "evolution happens anyway it wants to" or "evolution is both designed and not designed all at the same time" or "the fossil records are clear but we do not have any" or "what is the alternative, God did it?" etc. etc. etc.

No logical or scientific evidence and facts; just more posturing about how you do not know math or science.

I have two questions.
If mutations almost never, as in 99% of the time, are passed through lateral gene transfer, how often does species jumps occur?
If mutations almost always, as in 99% of the time, result in a disadvantage for survival, how is it likely that mutations become dominate in the gene transfer?

Given that mutations almost never get passed on through heredity and they almost always result in a disadvantage, given Bayesian statistical analysis, evolution can not and does not occur.

But you guys just 'know' it is true anyway, don`t ya?

 

[Leoreth]

I have two questions.
If mutations almost never, as in 99% of the time, are passed through lateral gene transfer, how often does species jumps occur?
If mutations almost always, as in 99% of the time, result in a disadvantage for survival, how is it likely that mutations become dominate in the gene transfer?

Given that mutations almost never get passed on through heredity and they almost always result in a disadvantage, given Bayesian statistical analysis, evolution can not and does not occur.

But you guys just 'know' it is true anyway, don`t ya?

p_1 * p_1 != 0 if p_1 != 0 and p_2 != 0.

For someone who likes to snark about someone else's certainty you surely make bold claims.

 

[GoodGame]

I have two questions.
If mutations almost never, as in 99% of the time, are passed through lateral gene transfer, how often does species jumps occur?
If mutations almost always, as in 99% of the time, result in a disadvantage for survival, how is it likely that mutations become dominate in the gene transfer?

For one, you are talking about punctuated equilibrium, which is just one viewpoint on evolution.

Horizontal gene transfers are reported to occur much higher than 1% in prokaryotes, notably in oceanic/coastal environments. They are also reported in unicellular eukaryotes. But also the frequency of the event is probably less important the impact of the event (i.e. the fitness advantage gained from a lateral gene transfer).

I don't have a reference for a mathematical model comparing the fossil record of punctuated equilibrium to molecular biology mechanisms. That would be interesting to see.

On the rate of mutations, that is pretty constant, or at least pretty constant to specific species. It's dependent upon the molecular biology of DNA machinery, mostly the enzymes and nucleotides used, and there is some deviation in that between kingdoms of life at least. I don't have a reference that states that for species A, the fraction of neutral mutations is X, negative mutations is Y, positive mutations is Z. Some of that scoring would be relative to the environment as a mutation might be both positive and negative for instance (positive for one environment, negative for another).

But you guys just 'know' it is true anyway, don`t ya?

Just another appeal to authority, is it, perhaps similar to an appeal to ecclesiastical authority? Science is not perfect yet, otherwise there'd be no more questions. If there's a question that can't be answered by science, then more work is needed to answer it.

 

[Antilogic]

And that is the only answer you will get other than:"go read a biology textbook" or "the question does not require an answer" or "God did it" or "evolution happens anyway it wants to" or "evolution is both designed and not designed all at the same time" or "the fossil records are clear but we do not have any" or "what is the alternative, God did it?" etc. etc. etc.

No logical or scientific evidence and facts; just more posturing about how you do not know math or science.

I have two questions.
If mutations almost never, as in 99% of the time, are passed through lateral gene transfer, how often does species jumps occur?
If mutations almost always, as in 99% of the time, result in a disadvantage for survival, how is it likely that mutations become dominate in the gene transfer?

Given that mutations almost never get passed on through heredity and they almost always result in a disadvantage, given Bayesian statistical analysis, evolution can not and does not occur.

But you guys just 'know' it is true anyway, don`t ya?

Once again: if we have 99 nonviable organisms and 1 successful organism, the success is replicated into a new generation and the failures aren't. Some bacteria can divide every 30 minutes, and many bacteria are more likely to contain mutations because of poor error-checking on the duplication of DNA (it gets complicated, several different proteins and enzymes are involved in the process). If each one bacteria generates two new bacteria, and does so roughly once per half-hour for a couple billion years, how many trials does that add up to? The sheer size of these numbers must be appreciated, while the anti-evolution folks sweep it under the rug.

Furthermore, I asked a question a couple posts ago that got no attention from the anti-evolution folks: how many copies of a particular gene do you think you have? I ask this because most people assume you have one, and the moment it mutates you lose the ability to generate whatever protein that gene codes for. In fact, most organisms have several duplicates, say 50. If one mutates, you lose 2% of your maximum capacity to generate said protein (and because gene expression is often controlled by inhibitors or promoters which bind to the DNA to cause replication, it is possible the other 49 will simply be overexpressed to account for the drop). This gives leeway for mutations to occur and generate potentially valuable new proteins.

For modern examples of evolution, look at new species of bacteria that can digest TNT and polyester fabrics, neither of which existed before the 19th century. Look at the common fruit flies, where we have observed direct speciation since settling in the United States (one species only feeds on apples, one species feeds on hawthorns). Look at the flu, which mutates every year so they have to keep developing new flu vaccines to combat it. We are surrounded by solid evidence in favor of evolution. You just refuse to see it.

 

[Angst]

Question #1 was about abiogenesis, not evolution, so I skipped the questions.

I cannot emphasise enough how much I think this anti-science damages the reputation of Christanity as a (respectable) transmissible system of morality and understanding and spirituality.

I've never heard a pastor chide YECism, or belief that the Flood was real. Churches are supposed to (amongst other things) help spread the truth, which means not coddling this thinking, but helping remove its basis.

I feel sad about it.

All the Christians I know are reasonable, lovely people. They often recieve the worse treatment by aggressive atheists, which isn't cool.

 

[Arakhor]

For all those wanting links, get started with these. We'll be around to answer questions.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=2

 

[Ajidica]

You can also hit up the National Science Foundation. They have some interesting stuff on evolution and some primers.

 

[Takhisis]

For all those wanting links, get started with these. We'll be around to answer questions.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=2

Dammit, I forgot our NewScientist ID.

 

[civ2]

Arakhor
Ok, thanks.
One of the links leads to "pace of evolution" having an example of "dog into dolphin" or whatever.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_51
The example fits well with my question about BEHAVIOR!
What in the world would make a "dog" (meaning 100% LAND animal) to "want" to swim???
Not to mention, they're assuming VERY drastical changes in limbs.
And btw, the first "transition" looks like a crocodile, which is ALREADY quite fit for water while quite unfit for land movement.
So the thing must've transferred to water-based lifestyle by THAT time already!
This is VERY similar to a video someone brought here about "the eye of Dorkins".
What I mean is, "constructing" an animal, much like they did on Discovery in "The Future is Wild" and "Alien Planet".
Meaning, they just "play lego" with body parts and end up with fancy results.
My main complain about evolution is exactly that the nature does NOT work this way.
Everything is random (again, from evolution's point) - so why don't we have 6-legged frogs (the fish could've developed 6 legs as well, they had enough fins, so why ALL animals now have only 4???) or dragons (just kidding)?
Another question is:
Even if you put lungs into a fish - what would make it want to stay out of water, since it already can breathe there?
Unless it's intelligent (which it's not), there's way plenty food in the water, while not necessarily so outside of it.
Not to mention, MATING. Again.
You simply suppose that ALL such mutants were either "each with it's mate" or that it didn't stop them from finding one.
I highly disagree.
To be continued.

Again, when I say links, I mean "ready-for-reading-immediately", like mine about the dogphin, NOT some "it's a nice library, go search yourself".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's a nice library, go read yourself.

"Everything is random". Dear Zeus, give me strength. You will not be taught no matter how much you try to pretend to want to. You've been around for a while, if you still utter such incredible nonsense about a basic aspect of evolution you have not been paying attention the last 4.5 billion times it has been explained to you.

 

[bathsheba666]

Arakhor
Ok, thanks.
One of the links leads to "pace of evolution" having an example of "dog into dolphin" or whatever.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_51
The example fits well with my question about BEHAVIOR!
What in the world would make a "dog" (meaning 100% LAND animal) to "want" to swim???
Not to mention, they're assuming VERY drastical changes in limbs.
And btw, the first "transition" looks like a crocodile, which is ALREADY quite fit for water while quite unfit for land movement.
So the thing must've transferred to water-based lifestyle by THAT time already!
This is VERY similar to a video someone brought here about "the eye of Dorkins".
What I mean is, "constructing" an animal, much like they did on Discovery in "The Future is Wild" and "Alien Planet".
Meaning, they just "play lego" with body parts and end up with fancy results.
My main complain about evolution is exactly that the nature does NOT work this way.
Everything is random (again, from evolution's point) - so why don't we have 6-legged frogs (the fish could've developed 6 legs as well, they had enough fins, so why ALL animals now have only 4???) or dragons (just kidding)?
Another question is:
Even if you put lungs into a fish - what would make it want to stay out of water, since it already can breathe there?
Unless it's intelligent (which it's not), there's way plenty food in the water, while not necessarily so outside of it.
Not to mention, MATING. Again.
You simply suppose that ALL such mutants were either "each with it's mate" or that it didn't stop them from finding one.
I highly disagree.
To be continued.

Again, when I say links, I mean "ready-for-reading-immediately", like mine about the dogphin, NOT some "it's a nice library, go search yourself".

There's no shame if you're simply not ready for this. Don't worry about it.

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry, but if you're under the assumption that everything in the world can be explained by some bullet points and nice little pictures, you're wrong in that.

Sites like creation.com do that, but seeing how their points are only half-baked appeals to "common" sense or naive approaches that can be easily taken apart, it's no wonder the "other side" doesn't fall for the same trap.

 

[civ2]

In other words, THERE IS NO PROOF of evolution, right?

That's what I'm clearly complaining about - you're NOT providing any DIRECT answers, just general statements that give zero direct info.

HOMEWORK for you:
I'm demanding this time for a link to a DETAILED explanation of either:
1. The ENTIRE evolution of wings: scale-into-feather, run-into-fly, flying-muscles-development...
2. The ENTIRE evolution of lungs: gils-into-lungs, water-into-air, swimming-into-crowling-into-walking...
It must be a FULL answer that I can read in one piece, not "look for" in a huge library.
If you fail to provide such an answer (or end up dismissing it by calling ME "stupid etc."), it'll mean my FULL victory.
(AND your incompetence to say that I'm incompetent.)

Challenge begins NOW!

 

[bathsheba666]

In other words, THERE IS NO PROOF of evolution, right?

That's what I'm clearly complaining about - you're NOT providing any DIRECT answers, just general statements that give zero direct info.

HOMEWORK for you:
I'm demanding this time for a link to a DETAILED explanation of either:
1. The ENTIRE evolution of wings: scale-into-feather, run-into-fly, flying-muscles-development...
2. The ENTIRE evolution of lungs: gils-into-lungs, water-into-air, swimming-into-crowling-into-walking...
It must be a FULL answer that I can read in one piece, not "look for" in a huge library.
If you fail to provide such an answer (or end up dismissing it by calling ME "stupid etc."), it'll mean my FULL victory.
(AND your incompetence to say that I'm incompetent.)

Challenge begins NOW!

I am not sure why you would think we would call YOU "stupid etc", when we have successfully avoided doing it before.

You never know, perhaps Moshiach will bring you the correct link when he eventually turns up...... Enjoy the wait.

 

[Leoreth]

In other words, THERE IS NO PROOF of evolution, right?

That's what I'm clearly complaining about - you're NOT providing any DIRECT answers, just general statements that give zero direct info.

HOMEWORK for you:
I'm demanding this time for a link to a DETAILED explanation of either:
1. The ENTIRE evolution of wings: scale-into-feather, run-into-fly, flying-muscles-development...
2. The ENTIRE evolution of lungs: gils-into-lungs, water-into-air, swimming-into-crowling-into-walking...
It must be a FULL answer that I can read in one piece, not "look for" in a huge library.
If you fail to provide such an answer (or end up dismissing it by calling ME "stupid etc."), it'll mean my FULL victory.
(AND your incompetence to say that I'm incompetent.)

Challenge begins NOW!

That you're talking about this in terms of "victory" is telling. You do not dictate the conditions of this discussion (and neither do we, for that matter).

Many of your points have already been addressed both by explanations and links that provide sufficient information if you're willing to look for it. I for my part at least have better things to do than spoon-feed you openly available information that you're either too lazy or too close-minded to get yourself.

In the end, it's up to the impartial reader to decide. In my humble opinion, you don't make a good case here, since you're all demands and no substance.

 

[sanabas]

Everything is random (again, from evolution's point) -

No, it's not. Cumulative selection can only happen when the selection isn't random.

so why don't we have 6-legged frogs (the fish could've developed 6 legs as well, they had enough fins, so why ALL animals now have only 4???) or dragons (just kidding)?

Fish only have 2 pairs of fins, plus assorted single fins. I can't think of a single vertebrate species that isn't symmetrical (apart from some internal organs). Where would the extra legs come from? If evolution was just the random large mutations you portray it to be, then it might be plausible to have a dorsal fin develop into a 5th leg, and an anal fin develop into a 6th leg. But a big change can only happen as a series of very small changes. It doesn't matter how helpful a big change might be, it simply can't happen in one step, because evolution is not random. For two different systems to develop at exactly the same time into two halves of the same system, which is what you'd need to happen to get a 6 legged vertebrate, there isn't a plausible chain of small changes. If something can't happen as a series of small changes, it will not happen as species evolve. Search for info on the vagus nerve if you want a great example. A big change could make it much more efficient, but there's no way to make that big change in small increments.

Another question is:
Even if you put lungs into a fish - what would make it want to stay out of water, since it already can breathe there?
Unless it's intelligent (which it's not), there's way plenty food in the water, while not necessarily so outside of it.

What if there's not plenty of food in the water, because there's lots of competition? What if the water is a stagnant swamp & low in oxygen? What if it's a riverbed that dries out in the summer and becomes intermittent pools? Google lungfish, bichir, walking catfish for RL examples of these reasons.

Not to mention, MATING. Again.
You simply suppose that ALL such mutants were either "each with it's mate" or that it didn't stop them from finding one.
I highly disagree.
To be continued.

You assume that all such mutants were dramatically different, rather than having slightly redder feathers, or slightly better eyes, or slightly more lung capacity, or slightly different in various other ways.

If you can find one example of some feature, some system in a living animal that couldn't have developed in a series of small steps, then you've just proven evolution wrong. The popular choice for an example that can't have evolved is the eye. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008757 is a ready to read link of a paper showing that example is wrong.

 

[Leoreth]

Fish only have 2 pairs of fins, plus assorted single fins. I can't think of a single vertebrate species that isn't symmetrical (apart from some internal organs). Where would the extra legs come from? If evolution was just the random large mutations you portray it to be, then it might be plausible to have a dorsal fin develop into a 5th leg, and an anal fin develop into a 6th leg. But a big change can only happen as a series of very small changes. It doesn't matter how helpful a big change might be, it simply can't happen in one step, because evolution is not random. For two different systems to develop at exactly the same time into two halves of the same system, which is what you'd need to happen to get a 6 legged vertebrate, there isn't a plausible chain of small changes. If something can't happen as a series of small changes, it will not happen as species evolve. Search for info on the vagus nerve if you want a great example. A big change could make it much more efficient, but there's no way to make that big change in small increments.

Exactly. This is a case where the irreducible complexity argument actually holds ground, and that's precisely why there are no vertebrates with more than four limbs around.

You assume that all such mutants were dramatically different, rather than having slightly redder feathers, or slightly better eyes, or slightly more lung capacity, or slightly different in various other ways.

Sometimes I think people picture withered living corpses when they hear the word "mutant", or animals with random extra limbs or organs ...

 

[Arakhor]

So, Civ2, you want the complete answers to everything in one tidy place, otherwise you are completely vindicated and we're all utterly wrong? That's the intellectual equivalent of mentioning the Nazis in a political thread, just so you're aware.

 

[El_Machinae]

In other words, THERE IS NO PROOF of evolution, right?

That's what I'm clearly complaining about - you're NOT providing any DIRECT answers, just general statements that give zero direct info.

What level of education have you attained in biology? Answers need to be specified to your level of education, or else you won't understand.

Additionally, you've been given a lot of links so far. Which ones are you not understanding? Which ones do you understand?