Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

[Smidlee]

I read this post this morning and have been thnking about it; little did I realize this thread would add 80 posts before I got home from work!
I think we can lump folks into three basic groups: Young earth creationists (7 day creation 6000 years ago); Old earth creationists (limited evolution, ID, earth billions of years old); and evolutionists who don't believe that god created the universe.

Many TE christians would clearly point out they Believe God created the universe through evolution. I myself haven't quite figure this out but this is what they claim since the scripture says so little on creation.

As science continues to produce more and more evidence for evolution the bible literalists are in the toughest position. They can only rely on their faith to support their views. As we have seen here many times supporting the bible through bible quotes is more a statement of faith than reason.

Bible literalists is always been about faith since it involve resurrection, man walking on water, the spirit world is greater than the materiaist world,etc. Also even National Geographic admitted that bible literlists are not the majority opposing evolution since bible literlists has never got higher than 10% in any poll.

I think that the move to ID is an attempt to embrace "acceptable" science and get away from reliance on the faith only position of lliteralists. But because ID believers must end up in a position that supports ID, they must reject some fundamental thinking that science is built on. The previous 60 posts on probability are a testament to this idea. The science adopted by ID is necessarily twisted to fit the already determined goal of supporting ID. All other science must be rejected or ID must be rejected. I would expect the bickering over whose science is real to continue for many years. The advantage of the evolutionists is that they do not have a pre determined outcome, but will follow the twisty path of observation and measurement.

This seems to be a extreme view which many evolutionist tries to claim. Bible literalism is not on the rise while their influence on the culture was dropped. Gay marrige is a lot better threat than evolution itself to a bible literist. the reason why ID arise IMO is the exaggeration of the evolutionist claim their theory explains the origins of species. Evolution has become a science dogma that explains everything. ID goal isn't to teach creationism but the be more honest about which facts supports TOE and which is againest the theory. It's this dogma that is turning people away from science like biology (which has been shown to be on a decline). As far as science the study of genetics, biochemistry has nothing to do with origins of species. you don't have to know how it got here to study biology. It's been claimed biologist themselves doesn't do research on origins so why be dogmatic on a issue that has no affect on research itself? ( Of course I'm not referring to some of the mechanic of evolution like natural selection which isn't in doubt.)

In the long run science will not lose the arguments about the nature of the universe. Religions (including christianity) will reconfigure their beliefs (and theology) to fit.

I don't see how christianity will configure their beliefs because science has proven how a dead man can raise from the dead. YET even evolutionists has to believe something dead can come alive in the past as well no matter how bad the science is for it. I amazed how many like to criticize the book of Genesis without seeing the how bad the scienctific Genesis are. (this is why many evolutionist are scared on their own abiogenesis since this point to a possible supernatural event. If one supernatural event is recognize in science then there no way is proven exactly how many supernatural events happen in the past. Yet everyone knows if abiogenesis was successful evolutionist would definally used abiogenesis as evidence for their theory. ) As far as science losing the argument , science itself doesn't argue, it's men interpretion of science that what's the debate about.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nice post! I will return to it later today.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

What is the ``scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html

Pterosaurs are thought to be derived from a bipedal, cursorial (running) archosaur similar to Scleromochlus in the late Triassic period (about 225 million years ago)

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

we see how evolution has taken unique routes to comply with these constraints, resulting in different functional patterns. The evolution of flight is a classic example of macroevolution -- the fossil record shows that once powered flight is attained, flying lineages tend to evolve quickly and radiate into diverse niches. You might be surprised, but the evolution of flight is, for the most part, well documented with transitional forms. Let's investigate the origin and evolution of flight in our representative taxa: the Pterosauria (pterosaurs), Aves (birds), and Chiroptera (bats).

these scientists have too much faith in evolution and not enough evidence. It shouldn't be a theory, it can't pass the scietific method test.

 

[Yom]

It says it right here:

"But we really can't conceive of finding real evidence that will decide the plausibility of these hypotheses"

So according to the article YOM linked to there are no known plausible accounts of how wings could have evolved!

I don't have time for a debate today (or tomorrow), but you're twisting the meaning of the site. The method by which wings formed is not testifiable because it is based on speculation on something very specific. Evolution, on the other hand, is perfectly testifiable, as demonstrated by Mises. The ToE would predict a certain outcome, and scientists can test the theory by looking for what really happened and comparing it with the prediciton.

Testifiability has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is testifiable or the plausibility of the evolution of wings. On the contrary, the site offers multiple plausible scenarios by which wings could have evolved.

 

[classical_hero]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html



http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html






these scientists have too much faith in evolution and not enough evidence. It shouldn't be a theory, it can't pass the scietific method test.

So far there has not been a single shred of evidence that a creature can evole into another. All we have been shown is that change some genes will change that specific creature, but not making it evole into another species.

 

[wit>trope]

Again, when did I say that natural selection wouldn't favour wheels?

I thought that was what you were saying when you said that just because it is useful doesn't mean that natural selection would favour them.

Which is where you are going wrong. And why exactly are you interested in that???

Read the two links I provided.

I think you are not understanding my point about wheels and wings. Please try to listen.

I fully realize and have never been confused about the fact that just because a particular series of mutations happening is unlikely does not mean that it is unlikely that any series of mutations will happen.

What YOU are failing to realize is that NOT ALL series of mutations are equally likely to occur. It is also true that some classes of series of mutations are more likely to occur than others. Series of mutations producing wings or wheels OR ANY OTHER THING OF THAT NATURE fall under a class of series of mutations where it is astronomically unlikely that ANY MEMBER of that class will occur.

A THEORY must be TESTABLE.

There are many theories in mathematics which are NOT TESTABLE. In fact the bulk of mathematics is not testable and those areas where some kind of testing involving computer programs occurs is controversial and in the end they rely on more fundamental things which are not testable. So according to you mathematics is not a science! But wait! Physics you would acknowledge is a science right? Guess what? Physics is dependent on mathematics! Without math there is no physics. So that means that the knowledge we get through mathematics must be at least as certain as the knowledge we get through physics. If mathematics was less certain than physics than we'd have a contradiction since a discipline which depends on another discipline for its existence cannot be more certain than it. Now guess what? Other natural sciences depend on physics! So that means mathematics must be at least as certain as all the natural sciences. But according to you mathematics isn't a science! That must mean that in your world, science doesn't mean that something is more certain since in your world there are things which are not science like mathematics which are more certain than science.

Bottom line:
Do you or do you not admit that for a theory to be scientific it must be testable

I do not. Because for one thing I consider mathematics to be a science and the bulk of mathematics is not testable.

 

[Shaihulud]

The test of a theory is wether it is falsifiable using Karls Popper's definition. Let us put the Theory of Evolution under the test. One condition is that there is no mechanism to allow for inheritance of traits, fossil evidence shows no progression in different form, the trend of evolution in a species is totally random and can be seen in the fossil record. All this shows that TOE is a valid scientific theory. Falsifying a theory must still be logical, that is why Mathematics is not a scientific theory, 1+1 cannot be other than 2, otherwise it will not be logical. So in a way Mathematics is "purer" than Science.

Physics is dependent on mathematics! Without math there is no physics. So that means that the knowledge we get through mathematics must be at least as certain as the knowledge we get through physics.

A fallacy, because physics is derived from maths doesn't mean that they are equal. As I say Maths is not a theory it is a fact.

 

[wit>trope]

The test of a theory is wether it is falsifiable using Karls Popper's definition.

What is ironic is that Karl Popper's claim that a theory must be falsifiable is itself not falsifiable. So Karl Popper argues that science must be falsifiable on the basis of something that is itself not falsifiable. In doing so he is saying that there exists things which are at least as certain as science (which I would disagree with and that's why I think his claim is wrong)

that is why Mathematics is not a scientific

So are you saying that math is not a science? I just want to be clear about that so that I am accurate in my attributions. Whether you are saying it or not, I'd be interested in Mise's opinion.

So in a way Mathematics is "purer" than Science.

Ahh, so you are saying that math is not science

A fallacy, because physics is derived from maths doesn't mean that they are equal. As I say Maths is not a theory it is a fact.

Um I NEVER SAID that they were equal (I don't think men and women are equal so I'm not going to ever say that math and physics are equal!) I said that because physics has math as its foundation that math must be AT LEAST AS CERTAIN in its knowledge as physics. IN FACT, you AGREE with me there by saying that math is a "fact" which I'm taking to mean that math deals with facts that are absolutely certain where as "science" deals with things that are less certain -- that would mean that JUST AS I CLAIMED, math is AT LEAST AS certain as physics. Pease note that "AT LEAST AS certain" does NOT mean equally certain. It means EITHER equally certain OR more certain.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Absoluted cool article XIII!!!

As for the other debate, guess I'll find out when I die. Maybe I'll just become part of the 'force'.

 

[Mise]

I thought that was what you were saying when you said that just because it is useful doesn't mean that natural selection would favour them.

While that's true, that in no way means that natural selection wouldn't favour them (once again you have twisted my words... do you do it out of malice or ignorance?). As far as I know, wheels have never evolved, and hence there's no way of knowing what selective pressure would do.

What YOU are failing to realize is that NOT ALL series of mutations are equally likely to occur. It is also true that some classes of series of mutations are more likely to occur than others. Series of mutations producing wings or wheels OR ANY OTHER THING OF THAT NATURE fall under a class of series of mutations where it is astronomically unlikely that ANY MEMBER of that class will occur.

And I suppose you have proof for this? You say it as though it is fact, yet determining the probability of a mutation occuring is rather tricky. The best we can do is approximate, or make educated guesses (hypotheses). So to ask you a less rhetorical question: What makes you think that wings or wheels are less likely to evolve than other things?

Incidentally, Yom's link presented a few educated guesses. I suppose yours as to the opposite question addresses it more adequately?

There are many theories in mathematics which are NOT TESTABLE.

Maths is based on axioms, NOT theories. A theory is something that deals with the physical world that can be tested. Maths does NOT deal with the Physical world, and Physics uses maths as a TOOL to express the physical world on paper. Maths deals with axioms, which, in a mathematical context, are simply assumptions, e.g. 1+1=2.

Depending on how you define "science" maths can be a science or not. If you define science as purely empirical, and dealing only with the physical world, end purely employing scientific method, then maths is not a science. If you think that mathematical axioms are inherent properties of the universe, then maths is indeed a science to be discovered (a rigourous proof of a theorem being equivalent to scientific method). If you are indeed interested in my opinion on this issue, and are not merely being asinine, I think that whether or not maths is a science depends on the context, which is loosely based on the two alternative definitions of science I described above.

I'd like to add also that Science does NOT depend on maths in the empirical sense. For example, one could easily test the hypothesis: "In the northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west", which is a valid scientific hypothesis, without using any maths, just empirical evidence. This would be an example of where maths is not a science. Quantum Mechanics can equivalently be described and provide predictions without using maths (indeed, its postulates are not inherently mathematical, as one would expect from a physical theory, though the formalism is mathematical, as one would expect from Physics).

(Incidentally, Popper's definition of a theory is one I do not agree with - it does not encapsulate the true underlying meaning of a theory but rather it's mere appearance. It's an empirical definition rather than an axiomatic one )

EDIT: I don't wish to debate this any further in this thread. If you want to, you can start a new thread. But since you asked what my opinion was, I assume you don't wish to debate it.

 

[Shaihulud]

Popper's methodology for classifying theory is one which im satisfied with. It lets us study scientific theories and uses inconsistencies as a method for refuting it. Of course a theory is usually multifacetted and it may be hard to pin point the true error, but im not advanced enough to care about such a thing . I was trying to establish a method to determine "Scientifc theory", judging from the cultural thread, it is important to establish some common grounds or it will go nowhere.

math is AT LEAST AS certain as physics. Pease note that "AT LEAST AS certain" does NOT mean equally certain. It means EITHER equally certain OR more certain.

I meant the fallacy of composition, just because a theory is derived from Maths doesn't mean that the theory is sound, it may be operating on flawed logic. For example, String theory is the only scientific theory that I know that is entirely derived from mathematics. it is Mathematically sound, but this doesn't indicates that it is a true representative of the physical world.

 

[carlosMM]

An example, used many times, is of course the eye -- such a complex structure would be totally useless if only one single gene were missing...

today's human eye is not what it used to be.

Sounds funny as an explanation?

Well, it is

The fact that you miss is that earlier version had parts and properties (and the DNA for them) that were later reduced, being redundant or outperformed by newer parts. These MISSING parts are what made the previous, simpler version work!

So, TODAY an eye needs a lense and muscles to act on them, but earlier versions were greatly improved by a much simpler shaped lense, compared to NO lense at all.
And that there is no more solid cover over the eye, but lids (seemingly you need to develop that simultaneously), is explained by earlier eyes having a horny covering thta was harder. Sure, pic quality was not as good. but the eyes worked. now, IF a lid later develops, the horny cover can be reduced, and whops! image quality goes up!

What you lack is an understanding of how many steps, often in seemingly 'opposing' directons, a compley organs has gone through during time. What we see today has a long history of improvement under its belt, and thus may seem magical.

It is a process of many tiny steps, some of which give unexpected profits. Take feathers - a way of getting rid of an overdose of keratin - NO, a way of hiding by camouflage - NO, a wayof advertising by color, AND a way of staiyng warm by insulation, ADN actually a way of keeping the rain from wetting the skin, - NO a way of slowing a fall, - NO, a way of being able to run up inclines better - NO, a way of significantly lengthening jumps and slowing falls - NO a way to FLY!!!!!



See what happenes?

One thing changes a bit - and immediately influences many other things. And if it helps an animal survive, it will stick. And be used for other things, and changed some more, and then again influence other stuff, and again be changed, and so on.

 

[carlosMM]

Your argument is so flawed that it isn't even wrong!

The situation with the wing is not analagous to picking a decimal number at random.

how nice to see thatn you completely ignore my posts on this subject that show your basic assupmption is false.

 

[carlosMM]

Thanks that's all I needed to know

hey, he just proved you wrong by analogy - and you do not even see that?

 

[carlosMM]

Actually, the more I read here the more I am shocked by how little people know about the topics they make statements about.

classical_hero and cierdan, please define in a concise post here the following:

Species
trait
gene
mutation


Once you have done so I will happily show you why your claim that there is no evidence for 'one species evolving into another' is so utterly wrong and also shows how you do not understand evolution.

 

[The Fjonis]

So, TODAY an eye needs a lense and muscles to act on them, but earlier versions were greatly improved by a much simpler shaped lense, compared to NO lense at all.
(...)
What you lack is an understanding of how many steps, often in seemingly 'opposing' directons, a compley organs has gone through during time. What we see today has a long history of improvement under its belt, and thus may seem magical.

I did some browsing, and found this article explaining how eyes can have evolved, supporting what you are saying:

(...) Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Source

So it seems like even complicated organs such as the eye can indeed have evolved through a series of small mutations, like you say. Many evolution sceptics claim that "5% of an eye is no good", but in light of this, it seems that this is wrong, as even the earliest form of an eye gave the animal an advantage over their competitors, and then a series of further advantageous mutations finally brought us where we are today -- the human eye.

At least this explanation suffices for me.

 

[wit>trope]

Maths is based on axioms, NOT theories.

Hmm interesting. Then perhaps you could tell me why they have lots and lots of things in math called THEORIES Like set THEORY and number THEORY

A theory is something that deals with the physical world that can be tested. Maths does NOT deal with the Physical world, and Physics uses maths as a TOOL to express the physical world on paper. Maths deals with axioms, which, in a mathematical context, are simply assumptions, e.g. 1+1=2.

I guess mathematicians disagree with you since they talk about set THEORY and number THEORY, etc.

I'd like to add also that Science does NOT depend on maths in the empirical sense. For example, one could easily test the hypothesis: "In the northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west", which is a valid scientific hypothesis, without using any maths, just empirical evidence.

Interesting point. I'll have to think about that one. It still remains true though that all the natural sciences in existent today depend on maths. So maybe caveman natural science didn't but the ones we have today do. But as I said, good point.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The reason why ID arise IMO is the exaggeration of the evolutionist claim their theory explains the origins of species. Evolution has become a science dogma that explains everything. ID goal isn't to teach creationism but the be more honest about which facts supports TOE and which is againest the theory. It's this dogma that is turning people away from science like biology (which has been shown to be on a decline). As far as science the study of genetics, biochemistry has nothing to do with origins of species. you don't have to know how it got here to study biology. It's been claimed biologist themselves doesn't do research on origins so why be dogmatic on a issue that has no affect on research itself? ( Of course I'm not referring to some of the mechanic of evolution like natural selection which isn't in doubt.)

Unsupported dogma. well most of us are opposed to it whether it comes from science or from religion. Acceptance of evolution can have significant effects on christian principals.
1. Biblical Adam and Eve become mitrocohondrial Eve of 150,000 years ago and Mr Y chromosone of 60,000 years ago.
2. The bible while important, cannot be the literal word of god
3. A new framework for interpreting it needs to be devised/accepted
4. The purpose of Creation gets fuzzy
5. The purpose and value of life is altered
6. The dividing line between humans and animals blurs
You may not agree with it, but to date, no theory other than TOE has done as good a job of explaining the variety of life, past and present. Is it perfect, no, but all science is evolving. More science, not less is the only way for truth to be expanded. The nay sayers, like those who post here, have a different goal: validation of their faith. When they say "You cannot show me a proto feather from 250 million years ago, so therefore flight didn't evolve." It is like searching for sentence fragments in an essay and then using grammar to discount the entire essay. They are merely saying "Your science is wrong." without offering any alternative science that provides a better answer.

I don't believe that Cierdan, classical Hero etc. have offered any other explanations for the huge variation of life over the past billion or so years. They just spew ridiculous arguments trying to undermine the scientific method. Again their agenda is not truth, but truth that matches what they want it to be. I would love to hear how god created flight in four separate groups of critters, at four different times (pterasaurs, birds, bats, insects) millions of years apart. They seem pretty sure TOE is wrong, but fail to offer up what is right.

I don't see how christianity will configure their beliefs because science has proven how a dead man can raise from the dead. YET even evolutionists has to believe something dead can come alive in the past as well no matter how bad the science is for it.

Christian belief has spent 2000 years changing and adapting to new discoveries. The discovery of the new world forced christians to figure out where the Indians came from. they weren't mentioned in the bible. That single fact help the mormons grow as a religion. The book of mormon explains the origin of Indians. It took christians 350 years to agree on what the nature trinity is. Christianity has splintered into hundrreds of sects because people haven't agreed on how to keep the faith current and useful. The fact that many christians believe in an old earth is a major change in christian belief that has taken place in the last 200 years.

If one supernatural event is recognize in science then there no way is proven exactly how many supernatural events happen in the past. Yet everyone knows if abiogenesis was successful evolutionist would definally used abiogenesis as evidence for their theory. ) As far as science losing the argument , science itself doesn't argue, it's men interpretion of science that what's the debate about.

Some people believe that supernatural events happen every day. Scientifically minded people don't believe they can happen, so they don't see them as supernatural. A single documented event like raising a dead person or levitating a building, or walking on water would certainly change our view of the world. Biblical history tells us they happened all the time in the past. Why not now? Have the laws of the universe changed? Has god changed his ways? Or did they never actually happen in the past?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It still remains true though that all the natural sciences in existent today depend on maths. So maybe caveman natural science didn't but the ones we have today do. But as I said, good point.

So how does the identification of different plant species and the placement of them into an overall taxonomy (?) requre mathematics? Do I need to list others?

 

[Mise]

(EDIT: Damn I said I wouldn't debate this stuff! Ahh well, I guess if you ask me about Physics, I can't help but answer...)

Hmm interesting. Then perhaps you could tell me why they have lots and lots of things in math called THEORIES Like set THEORY and number THEORY
(...)
I guess mathematicians disagree with you since they talk about set THEORY and number THEORY, etc.

Set theory and number theory aren't theories in the scientific sense; in fact, they deal with the very axioms of maths that I am talking about. (IIRC set theory and number theory are attempts to formalise the mathematical axioms, i.e. 1+1=2 etc.)

Interesting point. I'll have to think about that one. It still remains true though that all the natural sciences in existent today depend on maths. So maybe caveman natural science didn't but the ones we have today do. But as I said, good point.

Well like I said, the postulates of Quantum Mechanics can be described (albeit in a much more complicated and rather useless manner) without reference to ANY maths (e.g. "a particle's position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously to an arbitrary position" is an alternative way of saying that the QM operators for position and momentum are complementary, which describes more axiomatically the uncertainty principle: "uncertainty in x * uncertainty in p = h-bar/2"), so science without maths is not limited to mere caveman/empirical science. Remember that any postulate in Physics can be described in words without maths, even the most complicated, because they are ultimately based on the physical world. As Shaihulud (sp?) said, the only ones that are purely mathematical are the ones dealing with things outside the physical world. This is indeed the nature of maths -- taking an axiom (e.g. QM and General Relativity) and proving theorems from those axioms (e.g. string theory).

Although I accept that modern science uses maths, I cannot accept that modern science requires maths in order to make accurate statements about the physical world.