Evolution: plausible or proven?

[Little Kid]

Firstly I would like to point out that I am NOT yet another creationist trying to bash evolution just for the sake of making it easier for me to accept my faith by thwarting alternate "solutions", quite the opposite.

 

I am consistenly awestruck when I find out the multitude of ingenious ways in which organisms make the most complicated of problems at a cellular level seem trivial. With none is this more the case than the wonderful notion of "evolution", which not only is extremely elegant in its own design but allows everything to fall into place.

 

As a result I can get agitated quite easily when people dismiss the notion of natural selection and evolution without even considering it and admiring the extent to which is allows us to make some sense of a microscopic world of which we, in the end know relatively little about. However, it is also my opinion that the scientific community is very much lopsided in its opinion regarding a hypothesis that has not been proven as a fact at a fundamental level (to my knowledge anyway). And as much I endorse the ideas behind evolution, I can get easily irritated when people simply look down on others when they do not believe in evolution (Yes, I know I am a difficult person :)).

 

As I understand it, evolution has been "proven" as a fact regarding genetic change in organisms through generation, but it has NOT been "proven" with respect to the reasons as to why genetic change arises. I'll try and convey my thoughts on this and why I myself can't accept it as "fact".

 

The general reasons as to why variation arises seem to be the following:

- Combination of parental genomes

- Recombination

- Random mutation in germ line cells

 

Combination of parental genomes: This is not as much as a source of genetic variation as it is a way to randomly distribute the existing gene pool. I believe it can most certainly act as a means to propagate the "natural selection" of favourable traits, but I think that is a far cry from generating an eye from one generation to the next. And no, it does not make sense to start with part of an eye and then gain more and more bits of it through subsequent generation because accumulating "partial eyes" would challenge the very theory of natural selection that supposedly drives it.

 

Recombination: Shuffling DNA sequences may result in wonderful new DNA sequences, identical ones, different ones with same function or damaging ones. However, the truth remains that the chances of favourable change are extremely remote and the chances of damaging ones are orders of magnitude higher.

 

Perhaps a more intruiging point is that even though most organisms reproduce sexually and employ the above mechanisms, it seems to be an inferior form of reproduction when compared to parthenogenesis. Perhaps these processes do not have the exact functions that we thought them to possess. Recombination for instance has been considered a way for sexual organisms to bypass problems associated with Muller's ratchet. Parental recombination clearly functions much better to transfer naturally selectable traits than to actually form them.

 

Random mutations in germ cell lines: Notwithstanding the exhilarating notion of standing and admiring everything around me and being able to attribute it to randomness, it seems a little farfetched. It basically boils down to getting randomly mutated DNA becoming so incredibly beneficial that it will get selected over other mutations. Realistically I don't think this is very likely. Firstly the mutations in coding DNA are so rare and secondly, for every beneficial mutation, dozens of harmful ones will occur. The gene pool would be cluttered with damaging mutations and could not be selected against because then they would be selecting against the beneficial mutations too.

 

 

The biochemical world is full of anomalies that random mutation can not account for: gastrulation, endosymbiotic theory or even flagella suddenly appearing on bacteria at some point in history can not be explained by a couple of "lucky mutations". It seems to me, that the scientific community is overzealous to embrace an idea because it explains so much of what we see, feel, touch, hear and smell around us.

 

You might be thinking that I am just somebody who likes to criticise others without giving any alternatives myself. Well, I do have one, I think that genetic variation arises through regulated mutation, something along the lines of intragenerational selective gametogenesis. Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you think about this.

[jdonn]

It's about time we had a thread about evolution!

[Little Kid]

Somehow my sarcasm detector seems to have gone off.

 

EDIT: I got link to the other thread O.o

[hrothgar]

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you think about this.

I think that it would have been a much better use of your time googling the words

 

bacteria

flagellum

evolution

 

and reading the litany of materials on these topics rather than generating a long ignorant post...

[mtvesuvius]

<snip>

 

It seems to me, that the scientific community is overzealous to embrace an idea because it explains so much of what we see, feel, touch, hear and smell around us.

 

<snip>

Isn't that the entire basis of religion and creationism? IMO religion was created to explain the things we saw or didn't understand. (See mikeh's and jdonn's posts in the other thread which btw are exactly my opinion also...). Googling this might also help, although there are some heavily biased blogs/webpages to stear clear of...

[mikeh]

I'm not going to add another repetitive post to the already too long and numerous posts I made on the other recent thread, but, as with jtfan as one example, your arguments seem to be based on a remarkable degree of ignorance. It is as if you have read some snippets about evolution and natural selection, and some of the jargon, but you have either not read a coherent explanation or you have forgotten much of what you have read. If you want to engage in a meaningful debate, and want others to think that your opinions have a legitimate foundation... do your homework first. As an example, the stuff about the eye or the flagella is blatant creationism based in turn upon wilful ignorance.

 

Read The Blind Watchmaker, or Climbing Mount Improbable. Even if you are a bigot who discounts the opinions of a scientist because the scientist is also an atheist, as is Dawkins, I would hope that you would recognize that his evolutionary views are not unique to him, but are built upon and respected/accepted by a myriad of workers in the field

[Fluffy]

It's about time we had a thread about evolution!

That's exactly what I though as well :D

[Fluffy]

Even if you are a bigot who discounts the opinions of a scientist because the scientist is also an atheist, as is Dawkins

Yeah don't read Dawkins, he is the atheists prophet lol.

[mtvesuvius]

Even if you are a bigot who discounts the opinions of a scientist because the scientist is also an atheist, as is Dawkins

Yeah don't read Dawkins, he is the atheists prophet lol.

Dawkins is excellent, I have read a few of his books... They are certainly recommeneded for anyone who hasn't read them :D.

[Fluffy]

ahh we got a believer, or are you an atheist fanatic?, are you gonna bomb churchs? :D

[mtvesuvius]

ahh we got a believer, or are you an atheist fanatic?, are you gonna bomb churchs? :D

I wouldn't call myself a fanatic, but I'm an athiest in case you couldn't tell... :)

[Winstonm]

It basically boils down to getting randomly mutated DNA becoming so incredibly beneficial that it will get selected over other mutations.

 

Natural selection means that the process occurs wthout need for choice - it is a natural occurence.

[awm]

For anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, it may be worth asking the following: what sort of evidence would convince you that evolution is true?

 

Let's assume that we can't travel back in time, and suppose that we can't assume some sort of divine intervention. Is there any sort of scientific evidence that will convince these folks that the biblical story of genesis is not true and that evolution is?

 

I suspect that there is no such possibility of evidence, and would say that this is what separates science from religion. It's also worth noting that the scientific case for evolution is now extremely solid (having been helped a lot by our greatly improving understanding of genetics).

[PassedOut]

I suspect that there is no such possibility of evidence, and would say that this is what separates science from religion. It's also worth noting that the scientific case for evolution is now extremely solid (having been helped a lot by our greatly improving understanding of genetics).

The argument against evolution is this:

 

1. My religion is incompatible with evolution.

2. My religion is correct.

3. Therefore, evolution is false.

 

All of the sophistry used against evolution aims to obscure the real argument. For those firmly dependent on such religious beliefs, no amount of evidence for evolution will suffice. Otherwise the existence of ring species would prove very convincing, to say nothing of all the other mountains of evidence for evolution.

 

If anti-evolutionists had the courage of their convictions, they would state their real argument up front and save everyone else a lot of trouble. They would also preserve some self-respect.

[jdonn]

The argument against evolution is this:

 

1. My religion is incompatible with evolution.

2. My religion is correct.

3. Therefore, evolution is false.

 

All of the sophistry used against evolution aims to obscure the real argument. For those firmly dependent on such religious beliefs, no amount of evidence for evolution will suffice. Otherwise the existence of ring species would prove very convincing, to say nothing of all the other mountains of evidence for evolution.

 

If anti-evolutionists had the courage of their convictions, they would state their real argument up front and save everyone else a lot of trouble. They would also preserve some self-respect.

Well put.

[JLOL]

I know pretty much nothing about science and am an atheist to say the least,

 

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

[Little Kid]

Sure, there are theories to account for flagellal and eye evolution, but if it is all as clearcut as you claim it to be, why do I find articles like this from December in less than 5 mins on Pubmed?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908172...Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908104...Pubmed_RVDocSum

[P_Marlowe]

I know pretty much nothing about science and am an atheist to say the least,

 

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Hi,

 

I would not call it a hole, but scientific methods get adjusted over

time, because by using the method one learns to know the limitations

of a given method, an example follows below (1).

 

Another thing is, that there are still missing links, and the gap is

quite often bid with egards to the time, a gap of 1 mio years would

not be unheard of, an example followes (2).

 

I hope you got the idea: If you are looking for holes, you will find some,

and basically you have to decide for your own, if those holes are relevant

or not.

Basically you will never be able to prove a theory like evolution, but actually

this does not matter, as long as a theory gives useful answers for our /

your current life, it makes sense to assume that the theory is true (3).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

(1) There is a lot of controversy around the topic, how to determine

the age of a given object.

A very popular method is the so called C14 method, which measure

the amount of C14 isotops.

The method assume, that a living being has a certain concentration

of C14 isotops, and the concentration goes down at the moment the

living dies.

 

The assumption was, that the concentration of the C14 isotops is

constant, it groven, that this assumption proven wrong.

 

(2) It is assumed that all living humans share one ancestor species, but

there is also a strong evidence, that several starting species did exists,

and it is unclear, what happend to the other species, when did they die

out, see for example the "hoppits" from the isaland flores (indonesia),

there is an discussion, if this is a different branch of the human species

or not..

 

(3) For a time, the Catholic church did not like the copernican world view,

which said, that the sun is in the centre (which is wrong, although only slightly),

but the catholic ship captains used the maps and methods based on the

despised theory anyway, because they came home faster and securer, and

the catholic church did approve the usage.

[Little Kid]

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

[hrothgar]

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

The easiest way to show how random chance can lead to complexity is to look at the application of genetic algorithms for product design.

 

The following is a classic reference on the topic.

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/sundar/PAPER...uctDesignMS.pdf

[helene_t]

Random mutations in germ cell lines: Notwithstanding the exhilarating notion of standing and admiring everything around me and being able to attribute it to randomness, it seems a little farfetched. It basically boils down to getting randomly mutated DNA becoming so incredibly beneficial that it will get selected over other mutations. Realistically I don't think this is very likely. Firstly the mutations in coding DNA are so rare and secondly, for every beneficial mutation, dozens of harmful ones will occur. The gene pool would be cluttered with damaging mutations and could not be selected against because then they would be selecting against the beneficial mutations too.

Yeah I can imagine it sounds contra-intuitive but this is basically how it works. You can verify for yourself by looking at the history of selectively bred plants, and animals and microorganisms.

 

It is true that each of nature's "experiments" is very unlikely to improve DNA and even if it does it is not particularly likely to be selected as all kind of accidents may work against it. However, the number of experiments is so incredibly large that it works nonetheless.

 

The above may sound like a blanket statement but there is enormous amounts of evidence in favor of it.

 

The fact is, evolution by natural selection is an established scientific theory. It is no more controversial than the idea that the Earth is round and that a water molecule is made of hydrogen and oxygen. For some reason, loud-voiced religious fanatics keep disputing evolution while they somehow don't feel compelled to argue that the Earth is flat or that the Moon is made of green cheese. They might as well have done the latter though, it would make exactly as much sense.

[helene_t]

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Well it is "just" a theory, like gravity and the atomic theory are "just" theories. But the word "just" is misplaced.

[hotShot]

I know pretty much nothing about science and am an atheist to say the least,

 

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Newtons physics was a great discovery and very useful and worked almost perfectly for most problems on earth that were big enough to handle.

When people started to think it was an indisputable fact, scientists found that submicroscopic particles of mater behaved like energy and that energy can behave like matter. Something that shook the physics foundations. There were also problems in the astronomic scale with Newtons physics.

Einstein could prove that Newtons physics is just a special case of a bigger theory, that is true for "small masses" next to a big mass (Earth) that is moving slowly compared the the speed of light.

 

Today scientist are more careful with their wording, almost everything is "just" a theory, because from our limited view on this universe, they don't know, if that what they found up to now, is not only part of something bigger they can't see or understand right now.

[P_Marlowe]

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

Hi,

 

Another example, which you can even watch in real life:

 

Think about a fireplace in a room with an open window.

 

If you watch the smoke particle, there is no real sytem in

his movement (Brown movement (?!)), the truth is, the

movement is truly random. (*)

But in the end, the smoke goes from the fireplace out of

of the window into the blue sky.

 

(*) Disclaimer - I am not 100% sure, the movement is an

example for Browns movement, but Brown movement exists

and is random.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

Sure, there are theories to account for flagellal and eye evolution, but if it is all as clearcut as you claim it to be, why do I find articles like this from December in less than 5 mins on Pubmed?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908172...Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908104...Pubmed_RVDocSum

I followed the links, and you and I obviously share different reading skills.

 

The papers, as best as I could discern, support the validity of evolutionary theory... but you have to understand that the theory is not like the gospel or the Koran. It is a statement about a basic idea, and that idea has, it seems, been reflected in a journey of several billion years, now presenting in an amazingly complex variety of life. It is only recently that scientists gained the ability to decode the genetic structure of an organism, and only recently that enough genetic information has become available to enable cross-referencing at that level.

 

Previously, relationships causes, effects and so on had to be deduced from a much grosser level of observation. Small wonder then that this new ability to study genetic linkages is casting new light on how our various species, and genuses etc are inter-related. The discovery of new details, some of which will inevitably contradict specific ideas previously held based on cruder knowledge, does not undermine the basic theory.. it brings it ever more to life... it enhances our understanding of the precise steps that have occured along the amazingly long, and intricate journey from the ealiest replicators to now.

 

Science is about looking for new information. Some of it will serve to refine the details of an existing theory... some of it will, on ocasion, serve to reveal that the existing theory is wrong...you have come across the former, not the latter!

 

BTW, if you doubt me, read any of a number of the excellent books on string theory that start by describing how science moved from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity and quantum mechanics, and is now exploring string theory or M-theory. I suggest a book I am just finishing: The Elegant Universe.

 

Now, if, as I suspect, you are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to hold onto to your disbelief, then this won't persuade you... but, then again, nothing will unless the leader of whatever superstition you hold true 'reveals' that evolution is supported by your god... probably coupled with a convenient claim that your god set it all in motion when he decided to have a universe to play with.