Evolution: plausible or proven?

[mikeh]

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?

Look harder.. try the science department of a large (non-theologically dominated) bookstore... there are quite a few good books.. but you do have to read them ;) Several of us have suggested names and authors... but if you are convinced by the fluffys of the world that books written about ideas that make you uncomfortable should be avoided, then you will enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

[helene_t]

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

Those articles deal with unresolved problems in evolutionary biology.

 

There are lots of such unresolved problems in evolutionary biology, just like there are in all (AFAIK) sciences. There will always be - scientists take up new problems faster than existing problems are solved, otherwise we would be unemployed!

[hotShot]

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?

Please think of a one cellular being, that reproduces once a day. (Note that this is a very low reproduction rate!)

On day one you have a population of 1, at day 2 the population is 2 at day 3 the population is 4. At the n-th day the population is 2^(n-1).

 

After a billion years (1.000.000.000 years) the population is 2^( 365.000.000.000 -1) this is about 10^(109.500.000.000)

 

If you know your math you will realize that if useful mutations only happen with a probability of 10^(-12) once in 1000 billion cases this will happen 10^(109.499.999.988) times. I think that is an astronomic number of times.

[jdonn]

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

Those articles deal with unresolved problems in evolutionary biology.

 

There are lots of such unresolved problems in evolutionary biology, just like there are in all (AFAIK) sciences. There will always be - scientists take up new problems faster than existing problems are solved, otherwise we would be unemployed!

They should take up problems at the exact rate of which they are solved. It will keep competition away. :P

[Codo]

In my next life, I hope I can have such an easy understanding of the world as Mikeh: The world has two sides:

 

One side is with knowledge, bright ideas, openminded, high ethics, truth, evidence and science.

The other are the theists.

 

To me this sound like George W Bush: Each country must decide, whether they with us or against us.

 

No grey areas left... You can believe that the world is like this. Why not. It is easy.

 

So I guess you will never read books that make you uncomfortable, because these should be avoided, so that you can enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

 

If you find this insulting Mike, I find it insulting that you call anybody, be it Little Kid, Heavy Dluxe or me as ignorant, desperate, not informed etc who do not share your point of view. You have no clue what these people know and what they have read. That "we" do not share your point of view is enough to talk bad about us. Sorry, this is what fundementalists do. And it is insulting.

 

I really like your deep insight in bridge and thousands other aspects of live. I respect your thoughts in many areas.

But for discussions about science and religions, I lost this respect.

[shintaro]

;)

 

One inescapable fact appears to be that Evolution exists;

 

Can the same be said for Religions being correct in what they espouse as being correct

 

:P

[shintaro]

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.

;)

 

helen_t

 

Gravity is just a theory;

 

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

 

:P

[P_Marlowe]

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.

;)

 

helen_t

 

Gravity is just a theory;

 

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

 

:P

Nobody knowes.

 

One of the biggest open questions in science is to

answer, how gravity works.

There exists a theory claiming that there exist

gravity waves, but until now, nobody could prove

that those waves really exist.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

And there are areas where the theory of gravity does not work.

Surprisingly.

This is why they developed the string theory. This could be the missing link between the gravity and the quantum field theory.

 

But still, we have no easy solution, maybe the force behind all this is even more complicated then these theories.

[jdonn]

I think this shows a lot of people don't know what the word "theory" means in the context of science.

 

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.

There is no implication that a theory is unproven or untested. In that case you would mean 'hypothesis' instead.

[helene_t]

I think that genetic variation arises through regulated mutation, something along the lines of intragenerational selective gametogenesis

 

When we say that mutations are "random" we do not necessarily mean that they are essentially unpredictable and that there is no pattern in them. Maybe some future scientists will be able to (to some extent) say which kind of mutations are more likely under what circumstances. Maybe such discoveries will advance evolutionary theory.

 

Plant breeders induce mutations on purpose. Traditionally by exposing germs to radiation or other mutagens. More recently by creating specific mutations (genetic modification) or by selecting directly on genotypes rather than on phenotypes.

 

Do similar things happen in nature? Once ever so often, indications come up in the scientific literature that it might sometimes be the case. A number of techniques which parents can use to steer their offspring's genomes in desired directions are reasonably well established:

- Ant queens will mate with multiple drones, thereby reducing the relatedness between daughters and in turn driving the daughters towards favoring the queen's offspring over their sisters' offspring.

- An alternative explanation of female promiscuity is that by having children with different genomes, parasites will have more difficulty spreading from one child to another.

- Incest aversion.

- Mate choice in general.

- Some fungi will switch from asexual to sexual reproduction when stressed, presumably in order to reshuffle genes when fast adaption to a changed environment is needed, or to weed out damaged genes faster. The same was observed in earthworms at Chernobyl.

- Human cells have shorter telomeres than their parents - a defense against cancer.

- There is some (controversial, I think) evidence of low-status primate females having more daughters and high-status females having more sons. If this is true it could be because "status" genes are more important in males than in females.

 

I am sure we will see the list grow in the future as new evidence accumulates.

[Fluffy]

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

 

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

[jdonn]

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

 

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

When he said "notice", if he meant "see" then he is completely correct (if the sun suddenly vanished, we wouldn't see it vanish for 8 minutes I believe.) If he meant "feel" in the sense of gravity, then I honestly have no idea although I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn there is a similar delay.

[mikeh]

In my next life, I hope I can have such an easy understanding of the world as Mikeh: The world has two sides:

 

One side is with knowledge, bright ideas, openminded, high ethics, truth, evidence and science.

The other are the theists.

 

To me this sound like George W Bush: Each country must decide, whether they with us or against us.

 

No grey areas left... You can believe that the world is like this. Why not. It is easy.

 

So I guess you will never read books that make you uncomfortable, because these should be avoided, so that you can enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

 

If you find this insulting Mike, I find it insulting that you call anybody, be it Little Kid, Heavy Dluxe or me as ignorant,  desperate, not informed etc who do not share your point of view.  You have no clue what these people know and what they have read. That "we" do not share your point of view is enough to talk bad about us. Sorry, this is what fundementalists do. And it is insulting.

 

I really like your deep insight in bridge and thousands other aspects of live. I respect your thoughts in many areas.

But for discussions about science and religions, I lost this respect.

Hey, I don't find it to be the least bit insulting! Funny, yes. Sad, in a way, also yes.. but insulting... no

 

I have often acknowledged that I use strong language in my posts. I also acknowledge that the topics under discussion (religion as superstition and myth) are far more complex than can be summarized in this type of forum.

 

I also acknowledge that there are many, many people of faith who live exemplary lives, and who derive real comfort from their faith.

 

And I welcome any one who can point to verifiable fact-based arguments that counter ideas that I hold. My own ideas, on a wide range of subjects, have changed a number of times over my life so far, and I would be surprised if they did not change again. Heck, I used to play mini-roman!

 

Thus, after reading Pinker, I feel I have a better understanding, of the workings of the mind, than I did beforehand. After reading Dawkins and Gould, who both accepted the validity of darwinian evolution but who had major disagreements about the particulars of how that concept played out, I felt that I had a better, and different understanding of this theory. After reading Diamond, I felt that I had gained more insight into the development of the human species... and after reading Leakey, and several others, I had a better grasp of the research into the ancstors from whom homo sapiens is descended.

 

After reading A People's Tragedy, I had a different understanding of the Russian Revolution than I had from books written by historians lacking access to the Communist Party archives.

 

I grew up in a Christian environment, reading the Bible and studying the Old testament as well as the new. I have read parts of the Koran.. it simply didn't keep me interested enough to finish it. I have read some Buddhist material, since a couple of friends are buddhists. I have read some Marx. I have read quite a bit about the history of the Reformation.

 

I read on physics, math (well, I read a book on chaos theory, I don't pretend to be a mathematician), psychology, history of science, evolution, history, anthropology, physiology, religion, bridge, golf, cooking, gardening, wine, and a few other topics that escape me as I sit here ;) I am fortunate to have a very high reading speed, as I suspect a number of other posters have. I wish my typing was even a tenth of that speed :P

 

I try to understand the arguments put out by the authors, where arguments are made.

 

I try to keep an open mind, while accepting that one owes oneself a duty to form opinions based on what one understands... having an open mind does not mean having no opinion.. it merely means being open to changing that opinion if the understanding of facts warrants such a change.

 

If you, who can judge me only by my writings, thinks that I am a closed-minded fanatic... well.. either I am, or I have inadvertently misled you by my writings, or maybe you mistake your image in the mirror for me :)

 

If the former, then I suspect I am a lost cause.. because I truly feel as if I am not. If the middle, then I apologize. If the latter, then I feel sorry for you. but I am not insulted :)

[mikeh]

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

 

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

Your teacher sounds like an informed person...there is compelling reason to think that if the sun somehow vanished, we would feel the loss of its gravitational attraction at precisely the moment we lost its light because.. ta-da... gravity travels at the speed of light. Better minds than yours or mine have come to this conclusion after decades of close math and physics.

[Al_U_Card]

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement. Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

 

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

[PassedOut]

Heck, I used to play mini-roman!

I have a partner who loves mini-Roman and (because he is a good friend of many years) I play it with him. Whenever he opens 2♦, I hold a 5=3=2=3 10-count. :huh:

[gwnn]

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement. Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

 

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&safe=off...ot;&btnG=Search

:huh:

[vuroth]

The OP throws out the word "improbable" fairly often, without really, I think, thinking through or understanding the implications of the word.

 

Look at the recent, famous, E Coli experiment. The 2 necessary mutations were incredibly unlikely, but once the second occurred, the new THING dominated the environment in a very short amount of time.

 

V

[Little Kid]

First of all I'd like to thank Hrothgar for the link as it is probably what I am looking for. I must confess however that my mathematical analysis skills are not so advanced and that I can't quite intuitively make sense of the article.

 

That being said I think I need to clarify a few points because I think people are getting the wrong idea of me... As I stated before I am not a creationist, nor any other form of theist for that matter, I'm an atheist. The sole purpose of this thread was for me to be able to make sense of the basis of genetic change in organisms. If I was just trying to hate on evolution without trying to learn anything I would not have started this topic and would most certainly not be studying as a 2nd year Molecular Biologist.

 

I never claimed evolution to be a hoax and all the evidence just to be coincidental. I accept that genetic variation arises and that it is naturally selected for by the environment. The question I asked was HOW it arises. Many of the mechanisms that mentioned be create this genetic variation seem (to me anyway) to be more of a means to distribute it than form it. I might just be interpreting everything wrongly, but I'll have a look at this Dawkins fellow that was mentioned and hopefully it will clear things up.

[Al_U_Card]

Unless our particles and those of the sun were afflicted by quantum entanglement.  Then we would have 8 minutes of lighted hysteria.....unless the light photons were also entangled....then immediate darkness....sounds spooky...

 

Brane theory, quantum triangulated space, tetrahedral materiality... we live in interesting times.

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&safe=off...ot;&btnG=Search

:rolleyes:

Try to have your great-grandfather imagine i-phones. Magic? Flight of fancy? Just what we have yet to uncover and explore is all.

So many things to know, so little time....good thing that it all comes from the void....makes it easy to carry within :)

[DrTodd13]

Everybody is coming at this question with a pre-established worldview. Some hold to the materialist view and so they are forced to believe in whatever the most likely materialist explanation is even if that explanation was in absolute terms highly unlikely. At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance. Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. Physicists have struggled with this problem and have invented a variety of explanations which are only slight less preposterous than claiming that only one universe exists and it just so happens that it's fundamental constants are compatible with life (this isn't just like one in a billion...more like 1 in 10^120)...multiple universes with every possible set of values for the constants of nature or the universe existing in one giant quantum superposition whose wave function collapses once one of the uncountable possibilities results in an "intelligent" observer. If you a priori reject non-material agents then you have no choice but to believe the highly improbable has occurred. Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting people for this belief because the other alternative (at least partial construction by an intelligence external to the universe) is also highly unlikely and without proof. If there were a statistician with no pre-conceptions I think they would find both explanations unappealing.

 

A core part of darwinism is the belief that "random mutation" has helped produce genetic diversity. If mutation were instead not random but guided via the intelligent manipulation of non-deterministic quantum events then the two scenarios would be indistinguishable. Again, by doing this, you fix the problem of the sheer unlikelihood of random events getting us where we are today but replace it with God. So, in short I would say that evolution is possible but failure to have a better explanation is not proof of the truth of the current best conjecture particularly when the same science giving us this explanation says its likelihood is extremely low.

[jdonn]

So, in short I would say that evolution is possible but failure to have a better explanation is not proof of the truth of the current best conjecture particularly when the same science giving us this explanation says its likelihood is extremely low.

If you are saying you only would believe an explanation for our existance if a priori it were extremely likely to occur, then I strongly disagree!

[mikeh]

  At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance.  Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. 

The calculations done to arrive at the improbability of the current ecosphere, and organisms therein, emerging from an original self-replicating molecule are, as a moment's reflection would reveal, based on the absurd notion that we are the intended result. If, and this may be a big if for some, we accept that over the course of a billion years or more of early earth chemistry, such an original replicator arose, then it becomes almost mathematically certain that a wide range of organisms of varying complexity would emerge, if not here, then somewhere else. And if it ever did arise, then its more complex creations might well one day marvel at their own improbability.

 

Predicting, a billion years ago, how it would appear today.... impossible.. predicting that it might well be extremely diverse and complex... trivial.

 

As for the constants of the universe, such that stars form, planets form, the original replicators can even exist.. this is, admittedly, far more difficult.

 

However, mankind, as a species, is very early in the intellectual pursuit of answers, other than the superstitious nonsense that ascibes that which we do not understand to 'god'.

 

The Standard Model of physics which held sway for several decades could not answer why elementary particles come in 3 groupings.

 

String theory suggests that the number arises as the inevitable result of the theory.

 

String theorists entertain, but have not yet been able to confirm or deny, the possibility that the various factors that give rise to our universe arise also out of the theory.

 

This may seem to beg the question: if the universe is the inevitable, but probablistic, result of an underlying physical or mathematical equation, 'who first formulated the equation?'

 

Whether we can ever even truly understand the answer is, as far as I am concerned, an open and so far unanswerable question... others may and I am sure do disagree.

 

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

 

That is the point that really amazes me about theists. Don't any of them have ANY questions about their god's origins, and makeup, and environment, and motivation? No.. that is all 'off limits' or, perhaps more accurately, not meaningful, and that is why I have suggested that to beleive in God as the ultimate answer is to stop thinking. No-one has ever posted any rational answer to that proposition... oh, they all claim that they do think, or that faith is the answer or that god's will is the answer.. but this is just so much hogwash that it is almost embarrassing to respond to it.

 

More to the point.. there is, I would think, a fundamental difference between acknowledging that IF we can push back our boundaries of ignorance to the point that we can determine precisely how our universe came into existence, we MIGHT find that some force external to the universe 'created' it.. I acknowledge that that would seem to be possible.. on the one hand, and, on the other, positing that a particular god did it, that the particular god did it so as to create us, and the god watches us, and rewards or punishes us for our behaviour seems a bit much... and positively unnecessary... a 'god'.. maybe, we can't rule it out.. but a christian god, or a druidian god, or a muslim god or a sun god... why do we need that?

 

I mean, why is all of this ongoing involvement neccessary? Why create the universe if we are the focal point? We are never going to fill the universe.... even if our species lasted for the rest of eternity, it isn't ever going to be able to reach the outer bounds of the universe. It seems, with no respect intended, to be a very wasteful god. And cruel beyond belief.. it didn't even try to save most of our 'souls' for thousands, and thousands of years... not to mention a point I have never seen addressed. if we all have immortal souls... where do they come from? Where were the 7 billion souls now inhabiting human bodies for the past 15 billion years? Where are the next generations souls now. Why do we need to multiply these concepts?

 

Religion is an effort to make our existence mean something, and to protect us from our fear of oblivion after death. It has also proven to be a very successful model for those who love to control others, and to gain, preserve and enhance power. I would hope that we outgrow these childish beliefs... but it is clearly a very powerful meme... which has a remarkable rate of successful inoculation of its victims.

[luke warm]

  At a micro level, calculations have been made on the probability of certain molecules forming by chance.  Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance. 

The calculations done to arrive at the improbability of the current ecosphere, and organisms therein, emerging from an original self-replicating molecule are, as a moment's reflection would reveal, based on the absurd notion that we are the intended result.

i think we already covered this fallacy in an earlier post... i know a woman who found a powerball ticket on the ground and came to find out that it was worth $100,000... now whether or not it was absurd to think the intended result was her winning that cash has nothing to do with the odds against that result

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

That is the point that really amazes me about theists. Don't any of them have ANY questions about their god's origins, and makeup, and environment, and motivation? No.. that is all 'off limits' or, perhaps more accurately, not meaningful, and that is why I have suggested that to beleive in God as the ultimate answer is to stop thinking. No-one has ever posted any rational answer to that proposition... oh, they all claim that they do think, or that faith is the answer or that god's will is the answer.. but this is just so much hogwash that it is almost embarrassing to respond to it.

you aren't allowed to ask a question about what a group thinks and then answer that question as if you actually know the answer... many have thought on these very things and have arrived at answers - naive and ignorant answers, to be sure, but answers nonetheless

I acknowledge that that would seem to be possible.. on the one hand, and, on the other, positing that a particular god did it, that the particular god did it so as to create us, and the god watches us, and rewards or punishes us for our behaviour seems a bit much... and positively unnecessary... a 'god'.. maybe, we can't rule it out.. but a christian god, or a druidian god, or a muslim god or a sun god... why do we need that?

you don't... this is all really elemental, but the quick answer is - which version of "god" can be shown to be internally consistent and which can't

Religion is an effort to make our existence mean something, and to protect us from our fear of oblivion after death.

says who?

It has also proven to be a very successful model for those who love to control others, and to gain, preserve and enhance power. I would hope that we outgrow these childish beliefs... but it is clearly a very powerful meme... which has a remarkable rate of successful inoculation of its victims.

go in circles often?