ATL Bear said:
TexasScientist said:
ATL Bear said:
TexasScientist said:
ATL Bear said:
TexasScientist said:
ATL Bear said:
TexasScientist said:
ATL Bear said:
TexasScientist said:
ATL Bear said:
quash said:
ATL Bear said:
quash said:
ShooterTX said:
quash said:
ShooterTX said:
quash said:
ShooterTX said:
Buddha Bear said:
Redbrickbear said:
Darwin assumed we would fill in the gaps in his theory pretty quickly.
200 years on we still have not.....and in many places they have only grown.
The weakness of Darwinian evolution Theory as an all encompassing answer to the origins of live on this planet are shown by the increasing shrillness of the academic class in defending it.
To say Darwin is completely wrong is to say DNA doesn't exist and doesn't mutate or evolve.
Darwin IS wrong about evolution, but not about natural selection. Natural selection is observable and occurs. Evolution is not observable, and does not occur.
DNA exists outside of Darwinian evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other.
DNA does mutate, but it does not evolve. There has never been a naturally occuring mutation that was beneficial, and no naturally occurring mutations have been observed to pass to subsequent generations. The reason for this is quite simple: the vast majority of natural genetic mutations are fatal to the creature. Those that are not fatal, often lead to infertility as the mutated DNA is not compatible with non-mutated DNA.
DNA exists, but it is some of the most damning evidence for Darwinian evolution.
On what planet?
prove me wrong... i'll wait
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
My apologies... I should have been more clear in my statements.
We were discussing evolution, as in the evolution described in "The Origin of Species". In that context, when we discuss mutations, we are talking about large scale mutation, not small mutations like the ones described in the articles you linked. A resistant lice or resistant bacteria has not changed in a meaningful way. It is still lice or bacteria. Sickle cell does not create a new form of life. The persons is still a human with no major alterations. Sickle cell has been around a very long time, and yet it hasn't altered people into a new sub-category of human. They are just humans with a genetic defect, like humans with immuno-defeciency or humans with Downs. They are still humans.
When it comes to evolution of species, there are no examples of beneficial mutation on that level.
It is these large mutations which I was referring to, and again, I apologize for not making that clear.
My point is that there have been very few of these kinds of large mutations which occur in naturally, and so far all of the observed mutations have proven fatal or severely detrimental to the creature.
You will not see one mutation that changes a tree into a fish. We are talking about evolving along a continuum. That is why transitional species mean something, they are one spot along that continuum. But no one mutation changes one hominid to another.
A mathematically impossible continuum. That's becoming the ultimate failing of Darwinist evolution.
Entirely possible, see the Cambrian explosion.
The Cambrian explosion is at the heart of the problem. Specifically, no transitional species prior to it, and nothing duplicative of it after. Not to mention the reality of simplistic vs complex organisms.
Not so fast. The fossil record is full of transitional species. The end of the Cretaceous is another example of an explosion of species, and an evolutionary turn in direction. Darwin's ideas were just the beginning of a rudimentary understanding of evolution and speciation. His ideas for the most part are borne out and have been refined and improved upon in evolutionary biology, paleontology, and genetics.
They've only been borne out in micro adaptive scenarios in all the fields. The other fields have extrapolated components framing it to a Darwinian structure, but advanced biology and mathematics are putting more questions than answers into the mix. And transitional species are greatly gapped and many are a stretch to apply as a "transition" verses simply an independent species that went extinct.
It's gapped because preservation in the fossil record is not easy. There will always be gaps. Evolution occurs over long periods with gradual changes. How do you explain the explosion of mammals after the Cretaceous mass extinction? How do you explain obvious progressive changes in Exogyra fossil shells from layer to layer of older strata to younger in Cretaceous sediment? How do you explain common genetics within groups of fauna and flora? Do you really believe they all trotted off the Ark two by two?
I haven't once argued or brought into this discussion biblical creation or the efficacy of the story of Noah. I've simply shown that science is disproving Darwinian macro evolution, and I believe will continue to as we gain greater understanding of our biology and the universe. Science is not immune to theoretical dogma, and I firmly believe Darwinian macro evolution is at that point.
Addressing a few of your points, you raise more questions than answers with your examples. The "mammal explosion" post dinosaur era would say that the evolutionary timeframe in no way could fit such mutative development seen by this type of unique explosion (reptile to mammal transition and complexity no less) which would say either period dates are flawed or mammals are much older than originally thought. The same applies to other developments you mention above. The "common genetics" issue I addressed in an earlier post regarding the argument an evolutionary theorist put forth referencing the common form of mammal embryos from diverse species.
Which brings me to a point of the inexact nature of strata dating. Since fossils and sediment can't directly be measured for dating and the reliance is upon igneous rock layers surrounding them, even that history has to be observed with a skeptical eye, particularly considering how mass plate movement and new volcanic land development can shuffle puzzle pieces over long time horizons.
You haven't shown science is disproving Darwinian anything. You've simply made your pronouncements. Darwin's ideas were just the beginning of beginning to understand evolution. His ideas have been borne out, refined, further developed and improved upon with more information. Your pseudoscientific ideas fall far outside of mainstream science.
Prior to the end of the Cretaceous, mammals were small in size and few in number. How do you account for the proliferation of mammals after the Cretaceous?
You're simply incorrect in stating that dating strata is inexact, implying that it is suspect and should be viewed with a skeptical eye. The K-Pg boundary is a classic example of effectively dating strata above and below the boundary. Meteorite and asteroid impacts provide evidence for dating strata, such as dating tektites. Movement of tectonic plates and volcanic activity doesn't prevent dating. In fact, plate movement and volcanic activity can provide evidence of date. Sedimentary strata are inter-layered with sediments containing material that can be dated with various radiometric techniques including fission tracking. Volcanic ash is commonly found within sedimentary strata around the world, and can easily be dated radiometrically. Index fossil correlation around the world, along with stratigraphic markers and superposition of strata allows for tying and correlating date equivalent strata. We actually have a very good handle on dating formations and strata around the world.
Mathematics is the enemy of Darwinian evolution. I didn't think I needed to prove mathematics to someone calling themselves Texas Scientist. Adaptive change has been borne out and has been extrapolated out to mean that macro speciation must be correct too using a Darwinian hypothesis. But the holes are massive, and the greater understanding we have of our cellular process is creating a need for a new perspective on macro evolution.
First, we have little to no visibility to DNA beyond about a million years. Second, we have only hypotheses on species behavior, especially the farther you go back. Next, our knowledge of ancient environmental conditions is highly speculative especially post extinction level events, which seemed to be a big catalyst for new species cycles. Finally, how evolutionists speak of "common ancestors" relative to the actual genetic comparatives is very hypothetical versus concrete.
I mention strata from the perspective that the cycle ranges as we go further back have multi- million year (and greater) variant factors, not to mention the lack of understanding of longer term environmental impacts on the chemical processes involved with degradation. To put it bluntly, a million here and a million there and soon we're talking an era. Asteroids and moreso volcanos have significant impact on surface make up but also are really the primary layers that have materials most able to be analyzed via radiometry and isotope methods. Again gaps filled with hypotheses.
Throwing in all the aforementioned unknowns you're looking at a matrix of scientific speculation. But knowing that, when you wrap the known certainty of time and advanced math with the protein process and mutative requirements, the mathematical arc doesn't fit unless new discoveries or new theories are developed.
Your comments are mostly nonsense, but they're not full of holes, because there is nothing solid enough there to support a hole. I don't think you know what you are saying.
The ultimate test of a concept is whether it works. Evolutionary algorithms work. They find solutions to many problems that are intractable with other methods. If mathematics contradicts reliable observation, the math is misapplied, irrelevant, or wrong. You're miss-understanding, or misusing the term macro speciation. Macro evolution is the culmination of micro evolution. Changes over generations, such as over a thousand generations, of any species will appear as a sudden or abrupt change in the fossil record. The reason is a thousand generations is a very small fraction of the Earth's historic timeline. Sequence stratigraphy methods take into account and address all of what you call variant factors and environmental impacts, so that they are inconsequential to the determination.
And, I don't understand the relevance of, or even what you are trying to say about DNA visibility and species behavior. You'll have to elaborate on that for me to even begin to comment.
Finally, we have very reliable radiometric dating methods, which can be used for differing time intervals, verified and confirmed through correlation and augmentation with other dating methods. What is problematic for one method can be adequately covered and addressed with another. Consequently, we have very good approximations of ages for geologic formations and their lithic content, the Earth and the Universe. There are no significant gaps filled with hypothesis as you assert. Rather, the huge gaps are in trying to apply and fit a biblical count back in time, using incredulous patriarch lifespans, to determine the age of the earth. That's where you need to fill the huge time gap with hypotheses built upon myths. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a young Earth.
You seem to be assuming I haven't researched and evaluated available resources on these topics. Or that the Bible drives my science. You couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not telling you Darwinian macro evolution is wrong, the answer is in Genesis, I'm literally telling you Darwinian macro evolution is bad science, and the lab and mathematics are and will continue to bear that out. They may still use Darwin's name, but it won't look anything like what he postulated. In fact, it's already a *******ized version today.
There's a dogmatic adherence to Darwinian ideals in the face of significant gaps. Those gaps are filled with unproven hypotheses and math horizons that don't fit the mutative requirements of complex species.
Re Microevolution vs Macro evolution there is a significant difference. Subtle changes in the genome can result in small variant changes in a species (like fur thickness, color, body size, etc., but once a species is established, to significantly alter its make up is a different level of mutation. An example would be changing from gill breathing to lung breathing or cold blooded to warm blooded. This is where the absence of DNA from long gone species (Million years and older) would be helpful. This is what I mean by a lack of visibility to DNA for a scientific process that is all about mutated DNA. This is where the evolution of complex species gets dicey from a mathematical perspective. Without interbreeding capabilities, or asexual reproduction, its complete reliance upon random mutation or environmental influence doesnt require 1000s of generations to manifest, but 10's of millions if not billions of generations to become a final product which doesn't fit our geological time frames. Throw in several fits and starts ( extinction level events) and how does that impact the Darwinian evolutionary time clock?
Regarding the strata, the most optimistic radiometry says an accuracy within a few percentage points. That's fantastic from a ratio standpoint until you realize on a time horizon of 4+ billion years that few percentage points is 250 million years. That's why I made two separate comments earlier. A million here a million there and soon we're talking about an Era. And why it may need to be considered that life is actually much older than we originally believed. We also don't know the environmental impact of an age that would impact degradation. Even measuring to a 10-15% variant is statistically amazing, but again the long time horizon creates an incredibly large delta in years. And it creates one more gap to hypothetically bridge amongst a maze of hypothetical bridges.
First I've never said Darwin's original views and work is without error. His concepts are the foundation to what has become, and what has 'evolved' into our current understanding of diversity of species. The rest of what you say is nonsense and Is not accepted as valid science in the scientific community. Your math ideas and assumptions are not applicable to evolutionary processes. The fossil record is full of transitional species, and dating methods are very accurate to the specific time frames and context of time evaluated. Consequently, we have very accurate methods of age determination within reasonable time variants to a high degree of confidence. Research continues to confirm and build upon our current understanding. If you're ideas were correct, the scientific community would be on its heels, and jumping through hoops to revise our understanding of the natural world, and even the Universe itself. But, that's not where the evidence takes us.
Science is evolving away from Darwin as our understanding of how life develops is improved. You keep saying it's nonsense when I keep telling you why it's not. You keep saying we know of "transitional" species, when our entire basis is from skeletal estimation not genetic knowledge. And the skeletal hypotheses rely upon the simplest of commonalities such as the placement of nasal cavities in a skull or something similar. For example extrapolating a 4 legged furry land mammal that evolved into a finned whale and by default mutated to multiple species of whale types. Even the hypotheses of such are filled with "likely" and "probably". In fact most transitional species, heck the vast majority of fossil species, involve extremely incomplete skeletons, and many times are comprised of skull parts, some teeth, and maybe some vertebrae. Yet a paleontologist derives a model from this and it becomes part of the "science". This branch of science suffers from the same dilemma of disproof vs proof that many philosophical questions deal with.
Science hasn't defined the natural world from an origin standpoint. They've only taken stabs at how it could or might have come together in a theoretical sense using a mixture of observable and/or repeatable Information and processes, and hypothetical constructs. There are data points that can be seen and evaluated, and then there are ranges of estimation that are at play, some small and some grand. In other words, much of this (Darwinian macro evolution) is not hard provable science, but lacks many of the components you would require in many other scientific fields. In fact the more observable understanding we have on our biological processes works against the grand idea of mutative random offshoots not only showing up in a large enough population mass to be repeated, but to duplicate that in a consecutive process for millions of generations of change wrapped in a background of knowledge that nature has shown that if anything, mutation of the genome is more often than not negative to survival.
If you had done your research, you would have found reams of published work that refutes your claims.
The skeletal evidence found in the fossil record that you dismiss is replete with examples of evolving change, and it is those very small changes through time in such things as suture patterns, small bones, cranial plates, occipital openings as found in the fossil record that can be progressively traced from one species to another.
Evolution occurs not only through mutations, but also through selection and genetic drift. Evolution does not occur in linear equal time intervals over time. That is borne out in the fossil record, mathematically, and genetically. The evidence for macroevolution is irrefutable. Macroevolution is so well supported scientifically, that it is considered a fact. I would refer you to Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. who has written a treatise on this very subject titled: 29 + Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
Extensive work has been done on probability and elapsed time. Eigen and Schuster, Stuart Kauffman, Maynard Smith and Szathmary, among many others have published work on this topic.
Richard Lenski, Ph.D. and his group demonstrated extensive evolution within a short timescale. He writes in the ISME Journal "Evolution is an on-going process, and it can be studied experimentally in organisms with rapid generations. My team has maintained 12 populations of
Escherichia coli in a simple laboratory environment for >25 years and 60 000 generations. We have quantified the dynamics of adaptation by natural selection, seen some of the populations diverge into stably coexisting ecotypes, described changes in the bacteria's mutation rate, observed the new ability to exploit a previously untapped carbon source, characterized the dynamics of genome evolution and used parallel evolution to identify the genetic targets of selection."
The idea of evolutionary change is built upon conservative rates of mutational occurrences. Observed evolutionary changes very easily fit inside of 4.5 billion year age of the Earth. It is not possible, however to reach this change within 6000 years.
There is an abundance of data and information about how life progressed once it was initiated. Mark van Hoeij at Florida State University addresses this topic as follows:
"The probabilities, expected amount of time for changes to occur, etc, these are known, tested, and compared in multiple ways (e.g. fossils vs DNA), etc. I attended a creationist talk, and the most convincing argument he made was that favorable mutations are unlikely to accumulate "quickly" (even on geologic time scales). After analyzing the argument, I realized that it only applies to asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is a method in which favorable mutations can accumulate fairly quickly (on geologic time scales). The end result of the argument is that we should expect evolution to be slow in asexual reproduction, but much faster in sexual reproduction (note: you might think that bacteria should then evolve very slowly because they reproduce asexually, but this is not quite the case because bacteria do in fact exchange genetic information, and at the end of the day, all that the creationist argument really proved is that evolution will be slow if there is really no exchange of genetic information taking place, but that's not how biology operates in the real world). Species are not cleanly separated. A big chunk of your DNA comes from viruses having inserted their genetic information into one of your ancestors. Comparing your DNA with other species, particularly the parts of your DNA with clear viral origin, gives extremely strong evidence of common origins. If you want to calculate probabilities, consider this: If chimpanzees and humans do not share common ancestors, then what is the probability that these two species have hundreds of positions in their DNA where viral DNA was inserted at exactly the same position? (the type of virus matches each time as well)" Thoebald (2004) writes:
"Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history; thus, we should observe morphological change and variation in modern populations.There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures." Your assertions that we cannot accurately determine ages flies in the face of chemistry, physics, and mathematics, We have various accurate radiometric methods using radioactive isotopes, such as radiocarbon, K-Ar, U-Pb ratios of element decay, including radioactive impacts upon crystallography of detrital elements in rocks. Sequence stratigraphy, correlation, and bracketing techniques in combination with radiometric dating are proven and accepted as valid concepts in mainstream science.
We don't have to define the origins of life to document evolution, although some major progress has been made recently in research of lipids and amino acids to produce protocell membranes with implications regarding RNA. There is abundant evidence of what has occurred with regard progressive evolution and diversity of life to establish evolution is a fact, including macroevolution.
