What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I) - Chess Forums

pawnwhacker

Dec 8, 2014

0

#1

This thread is dedicated to some of my friends from a similar (but also dissimilar) thread concerning evolution.

Eloch, hapless_fool, einstein99 and all you pro/anti evolution-theory aficionados...here is a place to, once and for all, post your scientific views on the subject.

I will add that I am not an expert, but I will endeavor to do my best to contribute some of the things that I've been learning from recent research.

Who are we and how did we get here? Are we composed of matter or is it really energy? If evolution is true, how did the first replicating molecule have its start? How did nucleotides develop into DNA or amino acids become protein? What are the latest findings in paleontology?

I don't know? Do you?

(Nice and polite...or we could self destruct. I'll do my best, too. Thanks.)

Elroch

Dec 8, 2014

0

#2

I was going to post a link to the relevant departments at the top ten Universities in the world (those in the growing areas relating to evolution, such as ecology and genomics), but it isn't really what is needed. What is better is a single well-written but concise overview of the reason that all of those Universities (and way further down the rankings of the best academic institutions in the world) are in no doubt about the truth of the Theory of Evolution. So here's a link for anyone who is interested in the truth rather than microscopic insults.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I invite anyone who doesn't feel inclined to accept the Theory of Evolution to first of all read enough of the above link to identify what they don't believe and then point out why.

Alternatively, I invite anyone to find any information that argues against evolution so that it can be discussed in an objective way.

[If anyone is not interested in facts, objective discussion, or anything of that ilk, I suggest you go to the other forum with evolution in the title.]

pawnwhacker

Dec 8, 2014

0

#3

What, you say, could you please elaborate? I c-a-n-'-t h-e-a-r y-o-u.

Thanks for posting Elroch and breaking the cherry of this new, scientific-minded thread. As you've said, the puerile should post on that certain other thread.

I have a few chores (chopping firewood and such), then I'm going to your link and see how I may be able to digest it. Also, I am still wading through the other book on evolution (wading isn't really correct...it is an easy read...comprehending all the minutae is the "wading" part).

As Arnold often said: "I'll be black". Feel free...anyone...anyone...

Elroch

Dec 8, 2014

0

#4

Not at a significantly higher rate than random, udisconectduassclown.

Let's consider the subtext of your statement. You make the emotional and slightly hysterical insinuation that because the Theory of Evolution explains that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as chimps about 7 million years ago that we shouldn't believe in evolution - clearly because it makes us seem closer to chimps, and that is a bad thing.

Well, this is wrong in every single way possible.

Firstly, only a fool thinks it is a genuine argument for the truth of something that he/she would prefer it were true
Secondly humans are exactly as they are, regardless of how they arose. You are no smarter given your common ancestry with chimpanzees than you would be without it (and no less either, given that you are exactly as you are).
Thirdly, the first ancestors of humans, 7 million years ago, were very little different to the first ancestors of chimpanzees just after the bifurcation in our ancestry. But several hundred thousand generations later, we are as different as everyone knows, most dramatically in our brain development (although some of us have gone further in that direction than a lot of science denialists )

MuAlpahTheta

Dec 8, 2014

0

#5

Hey Elroch, nice to see you again :)

I'll post once, and see where it leads...

If evolution was true, and if everything around me is just a result of random events, then I would probably be a nihilist. I mean, no one is special, since we've all come from the same single-celled organism.

It would be depressing, to say the very least.

In answer to one of your questions:

No, matter in and of itself is not energy, however, when you can convert mass to energy, let's say you get a big... big... big bang (Ha! I just made that joke! ) [E = m * c^2]

pawnwhacker

Dec 8, 2014

0

#6

A few thoughts...

When you say that matter is not energy but can be converted to energy...I comprehend. Per Einstein, energy is equal to the mass times the square of the speed of light (186,000 miles per sec or prox. 300 x10 to the 6th meters per sec).

But, you see, matter consists of atoms. Atoms consist of neutrons, proton and subatomic particles. Here's the relative mass of the first three: Neutron = 1, Proton = 0.99862349 and Electron = 0.00054386734.

Now, when I think of matter, I think of things solid, like my desk. Solid oak. But you see, on an atomic level there is no "solid". There is more space than "matter". Too, I have difficulty picturing mass, energy, particles, waves on an atomic or subatomic level. If I was small enough to see such things (I suspect that I would need a different kind of eyes), would I really see matter or would I be in a field of energy?

The nice thing about being ignorant of things is to know so. This seems to me to be an uncommon trait (not the ignorance but the awareness of ignorance). I am pleased that I have it.

pawnwhacker

Dec 8, 2014

0

#7

On another note...

Elroch, I've perused through your link and am in need of spending more time cogitating on it.

A few first thoughts...

As I recall, it said that there are two factors in evolution theory: micro and macro. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that micro is on the scale of atoms, molecules, nucleotides, amino acids, dna and so on. And I would think that the macro is more on the scale of various species, bones, paleontology, etc.

I suspect that I don't have this quite right. Please feel free to correct me.

The bigger question is that the link says that the micro is generally indisputable, even by critics. But the macro seems still open to questions. Curious...on that other thread, it seems as though the micro was heavily disputed and the macro (I'm thinking of the paleontology) seemed to never come up.

My third thought is about the technical terms for "fact" and "theory". I think that I have a fairly decent grasp of the distinction. But I would appreciate it if you might touch on that, too.

You see, I think that the average person is caught up with the word "theory" in regard to evolution and don't understand the "fact" of the matter. It as if they think evolution scientist are more like 18th century philosophers whose only real tool was omphaloskepsis and every thing they said was an armchair theory. Then they extrapolate this onto modern day scientists.

Yes...yes...mistaking the word "theory" in regard to evolution is a major part of the problem. Saying this, I have a hunch that even if clarified, there are those who will consider it shoddy science, akin to the "science" of philosophers of old.

This is a clip and paste from Wikipedia (fwiw...I know there are those who eschew Wikipedia):

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.^[15]^[16] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.^[17]

A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma^[18]

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.^[18]^[19] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.^[20]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.^[21]

Elroch

Dec 9, 2014

0

#8

MuAlpahTheta wrote:

Hey Elroch, nice to see you again :)

Hi MuAlphaTheta :)

I'll post once, and see where it leads...

If evolution was true, and if everything around me is just a result of random events, then I would probably be a nihilist. I mean, no one is special, since we've all come from the same single-celled organism.

You would only have yourself to blame for that.

We can be absolutely sure of that, since I believe in the naturalistic explanation of the world in which we live and I most certainly am not an nihilist. But perhaps you have a point that some people need to be detached from reality because they can't cope with it.

It would be depressing, to say the very least.

Again, depression is an ailment which is not caused by believing in the naturalistic explanation of the world. Again, I can exhibit myself as a counterexample. You need to look elsewhere for the cause of any depression you experience.

In answer to one of your questions:

No, matter in and of itself is not energy, however, when you can convert mass to energy, let's say you get a big... big... big bang (Ha! I just made that joke! ) [E = m * c^2]

Not sure what question you are referring to, but mass _is_ a form of energy. Specifically, any form of energy that remains at zero velocity.

A remarkable thing about the Big Bang (which was predicted as likely by cosmologists and now checked quite precisely), is that it respects the conservation of energy because the net energy involved is zero!

Elroch

Dec 9, 2014

0

#9

pawnwhacker wrote:

On another note...

Elroch, I've perused through your link and am in need of spending more time cogitating on it.

A few first thoughts...

As I recall, it said that there are two factors in evolution theory: micro and macro. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that micro is on the scale of atoms, molecules, nucleotides, amino acids, dna and so on. And I would think that the macro is more on the scale of various species, bones, paleontology, etc.

That would be an interesting definition, but it is not the one used! Microevolution is the change in the distribution of genetic material in a population, by random mutation and incremental natural selection. It happens on scales from one generation up to as long as you like, really. But at longer time scales, it leads to the process of speciation. The evolutionary relationship of different speciest is what is sometimes referred to as macroevolution. Real evolutionary biologists don't need to use the terms much.

I suspect that I don't have this quite right. Please feel free to correct me.

Done, to the best of my ability.

The bigger question is that the link says that the micro is generally indisputable, even by critics (The link really says it is not often disputed). But the macro seems still open to questions. (More that it is disputed, by creationists, but that they are proven wrong by the facts). Curious...on that other thread, it seems as though the micro was heavily disputed and the macro (I'm thinking of the paleontology) seemed to never come up. There was so little rational discussion on the other thread, I have difficulty pinning it down to anything substantial.

My third thought is about the technical terms for "fact" and "theory". I think that I have a fairly decent grasp of the distinction. But I would appreciate it if you might touch on that, too.

You see, I think that the average person is caught up with the word "theory" in regard to evolution and don't understand the "fact" of the matter. It as if they think evolution scientist are more like 18th century philosophers whose only real tool was omphaloskepsis and every thing they said was an armchair theory. Then they extrapolate this onto modern day scientists.

Yes...yes...mistaking the word "theory" in regard to evolution is a major part of the problem. Saying this, I have a hunch that even if clarified, there are those who will consider it shoddy science, akin to the "science" of philosophers of old.

This is a clip and paste from Wikipedia (fwiw...I know there are those who eschew Wikipedia):

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[15][16] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.[17]

A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma[18]

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[18][19] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[20]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[21]

Yes, I agree with that. The word "fact" is most commonly used for small things, but it can be used for the biggest things as well. In the former case, it may be used a little loosely, such as in a single experiment, where the scientific world would be not entirely convinced without independent evidence. Where used for big concepts, it indicates near certainty.

It's worth pointing out that the word theory is useful for another reason: it can encompass something which is not a single fact, but several interconnected facts. The Theory of Evolution is like that, as Theobald's excellently written overview explains well.

princecharming555

Dec 9, 2014

0

#10

It is the point to think that what if the theory of Evolution is right?? If its true then is a very good news for our Country. Our Country will make a great Country in this world and we will proud that we are citizen of this Great India. I love my Country India.

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#11

Back to your ol' tricks again Elroch. Phylogentics is so wrong! Pseudogenes aren't so pseudo anymore, transposons tend to head for the same places on genomes in different organisms. This has been experimentally shown. Vestigial anatomies are all but gone. Convergent evolution is completely made up. Similar complex characteristics all over a made up phylogenetic

tree provides strong evidence for God. Homologue genes don't co-opt, ( Thorton, Axe, Gauger ). Over a third of mitochondrial genes give completely different morphological trees than the assumed one.

Random evolution doesn't really work above bacteria much. Just not enough generations to do the job.

Non random evolution is what is observed in organisms over one celled bacteria or viruses. Phenotypes, cryptic genes, etc. God gives enough variability to make his kinds.

Complex information just doesn't build according to common descent.

An interesting experiment that just came out showing that apoptotic mechanisms for ancient corral( 550 Mya)

is the most complicated of any organism shown to date including humans. It was completely functional and complex from the beginning. It has only degraded down through the half a billion years or so. The fruit fly has only one TNF family protein. Corral has a full compliment of 53 TNF family ligand-binding proteins, where as humans only have 47.

Other organisms have less. It would appear that the apoptotic system has only degraded down through the millions of years, strong evidence, that systems don't become more complex, but were created all in place fully functional from day one. The Cambrian animals show this is so true! 16 phyla, 30 classes in 6 million years fully functional at once without absolutely any precursors is definitely God's handiwork! 😝

Good to be arguing wirh you again hot shot!😉

Elroch

Dec 9, 2014

0

#12

einstein99 wrote:

Back to your ol' tricks again Elroch. Phylogentics is so wrong!

So you don't understand it.

Or would you like to attempt to disprove that by making a reasoned objective statement that explains the conflict between the evidence of phylogenetics and the Theory of Evolution? Certain Nobel prize for achieving this task (except it's not going to happen)!

Pseudogenes aren't so pseudo anymore,

That can be interpreted as containing some truth. Unfortunately, I have to point out that it has an implication that contradicts your position.

When a mutation causes a gene to completely fail to act as it used to (it codes for a protein that does not work or stops coding entirely), it will still have a random effect on gene expression of nearby genes (and other possible effects). Natural selection acts immediately on ALL effects of DNA, not just on effects due to coding proteins. So, evolution is what makes your statement true.

What you are utterly blind to is that a dysfunctional gene for making ascorbic acid is still a dysfunctional gene for making ascorbic acid even if (and I am unaware of evidence for this) it has acquired some secondary function. Such a gene is not so much a smoking gun for evolution as a movie of the bullet having just left the gun on its way to the victim! Yet you still claim the person pointing the gun is innocent! (Metaphorically speaking).

Vestigial anatomies are all but gone.

You seem to be saying is that evolution is near perfect in eliminating inefficiencies of design. Not accurate - we both still have appendixes and coccyxes and many other examples - but a rough approximation to the truth.

Whereever there is a redundant element of design, any mutation that reduces that element has a potential fitness advantage (by more efficiently using resources). This is surely how humans lost a lot of (now) unnecessary hair, for example. What remains is largely vestigal hair serving no purpose, even retaining the "goosebump" reflex which, of course, completely fails to insulate us from cold as it did for our distant ancestors.

This is either clear evidence for evolution (or for an incompetent designer - take your pick.)

Convergent evolution is completely made up.

There is no point in lying. For example, many organisms have similar eyes based on entirely different genes (and there are thousands of other examples). A million ignorant people saying it is not so would not make it not so.

They may look similar, but this similarity is solely in the function of the phenotype, not the genotype. Close similarity in genotype is the result of a specfic common ancestor of two organisms in every case. It is NEVER necessary to invoke a designer rather than an ancestor. Check the facts, and you won't find a counterexample.

Similar complex characteristics all over a made up phylogenetic tree provides strong evidence for God.

Drivel!

Exhibit just _one_ single example that is not indicative of the tree of evolutiom.

Homologue genes don't co-opt, ( Thorton, Axe, Gauger ). Over a third of mitochondrial genes give completely different morphological trees than the assumed one.

Random evolution doesn't really work above bacteria much. Just not enough generations to do the job.

Here you make a very interesting error. You are clearly unaware of the fact that sexual reproduction is limited to a rate of sqrt(N) bits per generation, where N is the population size, while asexual reproduction is limited to a mere 1 bit per generation. This is an information theoretic theorem.

Non random evolution is what is observed in organisms over one celled bacteria or viruses. Phenotypes, cryptic genes, etc. God gives enough variability to make his kinds.

Evolution is NOT RANDOM. It involves natural selection which is savagely biased towards fitter genomes. Pheotypes are selected based on their relative fitness.

Seriously, there is no excuse for repeating this beginner's blunder so often.

Complex information just doesn't build according to common descent.

Unsubstantiated and completely unsubstantiable drivel. Challenge: do the impossible and substantiate it!

Clearly you are using unacknowledged creationist claims generated by other people. The problem is that they are not very good as scientists, so in many cases I have little trouble seeing the errors by reference to the established body of scientific knowledge.

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#13

Unitary Pseudogenes are suceptable to RNA editing, and alternative splicing. Premature codon stops can be expurged and frameshifts can be translationally rectified for correct protein usage. One pseudogene has 347 uricines inserted and 7 deleted, That's 58% of the pseudogene. So much for pseudo genes.

What happened to transposons, you must have left them off your analysis for a reason, oh they don't show a phylogenetic tree whoops.

Just about every 'vestial' anatomy has been shown to have a purpose including'tailbones and appendices', whoops!

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#14

What happened to homologue genes not co-opting, unless you have proof they do. This reason alone destroys any phylogenetic tree!😉

Talfan1

Dec 9, 2014

0

#15

i came across this link and thought id look is it possible that posters use less strange words or provide an explanation in lay mans terms ?

I hold that mankind is a product of evolution

the religious deniers are wrong in my opinion i do not seek to upset any other but on this subject its very argumentative

I would like to add that the opposable thumb was the biggest leap forward from our more primate stage as the ability to make a tool fro a tool really gave humanity the edge in becoming the dominant species on earth

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#16

Just one, I can give you a book full. The echolocation system of whales, dolphins and bats. Lets put the whale on the bat branch. The prestin molecule in whales and dolphins have exactly 14 amino acids that have been changed for echolocation. This molecule is for sound sensitivity. The bat has exactly those 14 amino acids changed in the prestin molecule also. Convergence, hardly, God designed!

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#17

The mustached bat and the horseshoe bat have echolocation systems that'evolved', independently of each other.(Neuweiler 2003)Ok. 😂

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#18

The eye has 'evolved' independently 40-65 times. Pretty lucky for all those creatures I guess!😕( Salvini, Plawen, Mayr

1977)

einstein99

Dec 9, 2014

0

#19

According to Bossuyt and Milinkovich their analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA shows burrowing frogs from Madagascar and frogs from India 'evolved' independently. Uh huh, ok.😃

Elroch

Dec 9, 2014

0

#20

To scientists, all that is required for convergent evolution to be possible is exactly one criterion.

This is that a feature failed to develop before the ancestry diverged.

For a believer in a biological engineer who worked over billions of years (seriously? Why sooooooo slooooooow?), it is necessary to conclude that this person forgot how to design an eye at least 150 times (improved data), and had to go back the drawing board each time.

It really is no good arguing that all the designs had to be that different, because the same engineer managed to make do with variations of the same design of the neck in mice and giraffes. Why was this? Very simple answer: the layout of the spine evolved to that degree BEFORE the mouse line and the giraffe line diverged, and it is easy for evolution to modify something that works ok, but difficult to change a design in a big way (it needs a path all the way to the new design that is competitive at every stage). The basic design of the spine was something inherited from very early mammals or their ancestors.

There's very little difference in the luck involved in an eye evolving in two lines in parallel to that in it evolving in one. It's possible to do so. Possible to do so in many ways, and since it was very useful to do so, it happened, over and over again, in ways that differ randomly (as well as in ways that are related to the difference in fitness function for different organisms).