Evolution - Reality and Misconceptions

[Dr Jekyll]

E34-3.2 said:

But you believe in mother earth despite no conclusive proof of how it came to be earth (only a few theories) then on the top of that life started on it from nothing or gaz and dust if you prefer it that way. Have you ever seen life coming out a stone? So basically, earth was created from " something" but no one can what and how for the moment. Am I Right?

From something, not by something/someone. Big difference.

No, I don't know what started life, and I accept that I don't know and would like to find out through evidence, that's the point. As opposed to picking one hypothetical entity which raises more questions than it answers and regarding it as a convincing explanation despite the lack of evidence.


Science is not an alternative explanation to Creationism, it's a process for finding explanations by evidence as an alternative to pulling them out of thin air.

[Halmyre]

E34-3.2 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Working out how an organism is created from the evidence, then checking further to see if you're right, then changing your mind and looking for another explanation in the light of the new evidence is science.

Announcing "It just got created by 'something' , but we don't know what created the 'something'". Then sticking to your guns despite bookfulls of evidence showing that your 'something' is both undetectable and unnecessary is faith.

Especially when the refusal to rethink in the light of contrary evidence is regarded as a virtue.

But you believe in mother earth despite no conclusive proof of how it came to be earth (only a few theories) then on the top of that life started on it from nothing or gaz and dust if you prefer it that way. Have you ever seen life coming out a stone? So basically, earth was created from " something" but no one can what and how for the moment. Am I Right?

Edit: Just in case you claim to know the answers, R.Dawkins doesn't know himself and he is pretty good as what he does: https://youtu.be/Pckg3Kud8_A

Edited by E34-3.2 on Tuesday 4th September 09:45

"Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

[4x4Tyke]

E34-3.2 said:

But you believe in mother earth despite no conclusive proof of how it came to be earth (only a few theories) then on the top of that life started on it from nothing or gaz and dust if you prefer it that way. Have you ever seen life coming out a stone? So basically, earth was created from " something" but no one can what and how for the moment. Am I Right?

No, you are wrong, you're missing key pieces of scientific knowledge.

'mother earth' can be scientifically observed and therefore studied using the scientific methods, understanding these is critical to understanding science and what separates it from faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific theories are by definition well proven, a scientific theory far more rigorous than a theory in other field of study. It is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. To doubt a theory is to doubt reason. A scientific theory must be explainable, it must be proven, it must be repeatable by others, it must have its bounds tested.

Evolution has continuously had it bounds tested for hundred of years; this is ongoing and we keep find more and more evidence to support it, more examples. New science emerges from breaking the old science, finding the edges where it no longer applies. Any scientist that manages to 'break' evolution using the scientific method will become famous, win prizes, he will become to Darwin, what Einstein are to Newton.

As to the question of has life be shown to be emergent, yes it has. RNA has been observed to emerge from primeval chemical soup in the lab. RNA into DNA is also well understood and reproducible in the labs, we know how DNA leads to metabolism and photosynthesis. We have masses of evidence of evolution from there.

https://www.ted.com/talks/prosanta_chakrabarty_fou...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFhHcvasHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcpcFL2hes8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qiW4aUqtvA

[E34-3.2]

4x4Tyke said:

No, you are wrong, you're missing key pieces of scientific knowledge.

'mother earth' can be scientifically observed and therefore studied using the scientific methods, understanding these is critical to understanding science and what separates it from faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific theories are by definition well proven, a scientific theory far more rigorous than a theory in other field of study. It is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. To doubt a theory is to doubt reason. A scientific theory must be explainable, it must be proven, it must be repeatable by others, it must have its bounds tested.

Evolution has continuously had it bounds tested for hundred of years; this is ongoing and we keep find more and more evidence to support it, more examples. New science emerges from breaking the old science, finding the edges where it no longer applies. Any scientist that manages to 'break' evolution using the scientific method will become famous, win prizes, he will become to Darwin, what Einstein are to Newton.

As to the question of has life be shown to be emergent, yes it has. RNA has been observed to emerge from primeval chemical soup in the lab. RNA into DNA is also well understood and reproducible in the labs, we know how DNA leads to metabolism and photosynthesis. We have masses of evidence of evolution from there.

https://www.ted.com/talks/prosanta_chakrabarty_fou...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFhHcvasHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcpcFL2hes8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qiW4aUqtvA

Thanks again for your input but a 1 minute research on Google exclude primeval chemical soup as the fist form of life on earth: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/1002...

What do you make of modern scientists challenging many old theories such as Darwin and others? Surely they have better tools to prove their research? I think that old House names such as Darwin and others can't really be challenged publicly.

[RTB]

E34-3.2 said:

Some great posts on here, do we have actual real scientists posting on here? I always see people posting "God V Science" but I believe it should be "God and Science" . Creation is a science. What your thought?

I used to be a real PhD level scientist, did research, published papers, applied for grants etc. I'm now a corporate drone, but I guess I'll always be a scientist at heart.

Creation, as in the origin of species or the creation and propagation of an electromagentic wave is certainly science.
Creation as in the Genesis myth in the Bible (or any other religious text) would only be a scientific hypothesis if it could be tested (i.e. it's falsifiable) and is able to make predictions about the Universe that can be observed and tested.

If you can provide examples of how any creation myth is able to meet these criteria then I'm happy to concede that it's a science

[James_B]

E34-3.2 said:

Some great posts on here, do we have actual real scientists posting on here? I always see people posting "God V Science" but I believe it should be "God and Science" . Creation is a science. What your thought?

I was a particle physicist a long time ago. Like others I switched careers, but I still grew up as a scientist, and will always be one at heart.

It’s strange, seeing the arguments trotted out by people who just don’t “get” science, and do for example get the burden of proof or the null hypothesis wrong.

[Kawasicki]

E34-3.2 said:

I think that old House names such as Darwin and others can't really be challenged publicly.

Human nature hasn’t changed since Darwin was the one challenging the status quo.

In other words, another Darwin is always possible.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Halmyre said:

"Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

Spot on. I gives me the rage when people say "Science doesn't have all the answers you know!"

Errr...yeah....that's why we're still doing it!!!!!

FFS!

Science indeed doesn't have all the answers. The reaction to that should be to do more science. Because what we do know is that only science has given us all the answers we do have. The answers ain't gonna come from anywhere else!

[4x4Tyke]

Prof Prolapse said:

I don't think I have. You're postulating some sort of genetic reason for a belief in the supernatural, or social value.

I postulated that genetics can predispose some people to supernatural belief.

I've also stated repeatedly throughout this thread that genes are not necessarily a straightforward yes/no thing and epigenetics plays a big role in genetic expression.

I presented several reasoned points, using carefully qualified language, but you quoted the rhetorical question, rather than rebutting any of the points.

Prof Prolapse said:

I also don't believe anyone has ever put forward any meangingful evidence with regards to a "god gene".

It's proper name is VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2).

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=VMAT2+(vesi...

Prof Prolapse said:

It seems absolute non-sense given that almost all atheists are converts from other beliefs. All children believe in Santa Claus because we indoctronate them as kids, then when they realise it's guff, they stop and never go back, there's no gene for that. As much as people might want to think there's something special about these beliefs there really is no evidence.

You're putting all this crap on a pedastal, giving it time it doesn't merit, in a forum that doesn't want it. Supernatural beliefs, god or otherwise, have almost no merit. There's no reason to believe it other than you're ignorant or frightened. That was my point, and so it remains.

I never made any such claims and in fact stated exactly opposite of that, that genetics and evolution adequately explain religious belief, without any need to invoke the supernatural.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 4th September 22:36

[Derek Smith]

Halmyre said:

ash73 said:

FredClogs said:

Errr... Think you're forgetting Jake the Peg (with the extra leg).

Three legged robots are stable and quite energy efficient, maybe H G Wells was onto something. But almost all natural phyla have two-sided symmetry, wonder why that is.

Tripedal entities, whether biological or mechanical, are a favourite trope of SF writers from Wells through Wyndham, Clarke and Banks, but no-one has ever come up with a convincing way of making them move.

Whilst kangeroos are not tripedal if you look at the way they use their tail, is it all but a third leg. Indeed, they use it as their only support in some instances. Fair enough, they lift it to move at speed, but if it's not a third leg, it might soon be.

[E34-3.2]

RTB said:

I used to be a real PhD level scientist, did research, published papers, applied for grants etc. I'm now a corporate drone, but I guess I'll always be a scientist at heart.

Creation, as in the origin of species or the creation and propagation of an electromagentic wave is certainly science.
Creation as in the Genesis myth in the Bible (or any other religious text) would only be a scientific hypothesis if it could be tested (i.e. it's falsifiable) and is able to make predictions about the Universe that can be observed and tested.

If you can provide examples of how any creation myth is able to meet these criteria then I'm happy to concede that it's a science

When did we discover that planet earth was a ball of water when it started?

[4x4Tyke]

Prof Prolapse said:

A BSc really wouldn't make you a scientist, it might make you scientifically literate, a relevant PhD is a pretty hefty qualification and deserves respect, but I think by most people's definitions a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method to their work.

In the commercial world, we're often quite dettached from the process. People that carry out that classic role of bench work, in white lab coats, test tubes etc. often are extremely removed from the scientific process due to the size of the projects, running endless assays, often just as technicians, but termed "scientists". In academia it's cut a bit clearer I think, people get far more of a chance to take on more of a classic role, like postgraduate scientists do, PhD students too. They are clearly scientists in the common understanding but in reality are the minority of people that work in the scientific industries.

The point however is a bit moot, arguments based on authority are not to be trusted. If I was to say, "you're wrong about that of evolution, because I've been a scientist for ten years and I know it's untrue", you may initially be taken aback, but the reality is I've offered no explanation as to why you're wrong, I may work in the science of textiles for all you know, and even if it is my field, I could simply be wrong, and offering no explanation means I have not been transparent and allowed you to criticise my thinking, so how could you know I'm correct?

I'd broadly agree, Sagan said of science.

"It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility"

I think that applies equally to evolution as cosmology and the bulk of my posts have been reasoned scientific arguments with examples and some citations when I felt it might not be well know; AIH I fully expected that most contributors would have heard of the 'god gene' for example, given it one of the few examples of genetics research that has made the mainstream media.

[4x4Tyke]

E34-3.2 said:

When did we discover that planet earth was a ball of water when it started?

I've beginning to think I've been SantaBarbara'd

[Halb]

Derek Smith said:

Whilst kangeroos are not tripedal if you look at the way they use their tail, is it all but a third leg. Indeed, they use it as their only support in some instances. Fair enough, they lift it to move at speed, but if it's not a third leg, it might soon be.

Soon in the cosmic sense.

[James_B]

E34-3.2 said:

But you believe in mother earth despite no conclusive proof of how it came to be earth (only a few theories) then on the top of that life started on it from nothing or gaz and dust if you prefer it that way. Have you ever seen life coming out a stone? So basically, earth was created from " something" but no one can what and how for the moment. Am I Right?

Edit: Just in case you claim to know the answers, R.Dawkins doesn't know himself and he is pretty good as what he does: https://youtu.be/Pckg3Kud8_A

Edited by E34-3.2 on Tuesday 4th September 09:45

What do you mean by saying that someone believes in “Mother Earth”? The Earth plainly does exist, and life is on it, it is not a belief to say either of these. Looking at how that happened is science. Claiming to know that a supernatural creature did it is a fairytale.

[James_B]

E34-3.2 said:

When did we discover that planet earth was a ball of water when it started?

We didn’t as it wasn’t.

Where are you getting these ideas from?

[Wiccan of Darkness]

How have I missed this thread so far?? I need to stay in more...

Just a quick response to VMAT2 above ^^^ it pumps monoamines in to synaptic vesicles, I personally haven't heard it referred to as the God gene but if synaptic transmitters are lacking, I can see why someone would "see God" as frankly, you'd be a vegetable, wither and die.

I haven't read the thread in its entirety, I will do so later this week. But start at the beginning. Evolution.

Misconception: Evolution occurs gradually, over millions of years.
Reality: Evolutionary steps occur rapidly.

OK, it's not a hard and fast rule. Eyesight, for example did evolve over squillions of years. Photosensitive cells developed, which spread, became depressed to facilitate shadows developing, then rounded, filled with eyeball gloop and became the precursor to an eye.

But then, why and how did eyes evolve?

The word epigenetics was mentioned above and in some ways does play a part in evolution, but really on a day to day level it's more about how environmental effects affect the expression of a gene, and not any form of genetic evolution. A good example is cancer - we know there's a genetic predisposition towards cancers, but smoking is the epigenetic factor.

The reality is that environmental pressures - which can include epigenetics - leads to a pinch point where evolutionary changes occur. You then get what is known as a genetic bottleneck. Organisms with a certain phenotype/genotype survive the impact, all the rest get vapourised.

Lets look at Darwin's finches. Across the islands that Darwin visited, the finches all had varied beaks. Some beaks were short and stubby, others longer. At some point in time, the environment had a heart attack. Could be weather related, or fire, or disease. Doesn't really matter. Lets say a tree that produced softer seeds had a bad year. Finches with short stubby beaks were better adapted to eating harder seeds which were in plentiful supply. Finches with longer beaks died out - they couldn't eat what was available.

Over a loooooong period of time, various beak styles gradually evolved. Nothing too major.

But in the space of a few months, a catastrophic effect meant that finches with longer beaks all died out. Within 2-3 years (across an evolutionary period of several millennia) that particular island could only support stubby-beaked finches.

You get this long, glacial pace of change until all of a sudden some cataclysmic event sorts the wheat from the chaff and you have a genetic bottleneck.

Another example is the plague. WooOOOoOoo plague. Early 11th century. Then again in 1348 and 1665. Some people had natural immunity to the plague, those that survived in 1348 passed on that immunity for the next 300 years until those that were susceptible but survived due to low population density inhibiting the spread had produced enough descendants for it to return 300 years later. Then they died.

We still get outbreaks of plague (now called yersiniosis) but not on the same scale. Every time in history, when plague reared its head, people with a natural immunity survived. It has taken both thousands of years to reach this point, but wasn't gradual. It was as a result of three or more very short, specific events - 6 months or so - that ensured that change.

I'll have a read of the thread in the next few days.

[Gandahar]

Wiccan of Darkness said:

How have I missed this thread so far?? I need to stay in more...

Just a quick response to VMAT2 above ^^^ it pumps monoamines in to synaptic vesicles, I personally haven't heard it referred to as the God gene but if synaptic transmitters are lacking, I can see why someone would "see God" as frankly, you'd be a vegetable, wither and die.

I haven't read the thread in its entirety, I will do so later this week. But start at the beginning. Evolution.

Misconception: Evolution occurs gradually, over millions of years.
Reality: Evolutionary steps occur rapidly.

OK, it's not a hard and fast rule. Eyesight, for example did evolve over squillions of years. Photosensitive cells developed, which spread, became depressed to facilitate shadows developing, then rounded, filled with eyeball gloop and became the precursor to an eye.

But then, why and how did eyes evolve?

The word epigenetics was mentioned above and in some ways does play a part in evolution, but really on a day to day level it's more about how environmental effects affect the expression of a gene, and not any form of genetic evolution. A good example is cancer - we know there's a genetic predisposition towards cancers, but smoking is the epigenetic factor.

The reality is that environmental pressures - which can include epigenetics - leads to a pinch point where evolutionary changes occur. You then get what is known as a genetic bottleneck. Organisms with a certain phenotype/genotype survive the impact, all the rest get vapourised.

Lets look at Darwin's finches. Across the islands that Darwin visited, the finches all had varied beaks. Some beaks were short and stubby, others longer. At some point in time, the environment had a heart attack. Could be weather related, or fire, or disease. Doesn't really matter. Lets say a tree that produced softer seeds had a bad year. Finches with short stubby beaks were better adapted to eating harder seeds which were in plentiful supply. Finches with longer beaks died out - they couldn't eat what was available.

Over a loooooong period of time, various beak styles gradually evolved. Nothing too major.

But in the space of a few months, a catastrophic effect meant that finches with longer beaks all died out. Within 2-3 years (across an evolutionary period of several millennia) that particular island could only support stubby-beaked finches.

You get this long, glacial pace of change until all of a sudden some cataclysmic event sorts the wheat from the chaff and you have a genetic bottleneck.

Another example is the plague. WooOOOoOoo plague. Early 11th century. Then again in 1348 and 1665. Some people had natural immunity to the plague, those that survived in 1348 passed on that immunity for the next 300 years until those that were susceptible but survived due to low population density inhibiting the spread had produced enough descendants for it to return 300 years later. Then they died.

We still get outbreaks of plague (now called yersiniosis) but not on the same scale. Every time in history, when plague reared its head, people with a natural immunity survived. It has taken both thousands of years to reach this point, but wasn't gradual. It was as a result of three or more very short, specific events - 6 months or so - that ensured that change.

I'll have a read of the thread in the next few days.

How do you judge long term evolution v modern day?

For instance, just taking man for an example, in the old days people with poor sight would die out. Now we just get contact lenses.

We kill more animals with cars now, but then again we also do this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcfUdNfb808

Is man becoming both God and Satan and natural selection will be the thing of the past?



We all know the answer. With power over the world comes responsibilities. We are still not up to the mark. Evolution is no longer the driving factor in humans circa 21st C.

[E34-3.2]

James_B said:

E34-3.2 said:

When did we discover that planet earth was a ball of water when it started?

We didn’t as it wasn’t.

Where are you getting these ideas from?

Earth was covered of water for Years before the continents formed.

[CrutyRammers]

E34-3.2 said:

Earth was covered of water for Years before the continents formed.

[Citation Needed]