Science only Evolution Thread

[Sideline]

There are a bazillion threads on evolution on this board. They all start off with different questions, but they seem to get all muddled together as they go along.

Instead of talking about the theological and moral consequences of evolution, I’d like this thread to just be about the science. Many people here claim that evolution fails as a science. I disagree, and so does the vast majority of the scientific community.

Let’s have a conversation about what evolution really is: a scientific theory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Let’s first say what evolution isn’t:

1. It’s not about the origin of life
2. It’s not about the existence of God
3. It’s not about “a dog becoming a horse.”
4. It’s not about “new information.”
5. It’s not about the big bang.
6. It’s not about thermodynamics.

What it is:
It is the change in allele frequency of a population over time. Populations evolve; individuals do not. There is no “devolution”; evolution has no “up” or “down.” It may increase complexity, or it may not, depending on the situation.

Cladogenesis, the evolution of new taxa, depends on random mutation plus natural selection. But not all evolution procedes by natural selection; even if two alleles have no selective value, random changes will eventually fix one in the population, given enough time.

Most speciation appears to occur by allopatric means, that is a small group of the original population is isolated from the others, and evolves in its own way, eventually becoming reproductively isolated.

Natural selection acts on mutation in a way that removes harmful alleles and preserves favorable ones. There are three kinds of selection:

a. Directional selection. This can be seen in many lines of horses, as the climate became cooler and drier. The forest receded, and grasslands expanded. Horses evolved size, speed, teeth and other characteristics useful for grazing rather than browsing in woodlands.

b. Stabilizing selection: In this case, a population is well-fitted to a very stable environment. In such cases, natural selection greatly slows or prevents evolution. Horseshoe crabs are an example.

c. Disruptive selection: Often seen when a population migrates to a new area with many open niches. The population tends to divide into several different species, each adapted to a specific niche. Darwin’s finches are a good example.

Mutations can be by aneuploidy, (change in chromosome number)
Crossovers (recombination of alleles on chromosomes), gene duplication (an extra copy of a gene is made, after which one of them is free to mutate without harming the organism), and point mutation, which change one amino acid in a gene.

Most mutations don’t do much. A few are harmful. A very few are beneficial. Natural selection sorts it out. “Harmful” and “beneficial” have meaning only in terms of a specific organism and a specific environment.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi, nice to see some of you again. I just picked this up at Live Science today. New discovery in Kenya produces a thigh bone(s) which are humanoid and date from 6 million years ago. They establish convincingly, so I am told that this creature was bipedal, the oldest? so far? It was not an ancestor of modern humans however. But it does show that the split between human like creatures and chimpanzees must predate that one. Interesting I thought.

I cannot believe, well of course I can, that people are still making these fantastical crazy arguments that evolution is not true. Out in the real world, one hardly ever comes across such discussions and I am told we are the only country on this planet who still is confused on this subject. Our anti-intellectual history continues to make us look foolish around the world.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

There are a bazillion threads on evolution on this board. They all start off with different questions, but they seem to get all muddled together as they go along.

Instead of talking about the theological and moral consequences of evolution, I’d like this thread to just be about the science. Many people here claim that evolution fails as a science. I disagree, and so does the vast majority of the scientific community.

Let’s have a conversation about what evolution really is: a scientific theory.

There is NO credible evidence for evolution. It’s all a lie promoted by atheist scientists, and by the Quisling “scientists” who call themselves “Catholics”. Don’t be fooled. Only Jesus Christ saves, not science. Therefore, we are justified in saying no credible evidence for evolution, no matter what the evidence actually says, it can’t be credible, for evolution didn’t happen.

There are NO transitional fossils. NOT A ONE. Despite the lies of atheist paleontologists. Why, they even made up “Piltdown Man” to bolster up promotion of the LIE of evolution. Now they claim LOTS of transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik. Why, don’t they know that even if they find a transitional fossil between “A” and “C”, let’s call it “B”, there are no transitional fossils between “A” and “B” and “B” and “C”, so STILL NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

There is NO credible evidence for “long ages”. NONE. Despite the lies of atheist physicists, astronomers, and geologists, who approach everything with a uniformitarian presupposition. Why, don’t they know we found C14 in diamonds, which TOTALLY DESTROYS the idea these diamonds could have been formed long ago. (Yeah, according to standard science these diamonds still date from c.50 kYa but the atheist uniformitarians are forgetting about the global flood changing the C14 concentration in the atmosphere; with just a few miracles and ad hoc assumptions and tweaking we can get the numbers to work out to ~6kYa, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS, and another STUNNING CONFIRMATION OF GENESIS FROM SCIENCE.) As for radiometric “dating”, don’t the uniformitarians realize that lava flows from yesterday “date” to millions of years ago? In a desperate attempt to save their evolution “theory”, uniformitarians claim this is due to “excess argon” and the presence of “xenoliths”. Don’t be fooled; these are just big words to impress them and get you to believe their lies. As for the “geologic column”, uniformitarian geologists believe the layers were laid one on top of each other over vast periods of time. Therefore, fossils are “dated” by where they are in the geologic column, which in turn is “dated” by what fossils are there. Don’t they know we have PROVEN uniformitarian geology to be wrong by performing a few experiments in a flume, and gotten them published in a few obscure journals?

And finally, there is NO credible evidence for “common descent”. If we came from apes, why are there still apes? And which one of you has seen an animal miraculously turn into another one? The genetic “evidence” for common descent is again merely a matter of atheistic presuppositions impacting science and the desire to disprove God’s Holy Word. It is an unproven theological assertion that God would not insert endogenous retroviruses (many of which have harmful effects) smack in the exact same place in the genome, and that these mysteriously have the same gag, pol, and env genes of modern ERVs, and they have mysteriously mutated in such a way as to resemble “fossillized” ERV insertions we observe at present, with even the mismatches in the long term repeats matching well with the presumed “phylogeny” in evolutionary “theory”.

So don’t be fooled by all the LIES coming from modern “science”. It would all be better if we could transplant ourselves back into the “Age of Faith” but failing that let’s keep a 13th Century view of things, since society has been in freefall and going to hell in a handbasket since then.

 

[Sideline]

There is NO credible evidence for evolution. It’s all a lie promoted by atheist scientists, and by the Quisling “scientists” who call themselves “Catholics”. Don’t be fooled. Only Jesus Christ saves, not science. Therefore, we are justified in saying no credible evidence for evolution, no matter what the evidence actually says, it can’t be credible, for evolution didn’t happen.

So you are saying,“Evolution is false, so any evidence for evolution is also false.” And this has something to do with Jesus saving.

That makes no sense at all.

There are NO transitional fossils. NOT A ONE. Despite the lies of atheist paleontologists.

You’ve been misinformed.

Why, they even made up “Piltdown Man” to bolster up promotion of the LIE of evolution.

Again, this doesn’t make any sense. No one knows who planted the Piltdown hoax. But I think you have to agree that if the scientific community were trying promote a fraud, then debunking it was a mistake.

Now they claim LOTS of transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik. Why, don’t they know that even if they find a transitional fossil between “A” and “C”, let’s call it “B”, there are no transitional fossils between “A” and “B” and “B” and “C”, so STILL NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

That is like saying that a you can never connect two points.

There are several people here who are better than I am on geology, so I’m just going to leave that part to them.

And finally, there is NO credible evidence for “common descent”. If we came from apes, why are there still apes?

You see, it is comments like this that really demonstrate that you don’t understand evolution.

You have a population of animals spread over a geographic area. the population becomes geographically separated. The two populations can no longer interbreed, so the changes in the gene pool of one will not effect the other.

And which one of you has seen an animal miraculously turn into another one?

Well then, good thing the theory of evolution doesn’t rely on the miraculous. Actually, one species miraculously turning into another one would be evidence against evolution.

The genetic “evidence” for common descent is again merely a matter of atheistic presuppositions impacting science and the desire to disprove God’s Holy Word.

Evolution has nothing to do with “God’s Holy Word.” It has to do with a massive body of evidence. Perhaps you could enlighten us on your alternate theory of genetics that would show evolution to be in error.

It is an unproven theological assertion that God would not insert endogenous retroviruses (many of which have harmful effects) smack in the exact same place in the genome, and that these mysteriously have the same gag, pol, and env genes of modern ERVs, and they have mysteriously mutated in such a way as to resemble “fossillized” ERV insertions we observe at present, with even the mismatches in the long term repeats matching well with the presumed “phylogeny” in evolutionary “theory”.

This is a scientific discussion, not a theological one.

So don’t be fooled by all the LIES coming from modern “science”. It would all be better if we could transplant ourselves back into the “Age of Faith” but failing that let’s keep a 13th Century view of things, since society has been in freefall and going to hell in a handbasket since then.

Well let’s see. If I had lived in the 13th century I wouldn’t have lived past my 4th birthday. So… I’ll take this one thanks.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

So you are saying,“Evolution is false, so any evidence for evolution is also false.” And this has something to do with Jesus saving.

That makes no sense at all.

You actually thought the post was serious?

 

[Sideline]

You actually thought the post was serious?

NO!:dts:

Of course not.

Uh-uh.

No way.

I’m just going to slink away now and be really embarrassed.
uch:

Ha, ha. Good one.

 

[Sideline]

You actually thought the post was serious?

Your post makes a lot more sense now.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I have a BA and a MA in Anthropology although I do not practice in my field. I do try to keep current with research. The advances made in evolutionary science insofar as the primates/hominids over the last 30 years is breathtaking. What others see as lies, I see as evidence that God is with His Creation.

I am quite content with theistic evolution. I don’t believe that evolution was random. I do believe that what we see in evolution are the fingerprints of God upon His creation. That is my religious belief. That belief has no bearing upon scientific research which merely seeks to describe.

For those who doubt evolution, spend a day observing a primate enclosure at a zoo. Chimps, bonabos, or gorillas. Chimps have 98% of the same genetic makeup as you or I. Bonabos significantly higher in the 98% range. Gorillas somewhat less.

Make eye contact with them. Extend your open hand with fingers curled under your knuckles toward them. You can recognize all of their emotions.

So, somewhere in that 1.5%, hominids learned to walk upright…and then to make tools beyond broken tree shafts (wow! that video of chimps knocked my socks off!)

We are not the ancient Hebrews who needed the tale of Genesis. I believe with all of my heart that God gave me a brain to use. As the Jesuit poet Gerard M. Hopkins pointed out “The world is charged with the grandeur of God…”

We but dimly perceive what the Creator has done.

 

[Orogeny]

Brotherhrolf,

Have you had the opportunity to visit the Lucy exhibit in Houston? If not, you need to make the trip. Fascinating.

Peace

Tim

 

[neophyte]

You actually thought the post was serious?

It was BRILLIANT! :clapping: I was utterly fooled until you copped that it’s a spoof, then I went back and looked more closely. BRAVO!

 

[Camron]

I actually find an interesting parallel in punctuated equilibrium with neuroplasticity: Just as each neural system appears to have a critical period during which it was especially plastic and sensitive to the environment (and during which it had rapid, formative growth), I also think that each species appears to have a critical period during which its speciation was especially plastic and sensitive to the environment (and during which it had rapid, formative growth into other species).

 

[The_Barbarian]

I actually find an interesting parallel in punctuated equilibrium with neuroplasticity: Just as each neural system appears to have a critical period during which it was especially plastic and sensitive to the environment (and during which it had rapid, formative growth), I also think that each species appears to have a critical period during which its speciation was especially plastic and sensitive to the environment (and during which it had rapid, formative growth into other species).

Actually, selection is meaningful only in terms of the organism and the environment. So the plasticity comes from a population encountering a new environment, undergoing directional or disruptive selection, (because it is not well fitted to the environment) and forming one or more new species as a result.

 

[Hubriss]

There is NO credible evidence for evolution. It’s all a lie promoted by atheist scientists, and by the Quisling “scientists” who call themselves “Catholics”. Don’t be fooled. Only Jesus Christ saves, not science. Therefore, we are justified in saying no credible evidence for evolution, no matter what the evidence actually says, it can’t be credible, for evolution didn’t happen.

There are NO transitional fossils. NOT A ONE. Despite the lies of atheist paleontologists. Why, they even made up “Piltdown Man” to bolster up promotion of the LIE of evolution. Now they claim LOTS of transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik. Why, don’t they know that even if they find a transitional fossil between “A” and “C”, let’s call it “B”, there are no transitional fossils between “A” and “B” and “B” and “C”, so STILL NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

There is NO credible evidence for “long ages”. NONE. Despite the lies of atheist physicists, astronomers, and geologists, who approach everything with a uniformitarian presupposition. Why, don’t they know we found C14 in diamonds, which TOTALLY DESTROYS the idea these diamonds could have been formed long ago. (Yeah, according to standard science these diamonds still date from c.50 kYa but the atheist uniformitarians are forgetting about the global flood changing the C14 concentration in the atmosphere; with just a few miracles and ad hoc assumptions and tweaking we can get the numbers to work out to ~6kYa, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS, and another STUNNING CONFIRMATION OF GENESIS FROM SCIENCE.) As for radiometric “dating”, don’t the uniformitarians realize that lava flows from yesterday “date” to millions of years ago? In a desperate attempt to save their evolution “theory”, uniformitarians claim this is due to “excess argon” and the presence of “xenoliths”. Don’t be fooled; these are just big words to impress them and get you to believe their lies. As for the “geologic column”, uniformitarian geologists believe the layers were laid one on top of each other over vast periods of time. Therefore, fossils are “dated” by where they are in the geologic column, which in turn is “dated” by what fossils are there. Don’t they know we have PROVEN uniformitarian geology to be wrong by performing a few experiments in a flume, and gotten them published in a few obscure journals?

And finally, there is NO credible evidence for “common descent”. If we came from apes, why are there still apes? And which one of you has seen an animal miraculously turn into another one? The genetic “evidence” for common descent is again merely a matter of atheistic presuppositions impacting science and the desire to disprove God’s Holy Word. It is an unproven theological assertion that God would not insert endogenous retroviruses (many of which have harmful effects) smack in the exact same place in the genome, and that these mysteriously have the same gag, pol, and env genes of modern ERVs, and they have mysteriously mutated in such a way as to resemble “fossillized” ERV insertions we observe at present, with even the mismatches in the long term repeats matching well with the presumed “phylogeny” in evolutionary “theory”.

So don’t be fooled by all the LIES coming from modern “science”. It would all be better if we could transplant ourselves back into the “Age of Faith” but failing that let’s keep a 13th Century view of things, since society has been in freefall and going to hell in a handbasket since then.

Heh, I knew for sure the post was a fake once I read, “Don’t they know we have PROVEN uniformitarian geology to be wrong by performing a few experiments in a flume, and gotten them published in a few obscure journals?” I doubt creationists would call their vast amount of evidense “obscure.”

And by the way Barbarian, I’m very impressed with your knowledge of evolution. For a Catholic it’s very precise and clear. I’m ashamed that I forget all the biology terms and specifics of evolution from high school. I read a lot of the evolution threads, but I tend to not post in them of fear that you’ll embarrass me. I think I might make a post sometime posing the question of how you Catholics who believe in evolution reconcile it with your faith. Most Catholic apologists I’ve seen speak or spoken with tend to be more creationist.

 

[JCismywingman]

Every one here has put their points across so well. As a science student, I do actually believe in evolution though not that humans came from a single cell organism!

On a side note, why is it that we cannot accept science and evolution (survival of the fittest parts of it) are all God’s doing?

 

[The_Barbarian]

And by the way Barbarian, I’m very impressed with your knowledge of evolution. For a Catholic it’s very precise and clear.

There is a long tradition of scholarship among Catholics. And the Catholic Church is one of the Christian denominations that specifically addresses evolution and states that it’s not in any way opposed to Christian belief, so long as people don’t try to push it beyond it’s proper place.

Thank you for your kind words: I’ve spent a lifetime trying to understand biology, and there is so much left to learn. That’s the romance of science; “what’s over the next hill?”

It is, as another Catholic once said, why God gave us intellect and curiosity. We are expected to use our talents. And for me, elucidating the details of His creation is another way of glorifying Him.

That’s a religious belief, of course, but scientists are permitted to be religious.

 

[Hubriss]

There is a long tradition of scholarship among Catholics. And the Catholic Church is one of the Christian denominations that specifically addresses evolution and states that it’s not in any way opposed to Christian belief, so long as people don’t try to push it beyond it’s proper place.

Thank you for your kind words: I’ve spent a lifetime trying to understand biology, and there is so much left to learn. That’s the romance of science; “what’s over the next hill?”

It is, as another Catholic once said, why God gave us intellect and curiosity. We are expected to use our talents. And for me, elucidating the details of His creation is another way of glorifying Him.

That’s a religious belief, of course, but scientists are permitted to be religious.

I wonder what your opinion is on Intelligent Design? I’m sure you’ve heard about all the recent controversy on it. The Kitzmiller v Dover School trial, Ben Steins new movie coming out Expelled (The way it’s going now, I doubt the Expelled movie will ever come out). Do you think the RCC should just stay out of the ID debate? My father and I went to see a talk by Fr. Mitch Pacwa who went on about ID and the weakness of evolutionary theory, saying Darwinian evolution is responsible for nazism, etc, and my dad thinks it’s a big mistake for apologists and priests in the Church to do that (he’s still Catholic). Just wondering what you think the Church’s position should be.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I wonder what your opinion is on Intelligent Design?

Too much design, not nearly enough intelligence. There are worse religions than ID, I guess.

I’m sure you’ve heard about all the recent controversy on it. The Kitzmiller v Dover School trial,

I think ID leader Phillip Johnson put it right; “a train wreck” for intelligent design. The highlight was perhaps when IDer Michael Behe admitted under oath, that ID was science in the same sense that astrology is science.

Ben Steins new movie coming out Expelled (The way it’s going now, I doubt the Expelled movie will ever come out).

Ironically, at a private showing, they “expelled” a couple of scientists who dropped by for a look. “No intelligence allowed,” they said. Looks like they were serious.

Do you think the RCC should just stay out of the ID debate?

No more than it should stay out of the Raelian “debate” or the Scientology “debate.” In the last few decades, new religions like YE creationism, ID, etc, have presented themselves as “scientific” to get some respectability. The Pope had it right; such things are not what Christian belief is about, nor is science able to comment on religion.

My father and I went to see a talk by Fr. Mitch Pacwa who went on about ID and the weakness of evolutionary theory, saying Darwinian evolution is responsible for nazism, etc, and my dad thinks it’s a big mistake for apologists and priests in the Church to do that (he’s still Catholic).

Such foolish behavior puts the Church in disrepute with people who know better. How shameful that a priest would do it.

Just wondering what you think the Church’s position should be.

Pretty much just what it is. Acknowledge the fact that science is consistent with our faith, without making that science part of the Church’s teaching.

 

[Cathryn]

I have trouble separating Grandfather Erasmus Darwin’s “Temple of Nature” (pantheism?) from grandson Charles Darwin’s scientific beliefs. He seems to be greatly influenced by his Grandfather’s “New Age” beliefs.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have trouble separating Grandfather Erasmus Darwin’s “Temple of Nature” (pantheism?) from grandson Charles Darwin’s scientific beliefs. He seems to be greatly influenced by his Grandfather’s “New Age” beliefs.

Um, looking through “The Origin of Species”, wherein do you find that kind of thing? It’s all evidence, and conclusions from it.

Are you sure you’re on the right thread?