Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[o_mlly]

But for us…there is simply no way to understand the chain of events that lead to a particular change.

At last. This admission of ignorance is refreshing.

If one cannot know the particular then knowledge of the general is all the more impossible. The pretense to infer the general without observing particulars has been, in this and other threads, evolution theory’s greatest weakness: the lack of an observed speciation event. Presuming first, of course, a rigid, non-elastic definition of the word “species”.

As to an alternate theory, there is none. Evolution, flawed as it is, is possibly the best pseudo-science theory today. But it is not the best possible theory for the diversification of life on the planet. Exactly what one would expect when science tries to explain first things constrained by the scientific method.

In the case of the eye, yes, the physics of light has indeed been constant for that long, and longer. The evolution of the eye is driven by the physics of light.

The physics of light are constant but not the effects. The changing environment is not in changes to the laws but in their changing effects.

 

[rossum]

The physics of light are constant but not the effects. The changing environment is not in changes to the laws but in their changing effects.

Cells in the retina detect light through a chemical reaction triggered by the energy of the photons falling on it. If you have evidence of the energy of photons changing over time then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.

 

[o_mlly]

Cells in the retina detect light through a chemical reaction triggered by the energy of the photons falling on it. If you have evidence of the energy of photons changing over time then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.

No need to award one a Nobel prize for having mere common sense.

Fewer or no retina cells that react to photon energy and fewer to no photons (think impact winter event) is all that is needed as an explanation.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Right, how does evolution know which way a climate change is going go, and for how long it’s going to last.

Evolution ‘knows’ because natural selection ‘knows’ what the climate is, not what it is going to be.

Evolution would have know ahead of time what the new environment will be like, in order to produce a fit offspring to survive it.

Apparently, evolution takes millions of years or it can work overnight.

 

[whatistrue]

Evolution would have know ahead of time what the new environment will be like, in order to produce a fit offspring to survive it.

Yet another example of lack of understanding of how evolution and environmental change work.

If an environment changed from, for example, a rain forest to a desert literally overnight, nothing is going to save any creatures living there except blind luck, perhaps having a previously unused capability that could enable them to survive the changed conditions. But of course environments don’t change that fast in the first place, and evolution doesn’t “decide” what to give any particular individual member of a species, it is the overall process of how populations change over time based on marginal advantages in reproduction rates (including survival; you can’t reproduce if you are dead).

 

[rossum]

Evolution would have know ahead of time what the new environment will be like, in order to produce a fit offspring to survive it.

No. Random mutations are random. Effectively they introduce a cloud of variations into a species, with the cloud centered on the current environment. If the environment changes reasonably slowly then the cloud is a bit off centre. Natural selection will adjust the cloud to re-centre it on the changed environment.

Sudden changes will cause extinction: a big meteorite impact, being buried in molten lava from a volcano, a large flood etc.

Apparently, evolution takes millions of years or it can work overnight.

Yes. A single mutation can have an effect overnight. Large population changes can take millions of years.

 

[o_mlly]

Random mutations are random.

The tautology is not unnoticed.

The ancient scientists thought solar eclipses were random events. One day, God willing, today’s scientists will also be considered ancient. The claim of randomness, like “brute fact” and “emerging property”, is an indication of ignorance not knowledge.

 

[Pattylt]

If one cannot know the particular then knowledge of the general is all the more impossible

I know a college student that walked from my town to another about 35 miles away. Many here saw him leave by walking and many others saw him arrive in another town still walking. No one witnessed all his steps or even the exact route he took. But everyone knows he walked to the other city. Yes, we can know the general without all the particulars. What’s so hard to understand about this?

 

[rossum]

The claim of randomness, like “brute fact” and “emerging property”, is an indication of ignorance not knowledge.

Your source’s lack of relevant scientific knowledge is obvious, I’m afraid. You need to look at the results of the Luria-Delbrück experiment, first performed in 1943 and repeated many times since.

Mutations are random, and have been shown to be random by repeated experiments. The scientific claim of randomness is an indication of knowledge, not ignorance.

 

[Techno2000]

Yet another example of lack of understanding of how evolution and environmental change work.

If an environment changed from, for example, a rain forest to a desert literally overnight,

I didnt say anything about an environment changing overnight. My point was … no matter what kind of environment changes that comes along, evolution magically always has a solution for it, even though it supposedly takes millions of years for evolution to do anything.

 

[whatistrue]

I didnt say anything about an environment changing overnight

You did, however, say something about evolution working overnight, if only to ridicule the notion when no one claimed it.

evolution magically always has a solution for it

You still seem to be stuck on evolution being intelligent or planning. Evolution is a process, not an entity, and doesn’t and can’t solve every problem. No magic or planned solutions involved. Just very simply that sometimes a mutation can have a positive effect on the reproduction rates of those individual organisms that possess it in prevailing conditions. If conditions change, then which capabilities provide an advantage can change as well. No magic, no planning, just good luck as far as we can tell from available evidence.

Of course, God always knew exactly how it would go, but since God cannot be measured than He is not subject to definition or limitation by science. I really don’t understand why this very basic idea is so hard for some to understand or accept.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Evolution is a process, not an entity, and doesn’t and can’t solve every problem.

And we have plenty of fossils to prove it.

 

[o_mlly]

You need to look at the results of the Luria-Delbrück experiment ,

Once again, your cited source does not support your claim. Randomness is assumed, not proven.

What’s so hard to understand about this?

Please explain why you think that your walking student metaphor refutes the logical claim.

 

[rossum]

Once again, your cited source does not support your claim. Randomness is assumed, not proven.

False. Randomness is evidenced. Science does not in general do proof, that is for mathematics, not science.

The evidence supports mutations being random with respect to their effects. That evidence includes the results of the Luria-Delbrück experiment as well as others.

Your sources are, as so often, lying to you. Why do you believe sources that lie to you?

 

[o_mlly]

The evidence supports mutations being random with respect to their effects.

False. "Based on these assumptions … "

 

[buffalo]

No one witnessed all his steps or even the exact route he took.

He could have hitchiked each time to just outside the town.

 

[buffalo]

Mutations are random

Cell directed mutations are not random.

 

[Techno2000]

just good luck as far as we can tell from available evidence.

It’s going to have be more than just good luck, because a climate change isn’t only going to affect one organism, it’s going to affect the entire ecosystem/ environment. That means every single plant & animal DNA in that ecosystem would have to be working in perfect harmony with so-called random mutations, what are the odds of all these mutations all working together perfectly ?

 

[rossum]

Cell directed mutations are not random.

I did not say they were random, they are random with respect to their effects. Mutations have causes, such as radiation, some chemicals and they are not random with respect to their location in DNA: some sites are more susceptible to mutation than others.

If you are going to criticise then please quote all that I said, not just a part of it. After all, the Bible says “There is no God” if you cut out part of the verse.

 

[rossum]

working in perfect harmony

No. Working in reasonable harmony is more like it. You don’t need “perfect harmony” to survive.