With enough time . . . evolution

[Maranatha]

Then you obviously don’t read the works of many distinguished evolutionary biologists. Leaving aside the fact that almost every evolutionary biologist on earth will say that evolution is generally a gradual process, have you heard of Motoo Kimura?

Hi Alex, Can you backup your claim that most evolutionary scientists believe that species change occurs at a constant gradual rate?

According to this report Punctuated Equilibrium is widely accepted by scientists.

Not just from non-scientists, but from evolutionary biologists. There have been countless speciations in the history of life on earth, which stretches back about 3.5 billion years.

I understand that there have been countless speciations but what I’m concerned about is the change from one species to two or more. This occurs rapidly. There’s no need to cite the age of the earth if evolution occurs rapidly.

Really? Why?

There are changes both within and across geological ages. Geological ages are typically a few million years long. We can see change in the fossil record on scales all the way from a few thousand years up to changes spanning eons - tens of millions of years.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I would say that low chance random changes over a short time resulting in objectively superior competitiveness would be much rarer then the same changes occurring randomly over a long period of time. The longer the period of time the greater the odds of a low chance random mutation would “hit.”

 

[m134e5]

God didn’t give us wisdom teeth in the back of our mouths and then tell us to pry them out of each other because (at least most) our mouths are too short to have that many teeth in them.

Cattle have an organ to help them break down cellulose. We evolved to not need cellulose, and therefore have no need of that organ- it is still there, only it is small- and it is the only part of the body that has no function whatsoever (the appendix).

Two of the most common musculoskeletal problems associated with aging are back problems, and knee problems. Why? Because relatively speaking, humans haven’t been standing upright for that long, and weren’t originally designed to stand- we evolved to stand, but it’s a later evolutionary trait, so nature hasn’t worked out all the “kinks” in the bipedal idea yet.

There is plenty of evidence in support of evolution. What evidence is there against it? A book that was never really meant to be a science book in the first place? Let religion be what it is, and let science be what it is- if they work together, we as a human race will better understand how amazing God’s creation is. Don’t fear science- embrace it, love it, and glorify God with it.

 

[grannymh]

Then you obviously don’t read the works of many distinguished evolutionary biologists.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Was just skimming through this thread and kept seeing at random, completely random, etc. It seems I read something about a pre-determined something… which seemed to modify the process at the beginning. Or am I dreaming?
My New Year’s resolution is to get my notes and stuff organized and give my memory a rest.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[edwest2]

God didn’t give us wisdom teeth in the back of our mouths and then tell us to pry them out of each other because (at least most) our mouths are too short to have that many teeth in them.

Cattle have an organ to help them break down cellulose. We evolved to not need cellulose, and therefore have no need of that organ- it is still there, only it is small- and it is the only part of the body that has no function whatsoever (the appendix).

Two of the most common musculoskeletal problems associated with aging are back problems, and knee problems. Why? Because relatively speaking, humans haven’t been standing upright for that long, and weren’t originally designed to stand- we evolved to stand, but it’s a later evolutionary trait, so nature hasn’t worked out all the “kinks” in the bipedal idea yet.

There is plenty of evidence in support of evolution. What evidence is there against it? A book that was never really meant to be a science book in the first place? Let religion be what it is, and let science be what it is- if they work together, we as a human race will better understand how amazing God’s creation is. Don’t fear science- embrace it, love it, and glorify God with it.

Glorify God with science? Like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers? Science has become corrupted.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Our bodies are” what?

The result of natural evolutionary processes.

No.

The Pope has said they are. He has more credibility with me than you do.

God willed each one of us into existence

Of course. The only difference between us, is that I also approve of the way He did it.

 

[grannymh]

The result of natural evolutionary processes.

The Pope has said they are. He has more credibility with me than you do.

Of course. The only difference between us, is that I also approve of the way He did it.

Dear Barbarian,

Re: Post 25 above

It must be too late for this old brain. What did the Pope say and when? and where?

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[ricmat]

Cattle have an organ to help them break down cellulose. We evolved to not need cellulose, and therefore have no need of that organ- it is still there, only it is small- and it is the only part of the body that has no function whatsoever (the appendix).

I’m not trying to argue here. But I though I read someplace that the appendix was recently found to have a real function. It seems that it is a storehouse for “good” bacteria that normally inhabit our digestive systems. When we get a serious disease sometimes our good bacteria get wiped out, and then the appendix “reboots” the system later.

Ah… here’s an article similar to the one I read originally:

msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

 

[Maranatha]

There is plenty of evidence in support of evolution. What evidence is there against it?

I agree, there is plenty of evidence that supports evolution. There are also holes big enough to drive a truck through.

 

[Orogeny]

I agree, there is plenty of evidence that supports evolution. There are also holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Then I’m sure you will provide at least a couple of them.

Peace

Tim

 

[m134e5]

I’m not trying to argue here. But I though I read someplace that the appendix was recently found to have a real function. It seems that it is a storehouse for “good” bacteria that normally inhabit our digestive systems. When we get a serious disease sometimes our good bacteria get wiped out, and then the appendix “reboots” the system later.

Ah… here’s an article similar to the one I read originally:

msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

Hmm…interesting…I haven’t really kept up with discoveries in that area since high school. Still, the point I was trying to make was that there is plenty of evidence in support of evolution- and Christians need not be afraid of it.

 

[Maranatha]

Then I’m sure you will provide at least a couple of them.

Peace

Tim

The fossil record does not show enough time passes between species for complex developments to have evolved randomly.

 

[Orogeny]

The fossil record does not show enough time passes between species for complex developments to have evolved randomly.

1. The fossil record shows that evolution has occurred.
2. Evolution isn’t random.

Try again.

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

Hi Alex, Can you backup your claim that most evolutionary scientists believe that species change occurs at a constant gradual rate?

I didn’t say that. What I said was: “the fact that almost every evolutionary biologist on earth will say that evolution is generally a gradual process,”, and I can certainly back that up:

Sean B Carroll, *Making of the Fittest, *p61, Quercus, 2006
Mark Ridley, *Evolution, *p138 and following, Third edition, Blackwell Publishing, 2004
Douglas Futuyama, *Evolutionary Biology, *272 - 276, Sinauer Associates, 1998
Ernst Mayr, *What Evolution Is, *p134, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002.

I also asked if you had heard of Motoo Kimura, but you obviously haven’t.

According to this report Punctuated Equilibrium is widely accepted by scientists.

Perhaps (although Punctuated Equilibrium is far from being accepted as the unique and universal process by which evolution progresses), but even under Punctuated Equilibrium, evolution is generally a gradual process. Tetrapods didn’t arrive on land in a week, and birds didn’t take to the air overnight.

I understand that there have been countless speciations but what I’m concerned about is the change from one species to two or more. This occurs rapidly. There’s no need to cite the age of the earth if evolution occurs rapidly.

Nonsense. First of all, although speciation can occur relatively rapidly, (say in a few hundreds of generations - see for example, cichlid fish in African lakes), that is not the norm, nor does ir mean that evolution doesn’t take a long time. It is not how long speciation takes but how long radical morphological and physiological changes take. It took over 2 billion tears for complex multi-celled organisms to arise in the sea, another 200 million years for insects to arrive on land, a further 100 million years for tetrapods, 175 million years for the emergence of mammals, another 100 million for apes to evolve and a further 25 million for humans.

I would say that low chance random changes over a short time resulting in objectively superior competitiveness would be much rarer then the same changes occurring randomly over a long period of time. The longer the period of time the greater the odds of a low chance random mutation would “hit.”

Depends on the size of the population and the mutation rate. This is all routine and elementary molecular genetics.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The fossil record does not show enough time passes between species for complex developments to have evolved randomly.

I thought you were going to provide an example of a hole in evolutionary theory “big enough to drive a truck through”. So far you’ve failed. You’re not going to do that by misrepresenting evolution.

Leaving aside your fundamental misrepresentation of evolution as a random process, could you give a specific example from the peer reviewed evolutionary biology literature of a complex development for which there is not enough time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

Leaving aside your fundamental misrepresentation of evolution as a random process, could you give a specific example from the peer reviewed evolutionary biology literature of a complex development for which there is not enough time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Thanks. This answers a question of mine. Thus, evolution is not a completely random process. In granny terms, I’m not ready to deal with how long evolution takes place or when etc. I just don’t like the idea of any of my ancestors being at the mercy of chance. I would feel bad if they had to go through difficult times just so that I could finally arrive.

Blessings for the new year,
grannymh

My brain is still frozen from the cold and wind chill. Hopefully, it will be thawed by 2009.

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,

Thanks. This answers a question of mine. Thus, evolution is not a completely random process.
.

That is correct: evolution is not a completely random process. Mutations are random with respect to fitness (but not random in some other respects), but natural selection is anything other than random.

Alec
evolutionpages.com