By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Is the evolution story really scientific?

ICStats on 20 December 2013
OooSnap said:
Some have brought up the Lenski experiment. It is emperical, empirical evidence for evolution, right? Not at all.

Interesting example however recent research shows it is just another example of degeneration or "deevolution":

"The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks." http://www.icr.org/article/4089/

Despite the unscientific creationist opinion here, this IS a great example of evolution.  Deevolution is a misnomer, as it implies that evolution must mean "progress" to a "more advanced" (as in complex) organism.  There is no defined direction for progress, only natural selection through viability of an organism to live and reproduce.

Some bacteria accidentally mutated a gene in a "small", way which made it metabolize nylon, which presumably increased its rate and ability to reproduce in the medium thereby giving rise to the population of nylon eating bacteria.  Hello evolution!  This bacteria now has the machinery to metabolise a substance that it was not designed by anyone to do, purely by random mutation of existing biological systems.

Evolution has no designer, so randomly damaging pre-existing locks is the only way to create new kind of locks.

"Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment."

Yes, thank you to the benevolent Creator for evolution.  The Creator has done a fantastic job of creating a nature that looks just like something that developed through evolution over billions of years.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) science is not the business of proving or disproving the existence of a Creator.



My 8th gen collection

Around the Network
supernihilist on 20 December 2013

if you have a better theory than that just tell me!



DonFerrari on 20 December 2013
Jay520 said:
HintHRO said:
superchunk said:

Everything has rules to run by.

When I create a program, I create  set of rules that program has to follow. Why would God not create a set of run rules for this masterpeice of a universe. Granted its a greatly complex program, but its the same general idea.

To create sustaining life that can adapt to changing surroundings, evolution and mutation are what rules are coded in to allow such a change. That evlolution run rule is for ALL life forms, including bacteria.

The constant battle to discredit a belief one has with a God and the study and continous evolution of scientific theories is simply ignorant. They coexist just fine when you consider that a creator of any complex system must have set of boundaries and laws for that system to run with.

The only real question is to ask yourself if you choose to believe the Creator exists at all or if the creation and the creator are one in the same. Creation itself is simply the One.

What I understand from your comment is that you assume that genetic mutations are necessary to develop human beings and yes, they are. But it is actually God who decided what the laws of nature would be. When he 'decided' atoms and molecules have to behave in this way, he already knew beforehand that mutations can cause all kinds of diseases or resistant bacteria and other million problems like a carcinogenic environment without a magnetic field around the earth. He decided what was necessary in the universe to create humans. That means he had to compromise and he is not perfect at all, although the bible and whatmore are stating God = perfection. If you're perfect, you're able to edit the laws you're creating (although you can't create something without laws already being there, huge flaw in combining God with science) to something that doesn't cause problems. Making games/software still goes together with dealing problems and glitches, because we're not perfect animals at all. We are dealing with these kind of problems because we don't control everything, but God does right (then he made it himself really REALLY hard on purpose)? The computer itself is dependent of laws that already exists. You can't create a software without laws.

I also understand from your comment that he made the universe like a software, made the rules and then let the progress go on its own. The chances that humans will develop yet again on another world are practically zero. When he 'made' the universe and 'decided' what the laws of physics would be, he could impossible be planning to make humans. You know how long it has taken for humans to develop? Why did he take such a long time? Why create dinosaures first and purposely destroy what he made in the first case (1 of many contradictions in history). There are simply too many flaws in Creationism. So many questions that it's useless to continue with it. Especially in this modern society.


All of these only cthe fradict Superchunck's post if you're defining "gourmetas the biblical definition of God, which states that he must be perfect, all-loving, etc. But that doesn't have to be true. There are plenty of varying interpretations of what a "God" is.

GOD is the food that stoped war and hunger, bringing the gourmEt era.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

theprof00 on 20 December 2013
ICStats said:
OooSnap said:
Some have brought up the Lenski experiment. It is emperical, empirical evidence for evolution, right? Not at all.

Interesting example however recent research shows it is just another example of degeneration or "deevolution":

"The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks." http://www.icr.org/article/4089/

Despite the unscientific creationist opinion here, this IS a great example of evolution.  Deevolution is a misnomer, as it implies that evolution must mean "progress" to a "more advanced" (as in complex) organism.  There is no defined direction for progress, only natural selection through viability of an organism to live and reproduce.

Some bacteria accidentally mutated a gene in a "small", way which made it metabolize nylon, which presumably increased its rate and ability to reproduce in the medium thereby giving rise to the population of nylon eating bacteria.  Hello evolution!  This bacteria now has the machinery to metabolise a substance that it was not designed by anyone to do, purely by random mutation of existing biological systems.

Evolution has no designer, so randomly damaging pre-existing locks is the only way to create new kind of locks.

"Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment."

Yes, thank you to the benevolent Creator for evolution.  The Creator has done a fantastic job of creating a nature that looks just like something that developed through evolution over billions of years.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) science is not the business of proving or disproving the existence of a Creator.

wow well said, you certainly have a strong command of language. I could never say so much with so few words lol.



fatslob-:O on 20 December 2013
Soleron said:
drkohler said:
Soleron said:

Alright then. Explain to us how your alternative is remotely scientific.

That's not really a serious question, is it?

Only by reading the thread ttile it is clear it's our resident creatonist that opens another "Darwin is evil" quote mining fest...

Well, instead of him taking potshots at individual arguments that displease him,

I'd like to see him present an alternative we can attempt to falsify. That is the process of science after all.

His likely failure to do so will reveal his hypocrisy better than anything we could say.

Why he keeps fighting a well documented theory such as evolution is beyond me. 

Our resident creastionist here doesn't realize that evolution isn't their enemy but rather the theory of abiogenesis. 

It is the theory abiogenesis that has yet to have a decently laid out solid framework like evolution. 

The theory of evolution is just an accomplice for the theory of abiogenesis. 



Around the Network
Mummelmann on 20 December 2013

When I saw the title of the thread, I knew who the OP was. Up to his old tricks!



DonFerrari on 20 December 2013
fatslob-:O said:
Soleron said:
drkohler said:
Soleron said:

Alright then. Explain to us how your alternative is remotely scientific.

That's not really a serious question, is it?

Only by reading the thread ttile it is clear it's our resident creatonist that opens another "Darwin is evil" quote mining fest...

Well, instead of him taking potshots at individual arguments that displease him,

I'd like to see him present an alternative we can attempt to falsify. That is the process of science after all.

His likely failure to do so will reveal his hypocrisy better than anything we could say.

Why he keeps fighting a well documented theory such as evolution is beyond me. 

Our resident creastionist here doesn't realize that evolution isn't their enemy but rather the theory of abiogenesis. 

It is the theory abiogenesis that has yet to have a decently laid out solid framework like evolution. 

The theory of evolution is just an accomplice for the theory of abiogenesis. 

because some think the bible is a better documented history.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

jigokutamago on 20 December 2013
DarkWraith said:
mysticwolf said:
theprof00 said:
Fascinating.
And what scientific evidence do we have about God?

The scientific method is about disproving things so we have a narrower view of what the reality is.

Currently I believe science cannot disprove God. 


science has nothing to do with god, true enough

logic does. a priori reasoning is exactly perfect for this task. if you define a being with certain attributes those then become true by definition for argument. these attributes can then be used as premises. for example:

1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8) Evil exists (logical contradiction).

this can be applied to any god concept to test for internal consistency and consistency with the observable world

The problem is that you have not proved evil exists.

In my opinion evil is the lack of good like darkness is the lack of light. Just as darkness is nonexistant, evil is also nonexistant. If the existance of evil cannot be proven, then the nonexistance of God likewise cannot be proven.



hsrob on 20 December 2013
OooSnap said:

The evolution story goes something like this: life arose from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo.

Is there any empirical, observational documentation of an organism population evolving camouflage abilities on the fly like an Indonesian Mimic Octopus or Anole Lizard? Or an organism evolve special clawed feet to walk vertically and upside down on all walls like an ant? Is their documentation of any creature population evolving feathers or a blow hole or gills? How about a fruitfly evolving glands to produce silk or a spineret or bioluminence abilities or anything of that sort?

How about an organism evolving antennas, a blow hole, gills, a shell, eyes, baleen plates, fluke, arms, legs, trunk, claws, ink dispersal abilities etc. ? Just any radical novel feature or ability would suffice.

You see, it takes radical changes to get a cell from goo to all the diversity of life we see today. But I have yet to see any documentation of at least one example of any organisms observed while occuring evolve such novel abilities or features. It seems that it is an assumption it happened but without the empirical evidence to back it up.

And if you didn't know, empirical, observational evidence is part of the scientific method. Thus if there is no empirical, observational evidence then it is not scientific:

" The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. *To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical* and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from Book 3, The System of the World

Moreover can the story really be scientifically tested and repeated?

So is the evolution story really scientific?

As has been pointed out, yet glossed over, evolution by natural selection has nothing to say about the origin of life, only changes to life forms over time.

A fundamental problem with asking for empircal evidence of macroscopic evolution in large animals is that you are ignoring the timescales over which evolution is said to occur.

The example changes you list are highly unlikely to occur as a single mutation and would likely require a series of mutation over many, many generations, i.e. a protracted timescale. In no way does the theory of natural selection suggest that complex, completely novel traits are a common by-product of single DNA mutations, merely that mutation occurs which may or may not be beneficial.  Very generally speaking large-scale changes to DNA are often incompatible with life, so we are left with small changes that accumulate over TIME. In fact, if completely novel traits were observed to evolve frequently, it would actually be evidence against the theory of natural selection in its current form.

Fundamental shifts in the fossil record which show novel traits are not cited as evidence of the form of evolution that you describe, they are evidence to show how the small changes described above can accumlate over time and lead to fundamental changes in form or function.  One has to remember, fossil generation itself is punctuated, not continuous.  Two fossils laying close to one another may have been lain down many thousands or millions of years apart, so a drastic change from one form to another may represent a series of many thousands or even millions of accumulated mutations.

What we are left with in terms of direct observation and testing is creatures that live on a very short timescale and hence provide a window into how natural selection as a whole works for other life forms. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution, and it's worth reading the whole article, not just dismissing it because you think you know the 'story' Additionally there is a whole host of evidence, some already cited, regarding evolution in microbes and whilst not as exciting as spontaneously generated baleen plates, it is nonetheless relevant and valid.

Finally, the fact that you start the OP with the expression "Evolution Story" shows bias, so your request for honest discourse comes off somewhat disingenuous.  If you have spent 20-30 years forming this bias I don't believe that 30 minutes on a message board is going to change your mind. One thing I would suggest is making a greater effort to understand the actual theory of natural selection, not your own version of it, if for no other reason that being better able to argue against it.



HintHRO on 21 December 2013
Jay520 said:

All of these only contradict Superchunck's post if you're defining "God" as the biblical definition of God, which states that he must be perfect, all-loving, etc. But that doesn't have to be true. There are plenty of varying interpretations of what a "God" is.

I'm indeed assuming God is the almighty like the bible says and I don't think that kind of view of what God is, can be combined with the knowledge we have now. For years (and they still do) religious people have been assuming God is a being with consciousness and we are made up to his image. Then you're assuming it was God's plan to make humans. However, everything in history contradicts this statement. Also, God having a consciousness before he made everything is impossible. God being ''angry'' at you means he's dependent of neurotransmitters that could not exists before he made everything. From the bible's perspective, the idea of God is negligible.

I'd like to hear your other interpretations of what God actually is. As long as you're not assuming he's a being with consciousness, but rather some kind of ''energy source''. We can call the unknown God for a while, until we actually discover what it is and call it something more scientifically.