Darwin and Evolution

Soul Winner

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? Is there any photographic evidence that shows how life came to be on this world?

Are ‘Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ contradictory terms? If they are then why are both positions held up as the proof for Evolution? If they're not then how do you reconcile them?

What is the difference between a Darwinist and a Neo Darwinist?

Why are the fossil records held in such high esteem when relationships between species are determined not only by similarities in bone structure but also blood type and DNA amongst other things? Is there any evidence in the fossil records that show the blood type and DNA of fossilized creatures? If not then how can evolutionists be absolutely positive that there is a link for instance between the various horse like creatures (fossils and bones collected by Cope and Marsh) if there is no further proof at the cellular level that can corroborate it when no cells have ever been fossilised?

Why did Darwin indicate in The decent of Man his belief that the Negro races where more closely related to the apes than white people? And why did he say: “at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world?” Are there any in here that concur with this belief? If so why?

In you opinion did Darwin do as much to damage Science as he tried to do to Religion?

Thoughts please?

5uspect

Go read a book on evolution if you don't understand " 'Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ " and how they work.

Wreck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thoughts please?

I think you should go do some reading, start by looking up some words in a good dictionary.

death1234567

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be?

Yes. Go do some research.

bubonicus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? Is there any photographic evidence that shows how life came to be on this world?

Thoughts please?

Classic.

And it's a theory.

Soul Winner

5uspect wrote: »

Go read a book on evolution if you don't understand " 'Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ " and how they work.

I am. It’s called ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism” by science journalist Richard Milton. He seems to think there is a contradiction between the two. What are your thoughts on it?

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am. It’s called ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism” by science journalist Richard Milton. He seems to think there is a contradiction between the two. What are your thoughts on it?

What are your thoughts on it Winner of Souls?

Dar

Random mutation is how change is introduced. Natural selection determines which changes survive.

5uspect

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am. It’s called ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism” by science journalist Richard Milton. He seems to think there is a contradiction between the two. What are your thoughts on it?

You're better off reading a real biology book first to understand what the scientific theory actually says not some half baked nonsense with an agenda.

Evolution is the nonrandom selection of randomly mutating replicators by natural selection. How is that in any way contradictory?

Google throws these gems up
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
and
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What are your thoughts on it Winner of Souls?

Well my thoughts are that they are in fact contradictory but that is only from what I understand the two terms to mean. Which is probably wrong. But what do they really mean? Can you tell me Cortex of the Cerebral?

Soul Winner

5uspect wrote: »

Your better off reading a real biology book first to understand what the scientific theory actually says not some half baked nonsense with an agenda.

Ok then please recommend a "real" biology book without an agenda on the subject

5uspect wrote: »

Evolution is the nonrandom selection of randomly mutating replicators by natural selection. How is that in any way contradictory?

"The nonrandom selection of randomly mutating replicators"??? Are you serious?? How did the nonrandom selection process come to be?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be?

No. But science is not in the business of providing "proof" -- rather it says, or tries to say, what is the most likely option of any set of given alternatives.

"Random mutation" is the small-scale changing of genes from generation to generation that takes places naturally for a variety of reasons. "Natural selection" is the filtering process that filters the results of random mutation. You can think of random mutation as rain falling randomly here and there, and natural selection as a funnel which selects certain attributes of the rain, making it flow in a specific direction. The two are not contradictory.

Richard Milton is an anti-evolutionist who uses arguments which are pretty similar to standard creationist ones. You can find out a bit more about him here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html

Reading an anti-evolutionist on evolution -- and there are plenty out there -- is a bit like reading an islamic fundamentalist on judaism. You won't get a balanced view, and you are likely to be substantially misinformed. Some of your questions indicate that you are already misinformed about biology.

I think this topic is better dealt with in the christianity's creationism thread rather than here, as I suspect the same arguments are going to appear.

If you're looking for a decent primer on basic evolutionary biology and how evolution works, then I'd imagine that Climbing Mount Improbable is probably as good a start as any.

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? Is there any photographic evidence that shows how life came to be on this world?

Are ‘Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ contradictory terms? If they are then why are both positions held up as the proof for Evolution? If they're not then how do you reconcile them?

Mind answering a question?

Do you object to 'evolution' or 'evolution by natural selection'?

By this I mean do you accept that the earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, life emerged 3 billion years ago and has been evolving ever since. Here by evolving I just mean change over time, with no comment on why this change happens or what causes it.

The facts above are pretty much 'proven', there is absolutely no debate about the age of the earth or the fact that the species living on it today are not in the fossil record if you go back far enough, and vice versa.

It is a fact that life on earth has evolved (ie changed over time).

So do you accept all the above and are just looking for an explanation of Darwinian natural selection? Or do you reject the above and do not agree with either the timescales involved or the 'fact' that over time different species have inhabited the planet?

Wreck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well my thoughts are that they are in fact contradictory but that is only from what I understand the two terms to mean. Which is probably wrong. But what do they really mean? Can you tell me Cortex of the Cerebral?

I wasn't joking or trying to be smart by suggesting you look up these terms in a good dictionary.

5uspect

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then please recommend a "real" biology book without an agenda on the subject

Are you living near any university? Most have bookshops full of standard text books on a wide range of sciences.
Easons also have a science text book section
Or just get one here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=biology&Go.x=17&Go.y=12&Go=Go

Dawkins books are good because they explain the subject with exceptional lucidity but you mightn't like him because of his views on religion. Have a look at either the Selfish Gene or the Blind Watchmaker.

Soul Winner wrote: »

"The nonrandom selection of randomly mutating replicators"??? Are you serious?? How did the nonrandom selection process come to be?

Are you asking about how the universe came into existence? You really don't seem to have the first clue about evolution. The environment is the simplest source of selection. Adaptions are selected because they aid the survival and reproduction of one individual over another. Better tolerance to heat in a hot environment, better vision in a dark environment.

You really need to go away and have a read about what the Theory of Evolution actually says before you embarrass yourself any more.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? Is there any photographic evidence that shows how life came to be on this world?

Yes, we photographed the first formations of life 3.5 billion years ago. They did that last Tuesday. So I'm afraid you have to be an atheist now. Tough luck I guess.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are ‘Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ contradictory terms?

Only if you don't understand what either of them actually mean, which a lot of people (particularly creationists) don't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is the difference between a Darwinist and a Neo Darwinist?

I assume you mean Darwinism and neo-darwinism.

Darwinism was the theory that Darwin developed describing the process of gradual change and selection in self-replicating systems that leads to adaption to environments.

Neo-Darwinism is a much updated version of Darwinism that introduces understand of things like genetic replication, of which Darwin had little understand.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the fossil records held in such high esteem when relationships between species are determined not only by similarities in bone structure but also blood type and DNA amongst other things?

What do you mean "high esteem"

The fossil record is regarded as a source of evidence. I'm not sure how a piece of evidence is held in esteem. That is normally something that happens to a person.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is there any evidence in the fossil records that show the blood type and DNA of fossilized creatures?

No. Perhaps you should explain why you think there needs to be.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If not then how can evolutionists be absolutely positive that there is a link for instance between the various horse like creatures (fossils and bones collected by Cope and Marsh) if there is no further proof at the cellular level that can corroborate it when no cells have ever been fossilised?

Cells do fossilsise. Do you actually understand what a fossil is?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why did Darwin indicate in The decent of Man his belief that the Negro races where more closely related to the apes than white people?

Probably because Darwin didn't understand Darwinian evolution that well. It had after all just been discovered.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In you opinion did Darwin do as much to damage Science as he tried to do to Religion?

No

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thoughts please?

You don't understand much about the topic you wish to discuss. That is just off the top of my head

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

"The nonrandom selection of randomly mutating replicators"??? Are you serious?? How did the nonrandom selection process come to be?

Pick a river. Any river, it doesn't really matter. Lets say the Nile (why not go for the 2nd longest)

The Nile is produced by rain water, rain water that falls for all intensive purposes, randomly (you can predict where rain will fall if you have a few billion super computers and about 1000 years).

So how can this random rain fall some how manage to gather into an organized stream of water that mind bogglingly makes it's way 1,000 miles to the ocean.

Lets just think about that for a minute. A rain drop that falls near the source of the Nile some how randomly travels the best route from that spot in Uganda to the Mediterranean sea. Of all the ways the rain drop could go, the odds that it would randomly travel North to the sea the correct path are mind boggling unlikely.

So that is of course totally implausible.

There must be some form of intelligence that already knows the route from the source to the sea. That is the only plausible way that this randomly falling rain drop can know the way to the sea. This intelligence (lets call him God) tells the rain drop the path to follow to get to the sea, and the rain drop follows it. That is the only plausible alternative that we have left once we realize that it is ridiculous to say that the rain drop some how randomly traveled that path.

What is that you say?

There is another way to explain it?

That the rain drop doesn't know the way to the sea, nor is there a magical intelligence directing it to the sea? That it is in fact simply non-random interactions of gravity and the environment that eventually selects the best most efficient way for the river to run to the sea.

Wow!

You could almost say that this "natural" process (gravity) is "selecting" the route that the "random" rain drop travels.

But then you would be denying the existence of God. BURN HIM!!!

AckwelFoley

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody have actual proof that Evolution is the answer to how we came to be? ?

My good man, proof is for whisky and vodka.

Evolution is a theory. A widely recognised and accepted one due to the evidence that directs us to the conclusion

Gravity is also a theory. Yet widely accepted.

There is no proof in science

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Richard Milton is an anti-evolutionist who uses arguments which are pretty similar to standard creationist ones.

Is he a self confessed anti-evolutionist or has he just been labelled one? Have you read his book?

5uspect

His webpage is giving me a 404 but wikipedia has this to say about him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_%28scientific_researcher%29

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is he a self confessed anti-evolutionist or has he just been labelled one? Have you read his book?

Well you read his book. Did you sound pro-evolutionist?

Hivemind187

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is he a self confessed anti-evolutionist or has he just been labelled one? Have you read his book?

Well, yuou'd earn the label by being anti-evoltuion so I think its a fairly simple call.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is he a self confessed anti-evolutionist or has he just been labelled one? Have you read his book?

No, I haven't read that particular book -- my life is too short and I have better things to read. However, I've read representative quotes from his books as well as the quotes that I've linked to in my previous posting. I feel that I'm familiar with what Milton has to say on the topic and I am happy that the label "anti-evolutionist", if not "creationist" too, describes him accurately and succinctly.

If you're interested, you can find a full review of the book that you are reading here:

http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml

Myksyk

I recall we had another poster some time back who based almost all his argument on Milton's ramblings.

sdep

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are ‘Random Mutation’ and ‘Natural Selection’ contradictory terms? If they are then why are both positions held up as the proof for Evolution? If they're not then how do you reconcile them?

As much for the exercise as anything else, I thought I'd have a stab at doing this in non-Jargonese. You'll find other, doubtless better, explanations, but here's mine.

'Random mutation' is the process by which changes occur in DNA sequence due to radiation, chemical reactions, DNA copying errors, recombination* etc. It's random in that these processes can essentially occur anywhere in the entire DNA sequence (genome).

DNA mutations can be 'neutral' or they can have a biological effect. Intuitively, we think - as did Darwin - at the level of the organism. Thinking thus, neutral mutations don't alter the number of offspring an organism has over its lifetime. However, some 'advantageous' mutations help an organism survive and reproduce, and other 'deleterious' ones hinder it. e.g. a mutation that makes a desert-dwelling organism more drought-tolerant may result in it having more offspring over its lifetime.

Advantageous mutations tend to rise in frequency in the population, while deleterious ones decline. So over time our desert-dwelling population may come to be increasingly full of drought-tolerant individuals descended from the original mutant ancestor. This process what is referred to as 'natural selection'. It's non-random in that the original random mutations are now being filtered in a non-random way, according to the effect they have on the organism.

Over very prolonged time, changes accumulate, resulting in a population of organisms that are very different to the organisms at the beginning. The whole process is termed evolution by natural selection.

So both random mutation and natural selection are key components of the theory of evolution.

As Richard Dawkins pointed out in 'The Selfish Gene', Darwin's view of natural selection isn't quite the true picture. We should really think of selection acting at the level of the gene, not the organism. i.e. a mutation that causes a gene to be more likely to pass on copies of itself to future generations will rise in frequency in the population.

The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' is the name given to the model of evolution currently accepted by biologists. It incorporates our understanding of what genes are (unknown to Darwin), selection, population genetics and taxonomy. There's a good description of the synthesis from Douglas Futuyma on the Talk Origins site.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is the difference between a Darwinist and a Neo Darwinist?

'Darwinian' and 'Neo-Darwinian' are somewhat loosely-defined terms that different people have used to mean different things depending on context. As such, I think they're too imprecise to be scientifically informative.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the fossil records held in such high esteem when relationships between species are determined not only by similarities in bone structure but also blood type and DNA amongst other things?

Fossils help date the divergence of different lineages of organisms. They also show a pattern of similarly-formed organisms occuring close together both geographically and in time, which we would predict from evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In you opinion did Darwin do as much to damage Science as he tried to do to Religion?

No. I don't know if he tried to damage religion, or particularly care. As to science, it doesn't stand on personality; if the theory of evolution is valid, it's valid no matter who says so, or why.

* token jargon - would take too long to describe

Soul Winner

pH wrote: »

Mind answering a question?

Do you object to 'evolution' or 'evolution by natural selection'?

Don’t mind at all. I'm with Richard Milton, "I accept that there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I don not accept that there is any significant evidence that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection."

pH wrote: »

By this I mean do you accept that the earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, life emerged 3 billion years ago and has been evolving ever since. Here by evolving I just mean change over time, with no comment on why this change happens or what causes it.

Again I'm with Richard Milton on this one. "I do not believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I present evidence that currently accepted methods of dating are seriously flawed and are supported by Darwinists only because they provide the billions of years required by Darwinists theories. Because radiocarbon dating methods are scientifically unreliable, it is at present impossible to say with any confidence how old the earth is"

pH wrote: »

The facts above are pretty much 'proven', there is absolutely no debate about the age of the earth or the fact that the species living on it today are not in the fossil record if you go back far enough, and vice versa.

I beg to differ there is plenty debate about the age of the earth and not all species are accounted for in the fossil record. Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

pH wrote: »

It is a fact that life on earth has evolved (ie changed over time).

So do you accept all the above and are just looking for an explanation of Darwinian natural selection? Or do you reject the above and do not agree with either the timescales involved or the 'fact' that over time different species have inhabited the planet?

One thing is obvious from the fossil record and that is many species have come and gone on the face of this planet but that does not prove the neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection by random mutation.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, we photographed the first formations of life 3.5 billion years ago. They did that last Tuesday. So I'm afraid you have to be an atheist now. Tough luck I guess.

Is it also fair to say that evolution doesn't pretend to explain how life emerged initially, just how it subsequently developed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

Have you ever seen my Uncle Festy?

In all seriousness, if you really want evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes I think this extract from a lecture by Ken Miller sets it out in a way I found accessible.

Wreck

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don’t mind at all. I'm with Richard Milton, "I accept that there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I don not accept that there is any significant evidence that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection."



Again I'm with Richard Milton on this one. "I do not believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I present evidence that currently accepted methods of dating are seriously flawed and are supported by Darwinists only because they provide the billions of years required by Darwinists theories. Because radiocarbon dating methods are scientifically unreliable, it is at present impossible to say with any confidence how old the earth is"



I beg to differ there is plenty debate about the age of the earth and not all species are accounted for in the fossil record. Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?



One thing is obvious from the fossil record and that is many species have come and gone on the face of this planet but that does not prove the neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection by random mutation.

Is this one book by a discredited author your only basis for these beliefs?

Galvasean

Wreck wrote: »

Is this one book by a discredited author your only basis for these beliefs?

Ah sweet cherry-picking

sdep

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don’t mind at all. I'm with Richard Milton, "I accept that there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I don not accept that there is any significant evidence that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection."

Again I'm with Richard Milton on this one. "I do not believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I present evidence that currently accepted methods of dating are seriously flawed and are supported by Darwinists only because they provide the billions of years required by Darwinists theories. Because radiocarbon dating methods are scientifically unreliable, it is at present impossible to say with any confidence how old the earth is"

I beg to differ there is plenty debate about the age of the earth and not all species are accounted for in the fossil record. Where is the transitional link between apes and man for instance?

One thing is obvious from the fossil record and that is many species have come and gone on the face of this planet but that does not prove the neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection by random mutation.

The way it works is that you have to provide evidence demonstrating that the theory of evolution is wrong. Then the theory will be reconsidered.

Evolution doesn't predict that we'll have every transitional fossil for every species that ever lived. How could it, when it doesn't say anything about how, when or where fossils form? Evolution does predict that we shouldn't find fossils that don't conform to a sequential development in morphology as we proceed through geological time. It also predicts a spatial clustering of fossils of similar morphology. This is what we see for fossils on the evolutionary branch that ends in modern whales and that ending in horses, for example.

You're free to give an alternative theory to account for our planet's extant and extinct species. It has to be consistent with the current data, and be able to make specific testable predictions about future discoveries. An explanation that isn't testable won't meet the standards of a theory, so won't be considered. For example, stating that God created nature in its current form, without specifying any of the details, is scientifically equivalent to saying, 'it just is'. Such an explanation is entirely unhelpful as a predictive research tool, hence unscientific.

Soul Winner

5uspect wrote: »

His webpage is giving me a 404 but wikipedia has this to say about him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_%28scientific_researcher%29

That's really informative thanks.