What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
NOTHING IS WRONG WITH EVOLUTION AS A THEORY!

Gheesh, my complaint isn't with changes taking place within species
or kinds. I have been saying the same thing forever, the part where
I draw the line isn't small changes, but where it all began. If you
believe in abiogensis where life sprang from non-life and through time
evolution took life from there t ...[text shortened]... which is what we are talking
about when we look at the two different starting points.
Kelly

So where do you draw the line between small changes and large changes? As you've previously stated (see page 1 of the thread) you don't believe simple lifeforms evolved into complex lifeforms. What is a simple lifeform? What is a complex lifeform?

Originally posted by KellyJay
NOTHING IS WRONG WITH EVOLUTION AS A THEORY!

Gheesh, my complaint isn't with changes taking place within species
or kinds. I have been saying the same thing forever, the part where
I draw the line isn't small changes, but where it all began. If you
believe in abiogensis where life sprang from non-life and through time
evolution took life from there t ...[text shortened]... which is what we are talking
about when we look at the two different starting points.
Kelly

So, what you are saying here is this;

"I have no problem with the parts of evolutionary theory that I agree with. The rest is crap though."


Come on explain why your "kind" barrier is immutable? I thought it used to be a "species barrier" that the creationist lobby used to parrot?


[edit; backing up what Xanthos just posted, aren't large changes just the accumulation of small changes? I mean, is a lake anything more than an accumulation of raindrops?]

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So where do you draw the line between small changes and large changes? As you've previously stated (see page 1 of the thread) you don't believe simple lifeforms evolved into complex lifeforms. What is a simple lifeform? What is a complex lifeform?

Evolution does need a starting point doesn't it?

If you presume that that 'life' is the starting point, then please exlpain why life had to be less complex at the begining, and what evidence you have for this.

If non-life is the starting point, then please explain what evidence you have of life evolving from non-life. (And please don't spew the rubbish about the Miller experiment.)

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolution does need a starting point doesn't it?

If you presume that that 'life' is the starting point, then please exlpain why life had to be less complex at the begining, and what evidence you have for this.

If non-life is the starting point, then please explain what evidence you have of life evolving from non-life. (And please don't spew the rubbish about the Miller experiment.)

I already have. Would you like a c&p of my post on the subject to you, yesterday?

[edit; your entire argument boils down to just this. "I am stupid, don't know stuff and am unwilling to learn, therefore, God exists."]

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolution does need a starting point doesn't it?

If you presume that that 'life' is the starting point, then please exlpain why life had to be less complex at the begining, and what evidence you have for this.

If non-life is the starting point, then please explain what evidence you have of life evolving from non-life. (And please don't spew the rubbish about the Miller experiment.)

Oh look the goalposts have moved.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolution does need a starting point doesn't it?

If you presume that that 'life' is the starting point, then please exlpain why life had to be less complex at the begining, and what evidence you have for this.

If non-life is the starting point, then please explain what evidence you have of life evolving from non-life. (And please don't spew the rubbish about the Miller experiment.)

"Originally posted by whodey
Before you get to carried away with how great the human intellect has evolved to understand everything there is to know about everything you may want come up with an equation linking quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Then while you are at it you may want to prove how abiogenesis could have come about by actually producing a "simple" living cel ...[text shortened]... y Socrates. "The more you actually know the more you should realize that you don't know."

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh well then, let's close our eyes and ears and PRAYZ JESUS!

Abiogenic theory? It's no problem to explain, indeed, I have explained it on these very forums dozens of times. All it requires is a reducing atmosphere (check), an energy input (check), the basic chemical precursors (check), an aqueous environment (check) and time (check). So, having all those things will eventually lead to the spontaneous formation of a chemical able to self replicate (which is not uncommon in nature - for example crystals). Once this is formed, and has started to replicate, the process of natural selection will start. First, it will select by chemical stability. If we assume that the first replicators were RNA molecules (which spontaneously form chains anyway), then DNA would be fairly sure to follow, using RNA as its original template (this is the basis of RT-PCR). You would then probably have selection for a number os parameters, such as fecundity or the ability to predate other chemical chains. This leads to a classic predator - prey interaction, which causes run away evolution (as we see in many predator prey interactions, although most poiniantly in parasite - host interactions), eventually to life."


Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong on some point. My answer is constructed from the evidence, as stands.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, what you are saying here is this;

"I have no problem with the parts of evolutionary theory that I agree with. The rest is crap though."


Come on explain why your "kind" barrier is immutable? I thought it used to be a "species barrier" that the creationist lobby used to parrot?


[edit; backing up what Xanthos just posted, aren't large ch ...[text shortened]... on of small changes? I mean, is a lake anything more than an accumulation of raindrops?]

It is as I said, it is easier to play with a large program up and running
in an established enviroment, making small changes in it while
keeping it running, than write one from scratch in an enviroment
where none was ever written in before.

You do not ever have problems with things where you too can accept
some parts of some subject and reject others? That make you an all
or nothing kind of guy or something?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is as I said, it is easier to play with a large program up and running
in an established enviroment, making small changes in it while
keeping it running, than write one from scratch in an enviroment
where none was ever written in before.

You do not ever have problems with things where you too can accept
some parts of some subject and reject others? That make you an all
or nothing kind of guy or something?
Kelly

If I accept some parts and reject others (of any given preposition), it's typically reasoned out along the thought processes of what is physically possible, and what is not. Evidence. That word again. I accept small changes over time can lead to big changes over time. One only needs to look at the path of a meandering river to see that. One water flow causes a particular piece of rock to be weathered away, and the water flow pattern changes, and a new meander is created. If I thought for a second that there was any physical, chemical or biological reason that evolution, given enough time (which the evidence seems to support), could not create the diversity of life on earth, and explain things like protein conservancy, cladistic analysis, explain the blind spot of eyes, predict epidemiological developments, and explain many of the deep problems in biology, then I would shun evolution. As it is, evolution makes everything fit together. It integrates knowledge and information. It allows the establishment of a unified synthesis of biological knowledge, and it does so using only simple probability and biologically recognised mechanisms. It's so simple, yet it has the power to lead to great and wonderful things, like bears, brontosauri and brains.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If I accept some parts and reject others (of any given preposition), it's typically reasoned out along the thought processes of what is physically possible, and what is not. Evidence. That word again. I accept small changes over time can lead to big changes over time. One only needs to look at the path of a meandering river to see that. One water f ...[text shortened]... et it has the power to lead to great and wonderful things, like bears, brontosauri and brains.

When speaking of a river, yes I agree, but when speaking about
things like programming laugages no, big changes without well
thoughtout changes lead to system break downs. I think of DNA
more like a computer program than I do a running river.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When speaking of a river, yes I agree, but when speaking about
things like programming laugages no, big changes without well
thoughtout changes lead to system break downs. I think of DNA
more like a computer program than I do a running river.
Kelly

Individual strands of DNA are like a computer program. One with LOTS of redundancy. And, of course, one that can change without necessarily breaking down (there are 100 mutations per generation, yet your kids survive quite as well as you do, indeed, they'll probably outlive you!). Gene pools, however, are more like rivers. They are comprised of many individual genomes, and selective pressures, like rocks, can direct their flow.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Individual strands of DNA are like a computer program. One with LOTS of redundancy. And, of course, one that can change without necessarily breaking down (there are 100 mutations per generation, yet your kids survive quite as well as you do, indeed, they'll probably outlive you!). Gene pools, however, are more like rivers. They are comprised of many individual genomes, and selective pressures, like rocks, can direct their flow.

That to me speaks more about good code than anything else, which
is not the same thing as mutations going through a sift of natural
selection and turning out, at such a high level of sophisticated code.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That to me speaks more about good code than anything else, which
is not the same thing as mutations going through a sift of natural
selection and turning out, at such a high level of sophisticated code.
Kelly

Ah, but here's the thing - the code can become good simply because all bad codes have been selected against over time. And by time we mean a LOT of time. 4,000,000,000 years. Nearly one and a half million million days! Some bacteria, and bacteria were on the planet (exclusively) for 2 billion years, have a generation time of 8 minutes! Can you imagine how many generations, how many selection events, in the form of differential survival and reproduction that represents?! It's huge!

Digital television is really a whole series of ones and zeros. So are computers, yet complex shapes, smooth curves etc are all possible. Now, these things are designed, but what Darwin showed is that in terms of life because it is self-replicating, whereas TVs are not, a designer is not necessary! Only time, genetic variation, and probability.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That to me speaks more about good code than anything else, which
is not the same thing as mutations going through a sift of natural
selection and turning out, at such a high level of sophisticated code.
Kelly

As a programmer I can tell you that to compare DNA directly to a computer program can be misleading.
A typical virus in nature has significantly more code than a typical computer virus. It replicates significantly more times too. In fact, the replication of a typical HIV virus in one human being probably exceeds the number of computers in the world. Given an equal oportunity, computer viruses would evolve too.
Computer software often does have bugs and often does survive minor changes to the code. It is rare for these changes to result in usefull changes but not impossible. Mistakes and bugs created while writting programs do sometimes result in usefull stuff (I have personally experienced this). However we do not see evolution taking place because changes are not replicated and natural selection does not take place. (At least not in a one to one comparison to DNA in nature).
If people set up thier computers by copying thier complete operating system and software from thier neighbours running system rather than buying from a central source (cloning) then we would see some evolution equivalent to asexual reproduction. However it would not be equivalent to sexual reproduction unless people had a way of copying some stuff from one pc and some from another.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
"Originally posted by whodey
Before you get to carried away with how great the human intellect has evolved to understand everything there is to know about everything you may want come up with an equation linking quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Then while you are at it you may want to prove how abiogenesis could have come about o prove me wrong on some point. My answer is constructed from the evidence, as stands.

I presume this is falsifiable evidence?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I presume this is falsifiable evidence?

You could falsify it if you like. Shouldn't like to think why you'd want to though.

Of course, it's entire possible to check if any of the parameters are wrong. You can go out, find old rocks, look for signs of oxygen, for example. You shouldn't find any. If you do, and it can't be explained, then that's evidence against this theory.

We haven't, of course, created life yet (which I know is what you're getting at), but give us the funding and time and there is no reason why it could not be done.

As I say, feel free, from the available evidence, to prove me wrong on any point.