Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mushy

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid that, even if the tasmanian tiger was cloned, it wouldn't be an example of evolution in action. It'd be evidence that we can put dna from animal A and put it into animal B and get animal A back.

Wouldn't that in fact prove the flexibility of DNA? I was getting some ideas for an upcoming thread I'm going to make where I take all the good questions from a few threads and answer them with scientific peer review backing it. But I just had to respond to this even though I'm late as hell.

 

First, someone would have to breed a "saber-toothed great dane," a dog weighing 130 kg on average, possessing 4 inch canine teeth, covered in striped fur, and displaying pronation/supination abilities comparable to those of felines. This would prove that the genetic code is as flexible as they say it is.

Essentially you want some kind of specific version of a Dog Cat. If only we could produce some version of a Dog cat that has never existed, you would believe in the theory that predicts that we would not find such a thing. Basically, you would never believe in evolution.

 

Second, they would have to "evolve" photosynthetic capacity in E. coli WITHOUT THE USE OF RECOMBINANT DNA. There is no way E coli has chlorophyll in its genes, so I would be left without excuse as to where the information in question came from. This would prove that random mutations can generate not only new information, but irreducibly complex metabolic pathways.

Again with these random specific traits that you want. We can't direct its mutations directly but there was research done over 20 years ago that shows you exactly why we refer to E.Coli as the model organism HERE Its not evolving Photosynthetic capabilities but I think you mentioned that specific thing to prove your point of how out of left field you expected the results to be. This peer reviewed paper used over 30,000 generations. Interesting stuff.

 

Finally, they would have to take a beaker containing "all sorts of phosphoric salts and ammonia" and transform it somehow into a living cell. They wouldn't be allowed to separate its contents and recombine them later after two different, mutually exclusive components had been developed. They wouldn't be allowed to filter out any byproducts of the reactions. If the reactions produce formaldehyde and cyanide, they have to be allowed to mix with amino acids and nucleotides. No organic compounds containing more than one carbon atom are allowed into the beaker with the exception of those produced abiotically in the beaker. This would at least make abiogenesis somewhat less absurd of a proposition.

This is doesn't go anywhere near proving evolution. This is Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't make any statement as to the origins of life...only the complexity of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that, even if the tasmanian tiger was cloned, it wouldn't be an example of evolution in action. It'd be evidence that we can put dna from animal A and put it into animal B and get animal A back. The thylacine also wasn't a grappling animal, wasn't any larger than modern canines, and had normal sized teeth. So even if you did clone it, it only meets one of my specifications.

 

Interesting read though. Too bad we can't do the same with dinosaurs... by your timescale.

 

First style210. Well made point, yes it raises an important question about DNA's flexibility.

 

Ok, its friday... im going to be frivolous. This is NOT A SERIOUS REPLY ... its frivolous !

 

Otherwsie, OmneVivumExVivo. Just to say, man you have high standards..but just dont go changing goal posts on us !!.. You cant just frivolously add you also want it to be an example of evolution in action, sorry, you just said before you wanted science to breed you a 'saber-toothed great dane' with all those features, so thats what science was going to give you. Dont worry though, science knows about the Jaw problems. We're on it, promise. As for the 4 inch teeth, no problem, that was on the original list. The new 'evolve it' requirement wasnt, so sorry. Nor were your new 'grappling requirements'. I guess we could start it all again, if you're willing to pay more. But beware, its going to cost twice as much, and worse still i can't guarantee it's delivery for christmas now !

 

Here's the links to a couple of prototypes we did for the teeth with just mutation + selection -> decent with modification, just be aware, none of us here are quite satisfied with these preliminary results.

http://becauseitreallyispersonal.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dog_teeth.jpg

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfne6uZOqm1qegjm2o1_400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would convince me because there is no evidence for evolution. Natural selection has proven that change and variation can happen within a fundamentally stable species. Thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And guess what a different type is..... a BREED.... or in bacteria it is a new strain... Hence it is not a new "species" be definition.

 

like with new dog breeds...

 

It really annoys me the love affair modern scientists have with the words "evolved" and "species". Last year we had some marine biologist talking about squid, and he wasn't sure if the different species could breed together.... Now hang on, isn't that a part of the definition of a species, hence if he doesn't know this information perhaps he should hold off from declaring all these squid as different species....

 

Yeah, the g'old equivocations. And that can be used neatly to demonstrate the rise of new species. Just think of cabbage and cauliflower. They look quite different right? Yet they are the same species.

 

 

Hypothetically lets say they were deemed different species, but lets also say that later on they find that these different species can inter-breed... Does this mean that the offspring will also be new species since they will contain half the genetic material of each species which thus would make it different, but at the same time similar to both?... No it is the same case as breeds of dogs, only that the evo love-affair compels them to call everything a new species.

 

But actually sometimes animals from what is defined as new species can breed together. Usually they are part of the same genus. I know for example that different vipers can breed together. i.e. Gabon Vipers and Pofadders or Burmese Pythons and Rock Pythons. I don't think however that you can breed Gabon Vipers and Rock Pythons together.

What may have happened in the past is that certain species just have split up, Perhaps by loss of genetic information.

 

 

Furthermore, they haven't created life, just RNA. Perhaps you should read your links before posting them ;)

 

Actually they just rearranged the molecules a bit. That's not creating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, someone would have to breed a "saber-toothed great dane," a dog weighing 130 kg on average, possessing 4 inch canine teeth, covered in striped fur, and displaying pronation/supination abilities comparable to those of felines. This would prove that the genetic code is as flexible as they say it is.

 

Although I understand where you’re coming from in the above statement, the statement itself is self- refuting Omne… You are saying that you don’t believe in macro-evolution because it’s supposed to be an unguided naturalistic process, then you use the un-naturalistic “guided” process (breeding) as your example.

 

Just keep in mind, ANYTIME man is involved in the process, it is designed… ;)

 

 

 

I'm afraid that, even if the tasmanian tiger was cloned, it wouldn't be an example of evolution in action. It'd be evidence that we can put dna from animal A and put it into animal B and get animal A back.

Wouldn't that in fact prove the flexibility of DNA?

 

No, it would prove that man can take existing materials and design another animal. Therefore it would be evidence for, or an example of, design and not evolution.

 

 

This is doesn't go anywhere near proving evolution. This is Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't make any statement as to the origins of life...only the complexity of it.

 

Materialistic evolutionists are always trying to run from explaining anything concerning origins. The problem is, origins are the foundation for life! And materialism has absolutely NO logical, rational or scientific evidences for origins from a strictly materialistic world-view. Therefore the materialistic evolutionary atheist has to totally live by FAITH on the subject. Now, we could go further into this, but I dont want to stray form the OP, therefore I submitted that to say this; attempting to say that Evolution doesn't make any statement as to the origins of life...only the complexity of it is analogues to saying my parents had absolutely nothing to do with my life (BIRTH, growth and maturation) process, when in fact my personal origins are every bit as important to the explanation of me as any other aspect of my life!

 

So I posit this question: From where did evolution evolve? In other words, what empirical, scientific evidence do you have for the origins of evolution?

 

Where does this exercise lead us then? From it we can deduce:

 

The massive amounts of faith involved in the materialistic evolutionary atheists worldview.

Materialistic evolution has no foundation, and is therefore totally faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid that, even if the tasmanian tiger was cloned, it wouldn't be an example of evolution in action. It'd be evidence that we can put dna from animal A and put it into animal B and get animal A back. The thylacine also wasn't a grappling animal, wasn't any larger than modern canines, and had normal sized teeth. So even if you did clone it, it only meets one of my specifications.

 

Interesting read though. Too bad we can't do the same with dinosaurs... by your timescale.

 

First style210. Well made point, yes it raises an important question about DNA's flexibility.

 

Actually, the first part of the first sentence was a very good point. The rest although is a little sketchy. It is a clone, and therefore not evolution at all, let alone evolution in action. It is design at its very base.

 

 

 

Ok, its friday... im going to be frivolous. This is NOT A SERIOUS REPLY ... its frivolous !

 

Otherwsie, OmneVivumExVivo. Just to say, man you have high standards..but just dont go changing goal posts on us !!.. You cant just frivolously add you also want it to be an example of evolution in action, sorry, you just said before you wanted science to breed you a 'saber-toothed great dane' with all those features, so thats what science was going to give you. Dont worry though, science knows about the Jaw problems. We're on it, promise. As for the 4 inch teeth, no problem, that was on the original list. The new 'evolve it' requirement wasnt, so sorry. Nor were your new 'grappling requirements'. I guess we could start it all again, if you're willing to pay more. But beware, its going to cost twice as much, and worse still i can't guarantee it's delivery for christmas now !

 

Here's the links to a couple of prototypes we did for the teeth with just mutation + selection -> decent with modification, just be aware, none of us here are quite satisfied with these preliminary results.

http://becauseitreallyispersonal.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dog_teeth.jpg

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfne6uZOqm1qegjm2o1_400.jpg

 

In all actuality the goalposts are being moved when you attempt to call "design" evolution! (this is known as conversion by definition)...… But, as you said, you were being frivolous, so well leave it at that.

 

I might suggest that you and style210 read the OP, and maybe read down through the thread as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that in fact prove the flexibility of DNA? I was getting some ideas for an upcoming thread I'm going to make where I take all the good questions from a few threads and answer them with scientific peer review backing it. But I just had to respond to this even though I'm late as hell.

'Kay. What I mean by "flexibility of DNA" has to do with speciation. Speciation itself is an observable process. Animals have variety, selective pressures can change what types of variety are present, and new species come about. What I'm asking for is evidence that speciation can continue, that there isn't a limit to the variation present in the species. Sure, right now we can point to certain things that might be suggestive, but we have no hard evidence that multiple speciations can occur in the same lineage.

 

 

 

Essentially you want some kind of specific version of a Dog Cat.

Not exactly. What I want is a breed of dog with four, and only four, specific variations that, even according to evolutionists, weren't present in its ancestors.

 

Because dogs are cusorial animals, and presumably evolved from some sort of mustelidy-creodonty type thing, we wouldn't expect them to have innate genetic variations for sizes over around 120 kg. That's the maximum size for truly cusorial carnivorians we see in the fossil record. Thus, if we can breed a dog that averages 130 kg, we have presumably forced out a variation that its ancestors never had.

 

Similarly, due to its cusorial mode of hunting, natural selection has effectively removed much of the felxibility in the canid wrist. This allows for an efficient, foreward-backward, hinge-like motion, optimal for sustained running. Breeding a dog with significant pronation/supination abilities would show that random variation can significantly alter the structure of the wrist, thus giving natural selection the large amounts of variation necessary to change the entire body plan significantly.

 

Teeth larger than about two inches don't seem to be present in today's canids. Even bears, their closest relatives to the best of my knowledge, have abnormally small canine teeth. If we could get a breed of dog to double the length of its teeth, it would show that similar tooth "super-sizing" could be accomplished in animals with much longer teeth initially, such as felines, thus validating the claim that random variation could cause such drastic changes in dentition in other taxa.

 

As for the coloration, I mostly want it to have stripes because I think black-and-orange stripes would make it look REALLY cool. B)

 

If only we could produce some version of a Dog cat that has never existed, you would believe in the theory that predicts that we would not find such a thing.

Lol. Evolution predicts that random variation can cause, over time, significant changes in the overall layout of an animal's body plan. Making the "cat-dog," which really would only be cat-like in three or four traits, would show that certain key types of variation can, in fact, occur due to random processes, and thus could provide natural selection with the necessary raw material for evolution.

 

Basically, you would never believe in evolution.

Well, maybe the theistic kind. ;)

 

 

 

Again with these random specific traits that you want.

I like photosynthesis because it would kill two birds with one stone. First, it would demonstrate that truly novel chemical functions(such as the production of chlorophil) could come about by darwinian mechanisms. Second, it would demonstrate that irreducibly complex metabolic pathways can be generated by gradualistic means.

 

We can't direct its mutations directly but there was research done over 20 years ago that shows you exactly why we refer to E.Coli as the model organism HERE Its not evolving Photosynthetic capabilities but I think you mentioned that specific thing to prove your point of how out of left field you expected the results to be. This peer reviewed paper used over 30,000 generations. Interesting stuff.

E. coli was always capable of metabolizing citrate under anoxic conditions. All they managed to do was get it to the same in oxic conditions. It's a step in the right direction, though.

 

 

 

This is doesn't go anywhere near proving evolution. This is Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't make any statement as to the origins of life...only the complexity of it.

 

What's the point in showing life can diversify without intelligence if you can't prove that it can come about without intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I understand where you’re coming from in the above statement, the statement itself is self- refuting Omne… You are saying that you don’t believe in macro-evolution because it’s supposed to be an unguided naturalistic process, then you use the un-naturalistic “guided†process (breeding) as your example.

It wouldn't be evolution so much as proof of concept.

 

Here's why. Evolution requires a cyclical process of organisms producing variation, variation being acted on by natural selection, natural selection causing speciation, and then the new species continues producing new variation. All except the last one have been demonstrated empirically. They've shown that natural selection can change the variation in a species, and they've shown that speciation can occur as a result of natural selection. What they haven't shown is the production of new variation that keeps the cycle turning.

 

As such, the breeding program I asked for wouldn't be "evolution in the lab," it'd be the literal "missing link" in the cycle. As I explained in my previous post, there's no reason to think that the qualities I'm asking for are hidden in the genes of the dog, so if they could breed a dog up to those standards, they'd have generated new variations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As such, the breeding program I asked for wouldn't be "evolution in the lab," it'd be the literal "missing link" in the cycle. As I explained in my previous post, there's no reason to think that the qualities I'm asking for are hidden in the genes of the dog, so if they could breed a dog up to those standards, they'd have generated new variations.

 

 

Much like when I use the concept of a farmer breeding a pig as big as a house ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so there are many interesting points in the last few comments. Too many for me to have time to respond to, so im going back a bit.

 

The bible stands out as the only spiritual guide where the writers do not claim glory nor riches for themselves. Even Jesus preached the Father is greater than he. An interesting fact that many religious frauds are after money or glory. Researchers are another example of persons that like glory and headlines and need continuing grants to remain employed.

 

I do not agree on your first point. I do not see writers of the Qur'an, Vinaya Pitaka, Diamond Sutra or many other scared texts as being written to seek glory nor riches for themselves, unless their glory and riches are to help others seek inspiration, enlightenment, etc. I recommend you learn about other sacred texts before you hold only the bible aloft as superior in its teachings.

 

I do partly agree on your second point, researchers (if you mean mainstream academics) are often somewhat pressurised to seek glory and headlines, which indeed helps secure continuing grants, and to remain employed. But this is by no means universal. For example, many emeritous professors continue to run productive research groups without such pressures. I'd also say with the poor pay grades compared to banking or medicine for example, scientists dont do research driven by money seeking greed either. The more important point from this is yes, scientist might be biased towards which topics they research (like being driven to now linking evolutionary perspective to developmental biology or genomics), but is not inherently biased by the conclusions the results, those are, and must be independent of the desires of the researchers, no matter how much they might want particular results, they get whatever results come out the experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When asked to do an experiment about how water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, what evolutionists' approach is that instead of doing the experiment itself, they study yesterday's laboratory status such what test tubes have been used what residues are left in those test tube and etc. Then they come up with the answer that water does dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen. Later on, it happens that they examine a unique test tube's residues they falsify their own theory to say that "new test tube residues show that the chemical reaction doesn't work that way, this is shown by the test tube residues".

 

Science never works that way, if you want to establish your theory, you need predictable experimentation. If you have falsified a chemical reaction of water disolution, it is because the experimentation doesn't generate only hydrogen and oxygen as predicted. However, ToE doesn't need any experimental prediction to fasify itself time after time. Without a single prediction on speciation done on humans, they can claim that their human evolution theory now is right, at the same time and without any experimental prediction, they also say that yesterday's theory is falsified.

 

It is a joke in the perspective of science.

 

You can see from here how a fossil (yesterday's residues) falsified yesterday's theory and we have yet to see how another piece of bone pile dug up tomorrow falsifies today's theory.

 

"But if it is, the evolution… probably didn't happen the way we thought it did."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...nin-fossil.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would convince me because there is no evidence for evolution. Natural selection has proven that change and variation can happen within a fundamentally stable species. Thats it.

 

So your fundamentally stable species. Tell me about them.

 

Because to have this, all living organisms must therefore be placeable into one species or another species.

Or, more widely, into just one biblical kind, or another.

Maybe those kinds can modify with adaption, maybe your species can modify by adaptation into breeds.

Thats if you allow some modification with descent for either kinds or species, which i dont think you do.

 

I, like all evolutionists, be they athiest or God fearing theist, together disagree that species are "fundamentally stable' or immutable.

 

There are so many cases where a living organisms is difficult to put them into a single definable box called 'species'

 

?How is species defined?

 

Choose your definition. (there's i a host of potential species definitions out there.. more than thirty last i saw).

or go with the pluralist approach and use several definitions simultaneously

 

Then, using just one preferred definition, try and put all living creatures into all these artificially constructed boxes called species.

Some dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously.

 

So try a different preferred definition of species, different from the previous definition, and try...

Some dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously.

 

Try using several definitions of species simulaneously to define each 'box'

Plenty still dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously.

Actually, with pluralistic definitions, its much much more messy...some neatly fit into just one box, plenty always cant be

fitted into just one box.

 

The problem, is using trying to make a single definable box called 'species'.

Mainstream science knows this already.

There have been other systems proposed, all human generated systems to fit ALL life into separate boxes to date have flaws.

 

I suspect many creationists (particularly literalists) will come across the same issue if they tried to put all lifeforms into 'biblical kinds'.

Birds for example. Birds are a biblical kind.

But birds are also animals. Animals are a biblical kind.

So are birds birds or are birds animals.

Hopefully we agree, theyre both actually.

Evolutionists would say birds arose from animals, so easily, the bird group is a subgroup of animals. This fits.

The biblical version means birds are not animals.

Maybe our definition of animals is wrong...

ok try a different definition of animals that doesnt include birds... im curious to hear it.

 

Neither of us need mention of God's role in creating birds or not.

No mention of whether birds descended from ancestral animals or not.

 

For kinds you need diagnosable exclusive groups. Only monophyletic groups for example.

If you want to hold fast to original biblical kinds, those might have to be Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryotes.

Though similarity among Archaea, Eubacteria means you can make a wider grouping of some as Prokaryotes.

Then we have Prokaryotes versus another exclusive diagnosable group called Eukaryotes.

But do these have a single common ancestor or not, if so how did this/these arise... interesting questions.. !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms