Creationism v. Evolution - There's STILL a Debate??

"It is easy to say that, but Darwin's whole hand waiving argument could easily be invalidated if the variations which dominate survival were nonheritable."

But it is a fact (shown by genetics) that there are many kinds of variation that are strictly heritable, thus it hasn't been invalidated. Heritable variations in all kinds of features can effect an individual's survival and performance. You merely need to look at the evolution of domestic dog breeds under man's artificial selection to see those effects. Whether you are talking about selection for improved running stamina (greyhounds) or stronger bites (bulldogs) the selection for certain variations in a group of breeding dogs can alter future generations. This can occur through gradual small changes and have radical impacts, most dog breeds have only been around a few hundred years and can all still interbreed, though some look nothing alike.

"As far as I know there is no experimental evidence backing up the idea that the potential to evolve is indefinite. It could very well be the variation of traits in a population (not just at a given time, but over generations) always remains within a certain sphere of variation and never exceeds those bounds (like the prison cell). To assume that the process is completely unbounded with neither a detailed theoretical model (that is a theory which can follow the process from one individual organism to the next) nor controlled experiments to verify that it actually is unbounded is shortsighed and unscientific in my opinion."

I said indefinite, not infinite. Evolution by natural selection is bounded in that it can only build on what is there. Random occurances --> mutations are fundamental to evolution as the ultimate source of variation. Mutations commonly introduce new variations into a population, some of which are helpful and are selected for, many are harmful and are selected against. Thus heritable variations in the current generation are either selected for or against and whatever helped that organism to survive and breed gets passed onto their offspring. The limits of what traits can evolve are only limited by what kinds of mutations can occur.

Mutations can allow things to escape from that sphere you discussed, and there are extensive experimental studies that have shown the affects of new traits (mutations) and the subsequent evolution.

Many diseases are controlled with antibiotics, but new antibiotic resistance mutations always show up, ask any doctor. They were not there in the past, but even a small change in a protein or enzyme can completely negate the effects of our drugs, if that happens then those individuals will be selected for and the population will evolve.

Controlled laboratory experiments of flies have shown that even a seemingly small mutation can have radical effects, changing the shapes of their eyes or adding extra sets of wings.

You ask that we hold biology to the same standards, and like I said there are both rigorous experimental and observational (repeatable as well) studies to support evolution.

We can continue the debate via PM.
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']But it is a fact (shown by genetics) that there are many kinds of variation that are strictly heritable, thus it hasn't been invalidated. Heritable variations in all kinds of features can effect an individual's survival and performance. You merely need to look at the evolution of domestic dog breeds under man's artificial selection to see those effects. Whether you are talking about selection for improved running stamina (greyhounds) or stronger bites (bulldogs) the selection for certain variations in a group of breeding dogs can alter future generations. This can occur through gradual small changes and have radical impacts, most dog breeds have only been around a few hundred years and can all still interbreed, though some look nothing alike.[/quote]

The existence of such heritable variations doesn't make the theory of evolution via natural selection valid. If those heritable variations don't dominate survival than they can't play a significant role in survival of the fittest. Showing that they exist isn't enough. It needs to be shown that they dominate survival, otherwise nonheritable variations could completely counteract whatever progress results from heritable variations. Do you see what I'm saying and just disagree or are you missing my point? I'm asking you explicitly to spare you an analogy (which I've come under a lot of criticism for using in this forum), but if you don't see what I'm saying then I will give an analogy to clarify.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']I said indefinite, not infinite. Evolution by natural selection is bounded in that it can only build on what is there. Random occurances --> mutations are fundamental to evolution as the ultimate source of variation. Mutations commonly introduce new variations into a population, some of which are helpful and are selected for, many are harmful and are selected against. Thus heritable variations in the current generation are either selected for or against and whatever helped that organism to survive and breed gets passed onto their offspring. The limits of what traits can evolve are only limited by what kinds of mutations can occur.

Mutations can allow things to escape from that sphere you discussed, and there are extensive experimental studies that have shown the affects of new traits (mutations) and the subsequent evolution.[/quote]

Ahhh, you did say indefinite, not infinite, but you are talking as if you meant infinite. I agree that it is indefinite, that is what I'm trying to argue. Indefinite means that we have no idea what the potential is. It could very well be that it has very limited potential, so much so that it cannot possibly account for what we see in nature. As scientists we just can't say.

Random is a very slippery term. It is difficult to prove that anything is random. Even physicists have a hard time proving that anything is truly random. Mankind currently lacks the ability to show that something is inherently random.

As an engineer I know very well that randomness is usually a statement about the observer, not about what is being observed. You can take the same system and say it is completely random, but as you gradually give the observer more knowledge you reduce the randomness without ever laying a finger on the system itself.

How can you say what limits there are on the kinds of mutations that can occur? What experimental evidence is there to show, for example, that a population won't become very resistant towards mutations after 100,000 mutations? In other words, how do we know that, in practice, evolution doesn't work itself out of a job?

The effectiveness of mutations might drop off quite rapidly near the surface of the sphere. Could there not be biological mechanisms in place to hinder mutations, perhaps similar to those that fight cancer?

The experimental studies that have been performed tell us that the sphere is at least as big as those studies probe, but they don't come anywhere near to what the theory purports to explain. Are there experimental studies that demonstrate that the sphere is large enough to allow, for example, single celled organisms to evolve into complex multicelled organisms? Don't you think that we should at least demonstrate a sphere that is close to the size required by the theory before putting our confidence in the theory?

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Many diseases are controlled with antibiotics, but new antibiotic resistance mutations always show up, ask any doctor. They were not there in the past, but even a small change in a protein or enzyme can completely negate the effects of our drugs, if that happens then those individuals will be selected for and the population will evolve.[/quote]

Which shows that evolution works for bacteria, but does that mean it also works for other organisms? I mean, there are many things which we can demonstrate with bacteria which don't hold true for more complex organisms.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Controlled laboratory experiments of flies have shown that even a seemingly small mutation can have radical effects, changing the shapes of their eyes or adding extra sets of wings. [/quote]

So the question is, is it limited to tweaking eyes and wings? Can we demonstrate arbitrary evolution of a fruit fly? For example, could we demonstrate the evolution of normal fruit flies to fruit flies the size of a house? If not then why not? If so then is there anything we can't demonstrate? What are the limitations?

Whether or not something can happen in an isolated incident usually isn't relevant to explaining things in the real world. However, if we can show the limitations of something then that can help us in determining what is possible in a given real world scenario.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']You ask that we hold biology to the same standards, and like I said there are both rigorous experimental and observational (repeatable as well) studies to support evolution. [/QUOTE]

I'm not denying that there aren't rigorous experiments supporting some parts of evolution. My objection is that these experiments are used to fuel sweeping generalizations. That is where, in my opinion, biology falls short on the standards set by the other sciences. Experiments with fruit flies does not tell us that whales evolved from dogs, only experiments with whales and dogs can tell us that. That is the standard set by the more rigorous sciences.

What follows isn't in reply to your response, but is another issue I have with evolutionary theory:
How is the evolution of biological organisms different from the evolution of other things, such as societal cultures, governments, electronic devices, books, or anything else which can be noted as changing over time? Can these differences be supported by experimental evidence, or are they philosophical differences? For example, one might say that the evolution of televisions is different from the evolution of species because televisions are created with a specific purpose in mind while species are not. However, this distinction is not really scientific because purpose cannot be scientifically tested.

If there isn't really any difference, then why should we consider evolution as anything other than a convenient model? For a long time the theory of the atom was merely regarded as a convenient model and not the actual truth about what was happening. If evolution is just a very flexible stochastic model (applicable to a number of situations in which we know for sure it doesn't reflect the actual mechanisms which govern those situations) then why not interpret its successful application to biology as progress towards open ended mathematical modeling, rather than progress in biological understanding.

Furthermore, if we should indeed interpret the adeptness of evolutionary theory, not as progress towards biological "truth", but as progress towards open ended modeling, then the justification for studying it rests exclusively on its practical application. In light of this, what practical advantages does the theory offer to justify its existence? I mean, farmers and breeders have been using selection techniques for thousands of years. Does evolutionary theory bring anything new to the table?

Apart from these complaints about evolutionary theory in the broad sense, I also have some specific discrepancies that I don't like. However, I don't want to push these because there are peculiar discrepancies in any scientific theory. However, if you can resolve the issues with the broader theory for me then perhaps I will bring up a few particular instances and see if you have answers (if you don't mind that is).

Sorry that this isn't a PM. I tried to PM you, but I got an error because the text was too long. I will PM you my email address so that we can continue this discussion in private.
 
[quote name='chunk']Sorry that this isn't a PM. I tried to PM you, but I got an error because the text was too long. I will PM you my email address so that we can continue this discussion in private.[/QUOTE]

Why bother? Just ignore or respond to other people's posts as you see fit. That way everyone has a chance to possibly learn something or add something intelligent to your discussion.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Why bother? Just ignore or respond to other people's posts as you see fit. That way everyone has a chance to possibly learn something or add something intelligent to your discussion.[/QUOTE]

You obviously haven't been reading many of his posts. It's the same thing over and over again, he's full of himself and he can't begin to even comprehend that another person can have an equally valid point. It's just a rehash of the last argument he had with the last person. And many of the questions he is asking have been answered by other people, many by myself. If he doesn't like the answer fine, but he knows that there is a scientific answer for some things, but keeps asking what's the answer even though he's been told.

NOTICE TO CHUNK: please ignore this post, this is directed to atreyue. I would like nothing more than for this entire discussion to cease and don't want to get involved in it again.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You obviously haven't been reading many of his posts. It's the same thing over and over again, he's full of himself and he can't begin to even comprehend that another person can have an equally valid point. It's just a rehash of the last argument he had with the last person. And many of the questions he is asking have been answered by other people, many by myself. If he doesn't like the answer fine, but he knows that there is a scientific answer for some things, but keeps asking what's the answer even though he's been told.

NOTICE TO CHUNK: please ignore this post, this is directed to atreyue. I would like nothing more than for this entire discussion to cease and don't want to get involved in it again.[/QUOTE]

If you don't want to be involved, then just don't get involved. If he and satchmo get tired of discussing it, then their discussion will cease. Just because something is posted doesn't mean that you must respond to it. What I said to him holds true for everyone. And what you said about him above can be applied to just about everyone here as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top