CDZ Evolution: Valid Science, or Hoax?

[usfan]

I propose a scientific debate on the topic of evolution.
Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life?

I say it does not. Here are my reasons:
1. Micro evolution, or natural selection, explains how species adapt to their environment. The result of this adaptation is a decrease in diversity in the species, as the gene pool promotes those traits that are favorable to the environment. This is dark moths adapting to dark bark on trees, white rabbits doing better in the snow, & other natural selection processes. This kind of evolution does not increase complexity, but decreases it, as fewer genetic traits become available to the species. There is no known mechanism that causes an increase in genetic complexity. Mutations are aberrations in the genetic code, seldom produce anything positive for the species, & do not increase the complexity of the life form. It does not indicate macro evolution.

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.

3. There is no mechanism that can explain why or how life can become more complex through evolution. It is assumed, & that is a faulty assumption. It is not good science, nor good logic. Neither mutation nor millions of years provide any mechanism or even explanation of HOW, but it is erroneously extrapolated based on natural selection. But just asserting that a species adapted over millions of years does not make it true, nor is it based on any scientific or logical constructs. It is speculation & fantasy.

4. One of the most basic concepts in science is that of entropy, or the tendency of all things to move to less complexity. Unless acted upon by an outside source, all of the universe is moving toward equilibrium & a simpler state. There is no known mechanism that explains HOW or WHAT is causing life to increase in complexity. If anything, in recorded history, life is decreasing in complexity & diversity. Unique species are lost, and distinct new ones are not being added. We have variation within a life form's genetic limitations, but no moving into more complexity. This is what you would expect with entropy, & it brings a major difficulty to those claiming an increase in complexity through evolution.

5. As to origins, there is no mechanism or procedure that can create life.. real, reproducing life, not just some amino acids or 'building blocks' of life. There is nothing that can be measured, repeated, falsified, or even theorized. It is a leap of faith to believe life began spontaneously & increased in complexity for millions of years. There is no valid scientific explanation for this, even though it is asserted as fact in many spheres.

I am not making an argument for special creation, or alien seeding, or any other theories or speculations of origins. I am including evolution with the others. Our origins are a mystery, which science & logic have not been able to explain to this point. Macro evolution, or the increase in complexity in life forms, is an unproven speculation & fantasy. It is a leap of faith.. a religious opinion.. not science.

 

[there4eyeM]

There are interesting and perplexing aspects to how life has come to be as it is. Much is to be realized/discovered.
Science is, in general, trying to provide some organized and rational method of thinking and speaking of what is observed. Errors are possible, and even likely. Science, like all institutions, is subject to human failings and weaknesses.
Evolution is not very satisfying when it comes to some of the points raised. The upset comes from vociferous denial that anything about evolution could be true, this coming from quarters with vested interests in social control.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life?

Evolution makes no claim towards the origins of life. That is an entirely different topic and conflating them is fallacious.

There is no known mechanism that causes an increase in genetic complexity. Mutations are aberrations in the genetic code, seldom produce anything positive for the species, & do not increase the complexity of the life form. It does not indicate macro evolution.

Mutations are the known mechanism for increasing genetic complexity.

Simply because one mutation does nothing is irrelevant. Sometimes it is a combination of mutations that becomes the key to a species diverging.

But just asserting that a species adapted over millions of years does not make it true, nor is it based on any scientific or logical constructs. It is speculation & fantasy.

Actually it is not "speculation & fantasy". Evolution is backed up by the separate scientific disciplines of biology, genetics and paleontology.

Why do chickens have the genes for teeth and tails?

Why can't you tell the difference between a fish, bird, reptile and mammal species in fetal development?

Which of those is the human?

Developmental Biology 10e Online Haeckel and the Vertebrate Archetype

 

[william the wie]

The only proven mechanism of macro-evolution is the interbreeding of closely related species and the production of fertile offspring as in some mule mares are in fact fertile. Beyond that it is common among industrial and medical biologists to have much less belief in macro-evolution than among the general population. Mining geologists likewise openly joke about how the strata are dated by the fossils and vice versa.

 

[Syriusly]

I propose a scientific debate on the topic of evolution.
Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life?

I say it does not. Here are my reasons:
1. Micro evolution, or natural selection, explains how species adapt to their environment. The result of this adaptation is a decrease in diversity in the species, as the gene pool promotes those traits that are favorable to the environment. This is dark moths adapting to dark bark on trees, white rabbits doing better in the snow, & other natural selection processes. This kind of evolution does not increase complexity, but decreases it, as fewer genetic traits become available to the species. There is no known mechanism that causes an increase in genetic complexity. Mutations are aberrations in the genetic code, seldom produce anything positive for the species, & do not increase the complexity of the life form. It does not indicate macro evolution.
.

Prove any of what you have stated.

A well known example are the Galapagos finches. There is a well documented study in their 'micro evolution' as you call it- which apparently is evolution you can see happening within your life time- of finches in the Galapagos. During years drought, surviving finches tend to have one type of beak- but during years with more water, the surviving finches tend towards beaks of a different type.

Their diversity doesn't change- the genes are still there- but as the environment pressures the species different beaks structures help with survival.

Extend that reasoning to hundreds of thousands of years within an isolated population, with specific environmental pressures and you end up with the kinds of drift that is seen in the Galapagos.

 

[Syriusly]

5. As to origins, there is no mechanism or procedure that can create life.. real, reproducing life, not just some amino acids or 'building blocks' of life. There is nothing that can be measured, repeated, falsified, or even theorized. It is a leap of faith to believe life began spontaneously & increased in complexity for millions of years. There is no valid scientific explanation for this, even though it is asserted as fact in many spheres.
.

I suggest we take origins off the table- because whether or not evolution itself is valid has nothing to do with the origin of life.

We could have been seeded by alien overlords and evolution would still be as observable and valid as it is.

 

[Syriusly]

I

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.
.

What is 'micro evolution' versus 'macro evolution' other than larger gradual changes?

Dogs evolved from Wolves- man may or may not have had a hand in that evolution- but man is very involved in the current evolution of dogs. But the evolution of dogs from Wolves happened within the time frame of homo sapiens.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.
.

What is 'micro evolution' versus 'macro evolution' other than larger gradual changes?

Dogs evolved from Wolves- man may or may not have had a hand in that evolution- but man is very involved in the current evolution of dogs. But the evolution of dogs from Wolves happened within the time frame of homo sapiens.

 

[usfan]

Evolution makes no claim towards the origins of life. That is an entirely different topic and conflating them is fallacious.

1. Evolution is a theory of origins. What is the 'origin' of human life? Small steps of increasing complexity over millions of years. therefore, it is an accurate term to use.
2. Anticipating someone giving me flak for the term 'origins', i included 'complexity of life'. Evidently it still didn't help.
3. This debate is over the theory that life somehow began, & through some unknown processes known as evolution, increased in complexity to what we see today. Abiogenesis is not the specific topic, but it is part of the discussion, & is almost universally assumed when talking about evolution.

Mutations are the known mechanism for increasing genetic complexity.
Simply because one mutation does nothing is irrelevant. Sometimes it is a combination of mutations that becomes the key to a species diverging.

False. There is NO evidence of mutation being a mechanism for increasing complexity in the genetic code. You can refute this statement, if you wish, by supplying any evidence of increased genetic complexity.. the addition of traits not already in the genes, or new genomes to allow the formation of a new species.

Actually it is not "speculation & fantasy". Evolution is backed up by the separate scientific disciplines of biology, genetics and paleontology.
Why do chickens have the genes for teeth and tails?
Why can't you tell the difference between a fish, bird, reptile and mammal species in fetal development?

1. What 'scientific disciplines' say or what you think they say is irrelevant, & an appeal to authority. To refute my point, you will need evidence.
2. Chickens do not have teeth or tails, therefore they do not have genes for that. Show me an instance of a chicken being born with teeth. This is irrelevant, anyway, & does not prove anything, even if it were true.
3. 'Looks like' is not a scientific argument. It is also an argument for ID, who claim that similarity proves a singular designer.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Cross posted from another thread -

 

[LoneLaugher]

Unicorns exist. Prove they don't!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Evolution is a theory of origins

Onus is on you to prove that claim.

There is NO evidence of mutation being a mechanism for increasing complexity in the genetic code

How Does Evolution Cause the Increases in Genetic Information Required to go from Single-Celled Life to Complex Animals Evolution FAQ

Evolution of biological complexity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To refute my point, you will need evidence

I already provided the evidence.

Chickens do not have teeth or tails, therefore they do not have genes for that. Show me an instance of a chicken being born with teeth

Study of Chicken Teeth Sheds Light on Evolution NPR

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth - Scientific American

Chickens Still Have Genes For Growing Teeth - KnowledgeNuts

Ever heard of the Greylag Goose?

 

[usfan]

Prove any of what you have stated.
A well known example are the Galapagos finches. There is a well documented study in their 'micro evolution' as you call it- which apparently is evolution you can see happening within your life time- of finches in the Galapagos. During years drought, surviving finches tend to have one type of beak- but during years with more water, the surviving finches tend towards beaks of a different type.
Their diversity doesn't change- the genes are still there- but as the environment pressures the species different beaks structures help with survival.
Extend that reasoning to hundreds of thousands of years within an isolated population, with specific environmental pressures and you end up with the kinds of drift that is seen in the Galapagos.

1. I am not making the fantastic claim. The burden of proof is on those concocting the theory to provide evidence & observable, repeatable experiments to support the theory.
2. Finches remained finches. Their variability was already there. There is nothing to suggest that some mysterious process 'created' new genes to help them adapt. In nature, the opposite is observed. Life forms that do not have the variability to adapt, die out. They go extinct. Your finch example is that of natural selection, which is observable & testable, but it does not support the leap into increasing complexity.
3. Thousands or millions of years do not supply any mechanism for increasing complexity. That is just asserted, without evidence. Time & chance are not mechanisms, they are wishful thinking. Observable, repeatable science says that these kinds of vertical changes are impossible. Fish do not grow legs & become reptiles. Reptiles do not change their scales into feathers. Humans have retained the same mitochondrial gene, in every human being. We are descended from the same parent, and have not evolved separately on the planet.
4. Genetic drift is a lessening of available traits. Reproductive isolation occurs until the child species is too isolated & removed from other 'cousin' species. That only proves that DEvolution is possible, where a species loses so much variability it bears little resemblance to the parent. But, did those traits already exist, within the parent species? Or were they somehow 'created' by the life form. If the latter is claimed, some kind of mechanism has to be defined, observed, & repeated to be considered valid science. Otherwise, it is speculation.

 

[usfan]

Unicorns exist. Prove they don't!

You are making the claim, that something is true. it is up to you to provide evidence for your premise. I can then rebut your evidence, or analyze it & either agree or disagree with your conclusions.

This is the scientific method we're doing here.. a debate about evolution as a scientific theory of origins.. origins of all life, not just abiogenesis.

 

[usfan]

Onus is on you to prove that claim.

I did. You snipped it out.
'1. Evolution is a theory of origins. What is the 'origin' of human life? Small steps of increasing complexity over millions of years. therefore, it is an accurate term to use.'

I already provided the evidence.

You have provided links. I do not debate links. If you have an argument, or evidence for your position, you may quote a source, but long rambling web pages, or treatises from someone else is not 'evidence'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evolution relies two absurd and impossible facts: that random events organized the nonliving into the living and that a random mutation will alter the DNA of a creature in a precise manner at the exact time the precise mutation is needed to cause the creature to survive and procreate.

As I've stated countless times, the odds of the first occurring are a number with 6,000 zeros in it to one. Moreover on planet Earth, life only uses left-handed amino acids, righthanded ones are a dead end and will either not function or cause the cell to function improperly.

I don't care if the obviousness of a Creator offends anyone's sensitive feelings.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Unicorns exist. Prove they don't!

You are making the claim, that something is true. it is up to you to provide evidence for your premise. I can then rebut your evidence, or analyze it & either agree or disagree with your conclusions.

This is the scientific method we're doing here.. a debate about evolution as a scientific theory of origins.. origins of all life, not just abiogenesis.

Sorry. That debate is over. Evolution has been proven.

At some point....sane people accept things.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP has provided absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims that the rigorous scientific method which is constantly peer reviewed is wrong.

All the OP has done is make baseless allegations that it is wrong.

The onus is on the OP to prove that it is wrong.

The OP can't prove their position because everything the OP has posted is straight out of the creationist songbook.

/thread fail

 

[LoneLaugher]

Evolution relies two absurd and impossible facts: that random events organized the nonliving into the living and that a random mutation will alter the DNA of a creature in a precise manner at the exact time the precise mutation is needed to cause the creature to survive and procreate.

As I've stated countless times, the odds of the first occurring are a number with 6,000 zeros in it to one. Moreover on planet Earth, life only uses left-handed amino acids, righthanded ones are a dead end and will either not function or cause the cell to function improperly.

I don't care if the obviousness of a Creator offends anyone's sensitive feelings.

Exact time? Give or take a few hundred thousand years. But what you said sure sounded plausible.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I did. You snipped it out.
'1. Evolution is a theory of origins. What is the 'origin' of human life? Small steps of increasing complexity over millions of years. therefore, it is an accurate term to use.'

Your baseless claims are not "evidence".

You can claim that the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't amount to "evidence".

Produce links with credible support for your claims or they are de facto nonsense.

You have provided links. I do not debate links. If you have an argument, or evidence for your position, you may quote a source, but long rambling web pages, or treatises from someone else is not 'evidence'.

The links provided support my position. If you cannot be bothered to read the links then you have disqualified yourself from your own thread.

Have a nice day.