If evolution did not happen, why did God make it look as if it has? [Spirituality & Religion]
By @Pikachu
Robot
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
goagainsttheflow · 26-30, F
1-25 of 42
@goagainsttheflow
Evolution is not a theory because we're not sure about it. There is no question that evolution has occurred, only questions about the specifics.
Evolution is not a theory because we're not sure about it. There is no question that evolution has occurred, only questions about the specifics.
This message was deleted by its author.
@SteelHands
Some don't understand what a scientific theory is.
Perhaps you're familiar with the germ THEORY of disease. Do you think that it's not a [i]fact[/i] that microorganisms are responsible for many or most of disease?
Of course not. That would be an absurd denial of the obvious.
Evolution is the same. It is a fact that it has occurred because there is too much evidence to deny. The theory comes in to explain how and why evolution has occurred.
Morphology, paleontology, genetics. Separate lines of evidence that all point in the same direction.
You may not accept evolution but what you can't do is disprove it or even offer a better explanation for the available evidence.
Some don't understand what a scientific theory is.
Perhaps you're familiar with the germ THEORY of disease. Do you think that it's not a [i]fact[/i] that microorganisms are responsible for many or most of disease?
Of course not. That would be an absurd denial of the obvious.
Evolution is the same. It is a fact that it has occurred because there is too much evidence to deny. The theory comes in to explain how and why evolution has occurred.
Morphology, paleontology, genetics. Separate lines of evidence that all point in the same direction.
You may not accept evolution but what you can't do is disprove it or even offer a better explanation for the available evidence.
This message was deleted by its author.
@SteelHands
....i have no idea what point or argument you just thought you were making.
What i didn't see was any actual rebuttal to the things i said:
1) you can't disprove evolution
2) you can't supply a superior explanation for the evidence and
3) you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.
So...when you have a response to any of that, i'm here 😁
....i have no idea what point or argument you just thought you were making.
What i didn't see was any actual rebuttal to the things i said:
1) you can't disprove evolution
2) you can't supply a superior explanation for the evidence and
3) you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.
So...when you have a response to any of that, i'm here 😁
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu [quote]you can't disprove evolution[/quote]
One the contrary, there are many things which would refute the Theory of Evolution.
J.B.S Haldane famously growled "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian". That'd do it. In fact, there's a raft of things that would immediately refute the Theory. So far, nothing has.
One the contrary, there are many things which would refute the Theory of Evolution.
J.B.S Haldane famously growled "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian". That'd do it. In fact, there's a raft of things that would immediately refute the Theory. So far, nothing has.
This message was deleted by its author.
@newjaninev2
Agreed. Did you mean to link that post to ladycae?
Edit: oh i see. I wasn't saying that evolution can't be disproved. I was saying that [i]he[/i] could present nothing which would disprove it
Agreed. Did you mean to link that post to ladycae?
Edit: oh i see. I wasn't saying that evolution can't be disproved. I was saying that [i]he[/i] could present nothing which would disprove it
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu oh, no, the quoted text was from goagainsttheflow.
Apologies for any confusion.
Apologies for any confusion.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (the Natural Selection part is one of Darwin's great contributions) is a robust Theory that consistently, completely, and coherently accounts for the evidence (the initial gathering of such evidence was Darwin's other great contribution).
Shall we look at some of that evidence... then you can account for in some other way, should you wish to.
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Shall we look at some of that evidence... then you can account for in some other way, should you wish to.
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands Why are you talking about carbon dating? That's used only for very recent items (50,000 years at most). It's useful in archaeology, but not in evolutionary studies.
Anyway, ere's some more evidence that you might like to account for...
Genes code for proteins. That’s pretty much all they do (they have quite dull social lives, and don’t seem to have hobbies or outside interests). Those proteins are built up from amino acids.
The genes comprise large numbers of base-pairs, which are simply guanine matched with cytosine and adenine matched with thymine. The human genome contains around 3.2 billion of these base pairs (the largest we’ve found so far is that of the flowering plant Paris japonica, which has 150 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish has 133 billion base pairs).
As I said, proteins are built up from amino acids. Each amino acid that is used to build the proteins is specified by three base-pairs (those blocks of three base-pairs are called codons).
Let’s look at cytochrome c (we could use any number of such proteins, but I have a fondness for cytochrome c… I like the alliteration)
The cytochrome c protein is built up from around 100 amino acids.
This means that there are 10E135 possible ways that the amino acids could be arranged… but not all of those arrangements would work, of course.
However, because there’s a high level of redundancy in the construction of cytosine c (and all proteins), a stunning 10E93 variants would still be functional.
So that’s 100,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000 possible ways that DNA could code for functional cytosine c.
Time to make some predictions in accordance with the Theory of Evolution, don’t you think?
1. Because evolution began from a tightly limited range of organisms, only one of those possible functional variants will have been passed down over the last 3.5 billion years.
2. Because of point mutations (among other factors), there should be evidence of extremely slight variation that has crept in over the last 3.5 billion years… after all, even high-fidelity copying systems aren’t perfect (and it would be suspicious if they appeared to be so)
3. That variation should be negligible for species that have comparatively recent common ancestors, and increase between species with more distant common ancestors… while still remaining negligible (The process is remarkably stable, so we wouldn’t expect too many of the 10E93 functional variants to have appeared).
So, what do we find?
How many amino acid differences are there between humans and other species?
To make things interesting, let’s list some species in order of how long it has been since we shared a common ancestor with each species, and then see how many amino acid differences there are between us and that species.
Chimpanzee = 0
Rhesus Monkey = 1
Rabbit = 9
Cow = 10
Pigeon = 12
Bullfrog = 20
Fruit Fly = 24
Wheat Germ = 37
Yeast = 42
Evidence-based simplicity and elegance… the Theory of Evolution
Anyway, ere's some more evidence that you might like to account for...
Genes code for proteins. That’s pretty much all they do (they have quite dull social lives, and don’t seem to have hobbies or outside interests). Those proteins are built up from amino acids.
The genes comprise large numbers of base-pairs, which are simply guanine matched with cytosine and adenine matched with thymine. The human genome contains around 3.2 billion of these base pairs (the largest we’ve found so far is that of the flowering plant Paris japonica, which has 150 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish has 133 billion base pairs).
As I said, proteins are built up from amino acids. Each amino acid that is used to build the proteins is specified by three base-pairs (those blocks of three base-pairs are called codons).
Let’s look at cytochrome c (we could use any number of such proteins, but I have a fondness for cytochrome c… I like the alliteration)
The cytochrome c protein is built up from around 100 amino acids.
This means that there are 10E135 possible ways that the amino acids could be arranged… but not all of those arrangements would work, of course.
However, because there’s a high level of redundancy in the construction of cytosine c (and all proteins), a stunning 10E93 variants would still be functional.
So that’s 100,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000 possible ways that DNA could code for functional cytosine c.
Time to make some predictions in accordance with the Theory of Evolution, don’t you think?
1. Because evolution began from a tightly limited range of organisms, only one of those possible functional variants will have been passed down over the last 3.5 billion years.
2. Because of point mutations (among other factors), there should be evidence of extremely slight variation that has crept in over the last 3.5 billion years… after all, even high-fidelity copying systems aren’t perfect (and it would be suspicious if they appeared to be so)
3. That variation should be negligible for species that have comparatively recent common ancestors, and increase between species with more distant common ancestors… while still remaining negligible (The process is remarkably stable, so we wouldn’t expect too many of the 10E93 functional variants to have appeared).
So, what do we find?
How many amino acid differences are there between humans and other species?
To make things interesting, let’s list some species in order of how long it has been since we shared a common ancestor with each species, and then see how many amino acid differences there are between us and that species.
Chimpanzee = 0
Rhesus Monkey = 1
Rabbit = 9
Cow = 10
Pigeon = 12
Bullfrog = 20
Fruit Fly = 24
Wheat Germ = 37
Yeast = 42
Evidence-based simplicity and elegance… the Theory of Evolution
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands While you're about it, perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation for this...
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands Perhaps a stroll into some basic embryology... then we'll take a look at how we [i]really[/i] study the age of the Earth (carbon dating? Seriously? lol!)
Embryology can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.
In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.
Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not ‘sort of like’ a fish‘s brachial arches... they are a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically completely identical.
Tiktaalik roseae, on the cusp between ocean and land, used gills and lungs, but after the move onto land, gills were superfluous (although Olympic swimming competitions would be very different had we retained them). Sometimes (it‘s very rare) the gill slits fail to close, but it‘s easily corrected via minor surgery once the infant is born.
Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians. Not similar... identical.
In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles. Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... identical.
In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to become the mammalian circulatory system.
During development, human embryos form three distinctly different types kidneys... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros. The first two systems are discarded. The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians, the mesonephros is the kidney system found in reptiles, and the metanephros is the kidney system that we eventually use.
From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.
No matter how many comforting myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.
Embryology can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.
In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.
Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not ‘sort of like’ a fish‘s brachial arches... they are a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically completely identical.
Tiktaalik roseae, on the cusp between ocean and land, used gills and lungs, but after the move onto land, gills were superfluous (although Olympic swimming competitions would be very different had we retained them). Sometimes (it‘s very rare) the gill slits fail to close, but it‘s easily corrected via minor surgery once the infant is born.
Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians. Not similar... identical.
In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles. Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... identical.
In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to become the mammalian circulatory system.
During development, human embryos form three distinctly different types kidneys... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros. The first two systems are discarded. The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians, the mesonephros is the kidney system found in reptiles, and the metanephros is the kidney system that we eventually use.
From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.
No matter how many comforting myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands What theoretical foundation is that? Perhaps you could offer specific examples.
What I have offered here are concrete, observable, demonstrable examples.
Are you now saying that DNA doesn't exist? That cytosine C doesn't exist? That embryological development doesn't occur?
What I have offered here are concrete, observable, demonstrable examples.
Are you now saying that DNA doesn't exist? That cytosine C doesn't exist? That embryological development doesn't occur?
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands Well, you haven't been very clear so far... except about your sudden desire to abandon your earlier risible claims.
I thought we'd now switch to the age of the Earth (4.6 billion years). In fact, why limit ourselves... let's also look at the age of the expanding universe (13.7 billion years), and the evidence for those numbers.
I'll begin, and you just sort of chime in as you feel the need. OK?
I thought we'd now switch to the age of the Earth (4.6 billion years). In fact, why limit ourselves... let's also look at the age of the expanding universe (13.7 billion years), and the evidence for those numbers.
I'll begin, and you just sort of chime in as you feel the need. OK?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands By the way, you haven't commented on the evolutionary [i][b]evidence[/b][/i] I offered you. Did you like the multi-choice? Which one did you opt for?
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SteelHands Oh, partial in what sense? It's the overarching Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that connects, and accounts for, all the disparate evidence. That's what we're discussing, isn't it?
Perhaps if you now present some of that 'relevant contradictory evidence' we'll have a clearer picture of reality?
After all, reality is good, don't you think?
Perhaps if you now present some of that 'relevant contradictory evidence' we'll have a clearer picture of reality?
After all, reality is good, don't you think?
This message was deleted by its author.
1-25 of 42