The scientific method, the fossil record and mutations

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » The scientific method, the fossil record and mutations

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

Erasmus

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:37 pm

Guest

wf3h wrote:

Quote:

Zhadow wrote:
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is
to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind
to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists
honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for
links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there."

god only knows where this quote came from. creationists aren't the
most unbiased or honest of folks...

we have fairly complete transitional series for the evolution of
horses, of whales, etc.

Geneticist G. L. Stebbins : “No biologist has actually seen the origin
by evolution of a major group of organisms.”So, living things on earth
today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are
all complete in form and distinct from other types. As geneticist
Theodosius Dobzhansky observed: “The living world is not a single array
.. . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.”

Erasmus

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:40 pm

Guest

TimK wrote:

Quote:

"Zhadow" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173556070.128077.45080@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
How can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution = change in gene frequencies over time.
Check to see if gene frequencies change over time.
Moron

Clap clap clap clap clap.

How about: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living
organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is
said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately
producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on
this earth.

Day Brown

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:56 pm

Guest

On Mar 11, 4:40 pm, Erasmus <D...@arrakis.net> wrote:

Quote:

TimK wrote:
"Zhadow" <geis...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173556070.128077.45080@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
How can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution = change in gene frequencies over time.
Check to see if gene frequencies change over time.
Moron

Clap clap clap clap clap.

How about: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living
organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is
said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately
producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on
this earth.

The reason you have not seen a cure for the common cold is that the
viruses responsible keep.... *evolving*.
But to the question at the top, What would you consider to be an
adequate proof of evolution?
You seem to think there is no proof, but how can we provide it if we
dont know what you would consider adequate?

Zhadow

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:30 pm

Guest

On Mar 11, 7:56 pm, "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 11, 4:40 pm, Erasmus <D...@arrakis.net> wrote:

TimK wrote:
"Zhadow" <geis...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173556070.128077.45080@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
How can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution = change in gene frequencies over time.
Check to see if gene frequencies change over time.
Moron

Clap clap clap clap clap.

How about: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living
organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is
said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately
producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on
this earth.

The reason you have not seen a cure for the common cold is that the
viruses responsible keep.... *evolving*.

Viruses evolving into viruses....Duh.

Quote:

But to the question at the top, What would you consider to be an
adequate proof of evolution?

How about a manpanzee. A human/chimp hybrid.

Quote:

You seem to think there is no proof, but how can we provide it if we
dont know what you would consider adequate?

Steven J.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:01 pm

Guest

On Mar 11, 4:40 pm, Erasmus <D...@arrakis.net> wrote:

Quote:

counts.

First of all, organic evolution is something that happens to things
that are already alive; the origin of life from nonliving matter is a
separate question (and, come to think of it, don't most forms of
creationism assume that the first living organism developed (even if
it needed miracles to do so) from lifeless matter? It is true that
scientists seek an explanation for the origin of life in terms of
natural chemical processes, but it is strictly irrelevant to
evolutionary theory whether such an explanation has been found or is
even possible.

Second, in point of fact, the evidence (e.g. the commonality -- with
minor exceptions that fall into the same nested hierarchy as other
features of life -- of the genetic code and of many genes) implies
that all known life shares common ancestors (although not necessarily
a single "first organism:" our mitochondria, for example, are
descended from bacteria that apparently became endosymbionts of the
cells that gave us our nuclear DNA), but this is not an essential
feature of biological evolution. It was considered, until a couple of
decades ago, quite possible that life on Earth might trace back to
multiple independent origins; evolution does not require that there be
only a single successful abiogenesis event.

-- Steven J.

TimK

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:36 pm

Guest

"Erasmus" <Dune@arrakis.net> wrote in message
news:Jz%Ih.264$Eg4.246@trnddc03...

Quote:

TimK wrote:
"Zhadow" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173556070.128077.45080@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
How can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution = change in gene frequencies over time.
Check to see if gene frequencies change over time.
Moron

Clap clap clap clap clap.

How about: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism
developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it
changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all
forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth.

Nope, that's not the definition of evolution.

Alan Meyer

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:32 pm

Guest

"Zhadow" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173561179.696897.156800@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

...
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?
...

It is a hard question and one that has not yet been fully
answered by science. However there are some pretty
plausible theories. The famous Miller-Urey experiments
in the 1950's demonstrated the spontaneous creation
of 13 amino acids from water, methane, ammonia and
hydrogen. See the Wikipedia article for "Miller-Urey
Experiment" for a review of what was done and a photo
of their apparatus.

A lot of research has been done since then which you
can find via the Wikipedia article.

A good introductory biology text like Campbell's _Biology_
will also have a chapter on this.

Personally, I wish that the creationists would also try
harder to answer this question. How did God create life?

Saying he did it by supernatural means that we cannot
possibly understand seems to be a copout. The creationist
criticism of science here is that science has trouble
explaining the creation of life. But if you turn the question
around and ask, "Okay, how do we explain it by creationism?",
the answer we get is "We can't explain it either."

At least the biologists have some theories that they are
working on, and _some_ experimental evidence to work
with.

Alan

Shrike!

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:30 pm

Guest

Alan Meyer wrote:

Quote:

"Zhadow" <geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1173561179.696897.156800@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?
...

It is a hard question and one that has not yet been fully
answered by science.

Honest reply.

Quote:

However there are some pretty
plausible theories. The famous Miller-Urey experiments
in the 1950's demonstrated the spontaneous creation
of 13 amino acids from water, methane, ammonia and
hydrogen. See the Wikipedia article for "Miller-Urey
Experiment" for a review of what was done and a photo
of their apparatus.

uh... spontaneous? I guess if I mix rum and coke, I would get a
spontaneous Cuba Libre.

Quote:

Personally, I wish that the creationists would also try
harder to answer this question. How did God create life?

He didn't, then again I am not a creationist.

Quote:

Saying he did it by supernatural means that we cannot
possibly understand seems to be a copout. The creationist
criticism of science here is that science has trouble
explaining the creation of life. But if you turn the question
around and ask, "Okay, how do we explain it by creationism?",
the answer we get is "We can't explain it either."

At least the biologists have some theories that they are
working on, and _some_ experimental evidence to work
with.

Alan

Alan Meyer

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:53 am

Guest

"Shrike!" <suffocate@withbag.es> wrote in message news:TxYMh.499$Ht2.176@trnddc06...

Quote:

Alan Meyer wrote:
...
However there are some pretty
plausible theories. The famous Miller-Urey experiments
in the 1950's demonstrated the spontaneous creation
of 13 amino acids from water, methane, ammonia and
hydrogen. See the Wikipedia article for "Miller-Urey
Experiment" for a review of what was done and a photo
of their apparatus.

uh... spontaneous? I guess if I mix rum and coke, I would get a spontaneous Cuba Libre.

Have I used the wrong word? By "spontaneous" I meant
that the reactions that Miller and Urey observed required
no outside manipulation on their part. They created what
they believed were primitive earth like conditions and then
just watched for a week.

However in a strict chemical sense, maybe "spontaneous"
should be applied only to exergonic reactions - which the
Miller-Urey experiments were not.

Quote:

Personally, I wish that the creationists would also try
harder to answer this question. How did God create life?

He didn't, then again I am not a creationist.

Of course I agree, and don't personally believe that
God exists at all.

However I do feel the need to argue for my position and
treat each creationist as a reasonable person who wants
to get at the truth, not just engage in a shouting match.
So rather than make absolute statements like, "God didn't
create life", I prefer to say why I think that, and to show
what I think is missing in the arguments made by the
other side.

Thanks for the feedback.

Alan

Shrike!

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:05 am

Guest

Alan Meyer wrote:

Quote:

"Shrike!" <suffocate@withbag.es> wrote in message news:TxYMh.499$Ht2.176@trnddc06...
Alan Meyer wrote:
...
However there are some pretty
plausible theories. The famous Miller-Urey experiments
in the 1950's demonstrated the spontaneous creation
of 13 amino acids from water, methane, ammonia and
hydrogen. See the Wikipedia article for "Miller-Urey
Experiment" for a review of what was done and a photo
of their apparatus.
uh... spontaneous? I guess if I mix rum and coke, I would get a spontaneous Cuba Libre.

Have I used the wrong word? By "spontaneous" I meant
that the reactions that Miller and Urey observed required
no outside manipulation on their part.

His whole experiment was manipulation Scientist Stanley L. Miller,
working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia,
methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive
atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom
(to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning)
through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo,
which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of
proteins. You may well have heard of this experiment because for years
it has been cited in science textbooks and school courses as if it
explains how life on earth began. But does it?

Actually, the value of Miller’s experiment is seriously questioned
today. Nevertheless, its apparent success led to other tests that even
produced components found in nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Specialists in
the field (sometimes called origin-of-life scientists) felt optimistic,
for they had seemingly replicated the first act of the molecular drama.
And it seemed as though laboratory versions of the remaining two acts
would follow. One chemistry professor claimed: “The explanation of the
origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well
within sight.” And a science writer observed: “Pundits speculated that
scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure
up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in
detail how genesis unfolded.” The mystery of the spontaneous origin of life.
In the years since, however, that optimism has evaporated. Decades have
passed, and life’s secrets remain elusive. Some 40 years after his
experiment, Professor Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of
the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and
most other people, envisioned.” Other scientists share this change of
mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon
coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded
that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy
organized themselves into living systems.”

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:10 pm Science Forum Index