Are there creatures with semi evolved body parts present on the parent creature?
In reply to this comment of which I find confusing:
"people who accept evolution are the most ignorant, thick-skulled, bigoted morons to ever existthanks for proving that you are a bigot and a moron. you just love to call god a liar by accepting the evolution lie. we should see creatures with semi evolved body parts not present on the parent creature if evo was true. so far zerp evidence for evo have been found in nature."
From my understanding:
This is what he says we do not have any evidence of:
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124
the guy doesn't understand evolution
in that sense semi evolved body parts don't exist
generally; every step on the evolutionary ladder is useful. another copy of a gene or a slight alteration in the code can case another leg to appear, but if the mutation is bad, the individual will die (or something similar evolutionary speaking).
for example, humans can't evolve half wings with the goal of full wings; as evolution doesn't have a goal.
either arms have to change step by step into wings, each step being better than before in reproduction or new appendixes have to form step by step, and each step being useful and adding to better reproduction
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
fruyian - "the guy doesn't understand evolution"
For sure. In fact, I don't think I've ever met someone who rejects evolution who can describe it without making a major mistake. They always seem to include something along the lines of:
1) Animals turning into a very different types of animals in a single generation.
2) Evolution having goals (as you discussed).
3) Conscious evolution: this animal decided that it needs wings so it starts evolving them.
4) Evolutionary progress (similar to goals), the idea that each new generation is faster, smarter, and stronger than the last.
5) Evolution as a timely gift, that evolution gives a creature what they need to survive.
It is no wonder that these people react the way they do. The theory (their version) is quite ridiculous, so they reject it.
Arguing with an evolution nay sayer is a waste of time. These guys won't bother to educate themselves enough to understand what the discussion is about.
And yet they have the audacity to claim they "know" it is wrong. When asked to explain how they have this great piece of wisdom, the say "I just know" or "The Bible" or "I have a feeling". Things that wouldn't count as proof in a tribal hearing.
As late as the 19th century, folks believed that maggots appeared out of thin air. They didn't know maggots were the larvae of flies, so this quaint belief prevailed until science revealed the truth. The superstitious belief that little organisms (like maggots) could materialise out of nowhere was still in vogue when Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was published in the 1850's. It was no problem for the superstitious and ignorant people of that time to accept evolution's idea that life began as the "first simple cell" that arose accidentally out of lifeless mud.
These days of course, we know that even the simplest cell that can exist is not "simple" at all, but is so complex that even the most complex machines built by man look primitively "simple" in comparison. And let's no forget that that evolution's first cell had to reproduce - a process which is perhaps more complex than the cell itself.
According to 19th century superstition, a stupendously-complex cell can appear out of thin air (or mud). The laws and knowledge of modern science (not to mention, common sense) say that it's utterly impossible for a complex, computerised, self-replicating biological factory - such as a cell - to arise simply by chance from lifeless matter. So, does evolution deserve to be called science .... or superstition?
Some how you do not seem to understand that evolution is not the theory of origin of life. It is the origin of species. The theory explains diversity of life.
Why won't you read a book or at least try to be a little better informed about a subject before you try to display your ignorance with nonsense. If you want to disprove abiogenesis then so be it but that is not evolution.
And which cell do you consider to be the simplest cell?
I should have put the following on my previous list:
6) Confuses abiogenesis with evolution.
Well you are wrong on some many levels it is impossible to actually talk about it. It's clear that you don't have an understanding about evolution and are mixing in many different things that don't apply.
Thomas- "As late as the 19th century, folks believed that maggots appeared out of thin air."
The idea was called "spontaneous generation", and it didn't state that maggots came from "thin air", it conjectured that dead flesh produced/transformed into maggots. It wasn't as unreasonable as it sounds, considering that is exactly what you observe if you don't watch closely enough. Laugh all you want, the theory made accurate predictions for a long time (it matched observation).
---------------
Thomas - "even the simplest cell that can exist"
No one knows what the simplest cell that can exist is
---------------
Thomas - [the simplest cell that can exist] is so complex"
How complex is it? Please phrase your answer in the form of a scalar and a unit.
---------------
Thomas - "Let's no forget that that evolution's first cell had to reproduce - a process which is perhaps even more complex than the cell itself."
You might want to rethink this, since you are suggesting that this primordial cell might be more complex than itself. This violates (a version of) the law of identity. A ≯ A
---------------
Thomas - "that it's utterly impossible for a complex, computerised, self-replicating biological factory - such as a cell"
Cells are computerized now?!?
---------------
Thomas - "lifeless matter"
Can you tell us what fundamental differences there are between "lifeless matter" and I guess "non-lifeless matter"? For example: does F=ma apply to both? How about the conservation of energy? How about universal gravitation? How about chemical interactions, is calcium in a dead body different than calcium in a living one?
---------------
Thomas - "does evolution deserve to be called science"
First off: If everything you have posted is 100% true, this is not a criticism of evolution, it is a criticism of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection says NOTHING about where life came from.
Secondly: The theory of evolution makes predictions which match observation, so no matter how much you don't like it, it is science.
The theory of evolution begins with the appearance of the first life form, the alleged first "simple cell", so to attempt to separate the beginning (abiogenesis) from the rest of the theory seems quite illogical to me. But I completely understand why believers in evolution insist on making such a separation - abiogenesis is an embarrassment to Darwinism because science will never be able to explain how something as complex as a living cell can arise accidentally - and instantly - from lifeless mud. So what we have here is theory that can't even get off the ground, let alone fly!
Since the theory of evolution begins with a science-defying myth (abiogenesis), don't be surprised when you find that the rest of the yarn is hogwash as well. (Charles Darwin's application to join the French Academy of Science in 1872 failed because the Academy considered the contents of his two books on evolution to be "a mass of assertions ... often evidently fallacious" and "not science".)
The code contained in DNA has been likened to a computer program.
Is it possible to question the theory of evolution without being labelled an ignoramus, a fundamentalist Christian or a hater of science?
Thomas: "...science will never be able to explain how something as complex as a living cell can arise accidentally - and instantly - from lifeless mud."
So , I take it that you are about to explain how it can?
@ Thomas the Mythphobe
"Is it possible to question the theory of evolution without being labelled an ignoramus, a fundamentalist Christian or a hater of science?"
Absolutely.
However, when your arguments are ignorant you will in all likelihood be called ignorant. Claiming that "The Origins of Life" (in this case Abiogenesis) is part of The Theory of Evolution, is ignorant. You simply haven't read enough about it to make an informed statement, if you are claiming such a thing.
The core concept in The Theory of Evolution is 'natural selection'. And it needs the mechanisms of life to operate on, namely: The small successive changes in heritable traits through reproduction in a population over time.
Abiogenesis is *one* hypothesis about how Life arose. Another example is the hypothesis Panspermia.
Claiming that the hypothesis Abiogenesis is a part of The Theory of Evolution, is ignorant.
It's also a common and toothless tactic used by religious apologists, so it is a tired and worn out old argument as well.
@ Thomas the Misinformed - "The theory of evolution begins with the appearance of the first life form, the alleged first "simple cell", so to attempt to separate the beginning (abiogenesis) from the rest of the theory seems quite illogical to me."
Is that a quote? from which author or which publication? Or do you mean to say Darwin mentioned that in the origin of species?
Have you ever read about the theory of evolution? You do not seem to know what you are talking about.
If you wish to argue abiogenesis then there is plenty of evidence for it and that is a conversation we can have and if you want to debate evolution that too we can oblige with. But if you insist that abiogenesis is absurd and so the theory of evolution false then I must say labelling you misinformed was being kind.
The theory of evolution holds true no matter how life started. It is a description of the diversity of life. That one species evolves from another. Whether life started by abiogenesis or was seeded from another planet or whatever else a theory exists out there is immaterial. Given enough time living things will diversify. That in a nutshell is the theory of evolution.
Now coming to abiogenesis. There is evidence to suggest that abiogenesis is possible as under laboratory conditions we were able to generate organic material and amino acids from an inorganic chemical soup much like what was expected when the earth formed.
Whether you agree or not with what I have written please at the very least read up about the topic before you discuss it. It is very irritating for us to repeatedly tell you theists to at least read about the topic. You confuse evolution with abiogenesis with not enough salt in the sea floor and various other half baked nonsense.
As far as Darwins application being rejected goes; Gregor johann Mendel failed 2 times at the very least to become a teacher. His work was not accepted as scientific fact till much after his death and today he is regarded as the father of genetics. Yet he died not being acknowledged as such. It is not important what biases people may have held in the past. It is significant what truths they discovered.
Miller-Urey experiments got nowhere near producing the minimum number of amino acids necessary for life. No proteins were produced - not even close (amino acids are relatively simple molecules. Protiens are much more complex). Lots of toxins were produced as well, but who cares about toxins?
No one can say with any degree of accuracy what the earth's chemistry was like billions of years ago, so guesswork was employed to determine the ingredients of the chemical soups used in these experiments.
Holding up the relatively paltry results of these dubious experiments as evidence that abiogenesis may be possible is a worthy example of how to apply a couple of abiogenesis' most useful tools - speculation and wishful thinking.
Answer me this: If an experiment like this did produce amino acids, would that convince you? I doubt it.
Modern scientific knowledge of cell structure indicates that life cannot exist without immense complexity. To believe that it can would be to return to the spontaneous generation ignorance of the 19th century. Sir Francis Crick - co-discoverer of DNA - came to believe that it's impossible for something as complex as a strand of DNA to form by chance. What chance then, an entire cell?
What would convince me? I might be wrong, but I consider proof to be a lot more scientific than superstitious fantasy, so a good place to start would be to see lifeless chemicals become a living organism ... one that can reproduce would be even better.
Thomas the Doubter - "life cannot exist without immense complexity."
Again I have to ask you to give us an example of a unit of complexity. For example: if I asked you for a unit of speed you might say miles/hours, kilometers/hours, feet/second, or meters/second; I'd accept any of those and many others. I'd like you to give us at least one unit of complexity so we can know exactly what you are talking about.
Thomas the Doubter - "believe that it's impossible"
I could care less what he thinks is impossible. I want to see the math; because I smell bullshit.
In fact; let me be more forthcoming. I know it isn't currently possible to calculate the value. I've tried. And all you end up with is a bunch of variables that are only bounded from one direction, making it impossible to even estimate.
Try using common sense.
Thomas the Doubter - "Try using common sense."
Well perhaps I don't have common sense. Could you please use your common sense to tell me what the units of complexity are?
If you lack the common sense to realise that life cannot exist without immense complexity, and that immense complexity cannot arise by chance, then maybe you should avoid science. Try writing children's stories instead. Oh wait, abiogenesis IS a children's story, so you're already there.
I don't believe a "unit of complexity" is a scientific term. Sounds like a recipe for ambiguity to me. I'm a primary school graduate and I've never heard of such a thing. Is a unit of complexity the same as a unit of bullshit?
Science is vastly overrated; it can't explain everything. When science is taken beyond it's limits, it goes full circle and ends up back in the realm of irrational superstition.
Thomas the Doubter - 'I don't believe a "unit of complexity" is a scientific term.'
That is just it. There are several different dimensions of complexity, for different situations. So by asking you for the units, I'm asking you to tell us exactly what you mean by complexity.
The answer to any problem (that has a known answer) is 7, IN SOME WEIRD UNITS. This is why units are so important. Without them, there is no way to tell if a statement is factual. For example, you tell us that:
Thomas the Doubter - "life cannot exist without immense complexity"
this naturally leads to the question: how much complexity is required for life? Presumably the answer to that question is a number with a unit. I'd like to know both, but for starters I'll settle for the unit.
No one knows how much complextiy is required for life and no one can put a number on it, nor units of measurement. I don't know how complexity can be quantified.
If you were walking along a beach one fine day and came across some sea shells arranged in the sand to form the sentence, "I think therefore I am", would you agree that this structure (for want of a better word) is something that is too complex to have formed as a result of chance (ie, the action of wind and waves)?
Or would you think, "Hmmm ... before I can decide if this structure could be a result of chance or not, I need to know how much complexity is required for this structure to exist. This complexity needs to be quantified in terms of a number and units of measurement. Otherwise I can't make a decison as to whether this structure could be a result of chance or not.
In addition to the data that Nyar requested, how 'bout you define the parameters of common sense as well.
Thomas The Mythphobe,
You are actually questioning the FACT of evolution, possibly the best documented fact in all of science! Without it biology collapses into a 18th century pile of disjointed, curious facts. It is supported by the fossil record, by comparative anatomy (cladistics), by comparative studies of DNA, cycochrome c and certain other large molecules of life, by the distribution of life on earth, by vestigial organs, by degenerate structures that appear in many creatures (indicating evolution from a prior state), by clumsy off-the-shelf design, to mention some of the main lines of evidence. I say that you question the fact of evolution because you appear to have no knowledge of the various theories that explain that fact. Questioning the FACT of evolution is as intellectually respectable as questioning a round Earth. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that is the realm of the ignoramus.
Biological evolution (the theories) explains how the diversity of life arose. All it requires is a starting point, and it doesn't really matter how that starting point got there.
Who are you to declare that abiogenesis is a science-defying myth? Do you have any background at all in organic chemistry and biology? Since when does abiogenesis require a cell to arise instantly from mud? By what great insight do you conclude that life arose from pure chance? Haven't you heard? The interactions of matter and energy are described by precise laws. It's not a pure chance thing. Where did you get this crystal ball that says science will never figure it out in the next 1000 years? Inquiring minds would like to know!
Has anyone in this group ever run into an evolution or abiogenesis denier who knew diddly-squat about those subjects? Must be rarer than a fat, golden nugget in a played-out mine! These guys get all pumped up at their favorite anti-evolution site, assuming even that much preparation, and they are ready to overthrow the last 200 years of biology! Dear Thomas, is it possible that we could actually persuade you to do some basic reading on evolution? If the odds are somewhat better than a camel going through the eye of a needle, then I'll be happy to suggest several books that will be both informative and easy for a beginner to read.
Greensnake - "Has anyone in this group ever run into an evolution or abiogenesis denier who knew diddly-squat about those subjects?"
Not once. This is more or less what I typically encounter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUikfg
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Dear Greensnake,
Thank you for your very impressive and erudite reply to my post. I would like to comment on a few of the points you made.
You claim that evolution is a "fact". I was under the impression that in science for grown-ups, a theory isn't accepted as a fact until it can be verified by observable, repeatable experimentation. Theory + speculation + wishful thinking + smoke and mirrors + dogma + propaganda + believing what you want to believe + psychological need ... don't necessarily add up to a proven scientific fact.
Without evolution, biology would collapse into mess? Biology certainly doesn't need the unproven parts of the theory of evolution, such as it's core belief - that one species can evolve into another species. I find it amusingly ironic that this core belief, despite the hype and reverence surrounding it, is utterly useless to practical biology and in any other practical sense. Perfect uselessness is exactly what one would expect from a scientific claim that is false.
In stark contrast, the true part of the theory of evolution - the PROVEN FACTS of natural selection and genetic variation (within a species) - are extremely useful to practical biology and also in related fields, such as medicine and animal and plant breeding.
Abiogenesis requires the first cell to arise instantly and 100% complete because part of a cell won't be alive, let alone survive and reproduce. A partial cell is not only useless, but it would tend to be broken up and even dissolved by unfriendly chemical in the surrounding environment and by sunlight.
More later ...
Yes, we have the FACT of evolution! Did you miss the several major lines of evidence that I listed? That data has been verified by repeated observations. The FACT of evolution is so well established that it would be perverse to pretend otherwise. What's this business about smoke and mirrors, about propaganda? Unlike creationists, scientists are not in the business of circling their wagons around a dogma. Their biggest prizes go to those overturning established theory.
One of the first heart transplants was doomed to failure because the guy doing it was ignorant about evolution. He put in a Baboon heart instead of a Chimpanzee heart. Whether you, in your blissful ignorance, view the core of evolution as useful or not, it still rests on a mountain of observable evidence. That's why it is now a FACT of science. All that evidence is just sitting there waiting for you to examine it! What's holding you?
Study a decent rebuttal to a similar argument against the complexity of the eye in order to see the basic failings of this kind of argument. Since you know nothing about the subject of abiogenesis, you are hardly in a position to tell us what is or is not possible. Hint: A partial eye can be very useful. Nobody in abiogenesis believes that the first cell had anywhere near the complexity of even a prokaryote.
Dear Greensnake,
I perceive that you are much more intelligent and knowledgeable than I. So maybe you can cite one example in applied science that makes use of evolution's core belief that one species can become another species? Or is the baboon/chimp heart thing one such citation? If so, it's significance went straight over my head! Sorry about that.
Why have you referred to creationists? I have never mentioned anything creation-related and I have no interest at all in discussing creation science.
"Nobody in abogenesis believes that the first cell had anywhere near the complexity of even a prokaryote." No kidding! Of course they don't! In order for the laws of probability to allow the appearance of the first life form, the alleged first cell has to be dumbed WAY DOWN until is resembles something only slightly more complex than a bowl of jelly.
And what evidence do these clowns have that the first cell was very simple? Why, none at all; in fact, their fantasy of a really, really simple first cell flies in the face of everything that's known about real cells. It's just another example of the baseless assumptions typically found in this branch of "science" and that of evolution. Sorry, I'm not stupid or gullible enough to play their game.
Some of the major lines of evidence you mentioned in a previous post are beyond my present level of knowledge, but I will bet my bottom dollar that they will be no more scientifically sound than the other evolution trickery I am familiar with. More smoke and mirrors, to be sure. If a tree produces crap fruit, it's too much to expect that sometime in the future it will produce good fruit.
Typical ! Naysaying an entire body of knowledge and at the same time admitting you do not have the cognitive tool kit to comprehend it. Like some puritan condemning a book never having read it.
Dear Thomas the Doubter,
The point of the heart transplant is that the Baboon is further away from us on the evolutionary tree whereas the Chimp is our closest living relative. I. e., a Chimp's heart would be less subject to rejection by the recipient's body. Unfortunately, that doctor didn't accept the fact of evolution despite being a noted surgeon and the patient soon died.
Please keep in mind that the usefulness of an idea is not necessarily a measure of how true it is. Many brilliant discoveries had no practical use at the time, which is not the case for evolution. But what is the point of these divergent arguments when a mountain of solid evidence sits there, evidence with no other decent explanation than evolution? Shouldn't you be addressing the main arguments for evolution rather than advancing dubious, obscure arguments?
Creationists love to attack evolution because it puts a crimp into their belief that a Great Engineer personally designed it all. I just assumed that you were probably a creationist. If not, then what is your alternative to evolution?
A self-replicating molecule might well have been the first step in abiogenesis. Today's "simple" cells have undergone more than 2 billion years of evolution! Genetic sequencing has shown that there is more fundamental differences between some lines of prokaryotes than there are between grass and humans! So, what did these cells diverge from? You need to understand that abiogenesis isn't claiming to have all the answers at this time. It is searching for those answers and there are many tantalizing clues. Obviously, the first cells would have been much simpler because the present cells have undergone a great deal of evolution. That's a working hypothesis, not a baseless assumption, so don't ask for proof just yet. If you knew something about abiogenesis you wouldn't be making these wild attacks. All you are really doing is attacking straw men.
"Some of the major lines of evidence you mentioned in a previous post are beyond my present level of knowledge, but I will bet my bottom dollar that they will be no more scientifically sound than the other evolution trickery I am familiar with." - Thomas the Doubter
Being that you have never advanced beyond attacking straw men, probably because you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I would advise you not to bet any money at all! You are hardly in a position to pass judgment on evolution. That "tree" has produced fruit that has united the diverse aspects of biology, converting a pile of disjointed 18th century facts into a coherent theory of the 1st order. As one famous scientist noted, "Nothing makes sense in biology without evolution."
Unfortunately, it appears to me that you are more into denial than a search for the truth. If, in fact, you are searching for the truth then I'll be happy to recommend some useful, beginning books on the subject. There is no substitute for understanding the subject--whether you agree with it or not.
Pages