Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: slip2break

I was thinking the same thing too when I read the paper. Maybe the OP doesn't understand what the paper is saying and describing. He did after all just quote mine that whole paper for that one line. Keep in mind he got that line from the discussion section of the paper where the scientists outline things to discuss and possible future experiments to undertake.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Why are your experts having difficulty with trying to prove the "facts"? The guy couldn't find it on earth so he said it comes from Mars. He's one of your guys, a "real" scientist, who can't explain one of the most important jumps that should have led from simple life forms to complex. How do you want to prove that fact, when this guy can't? OK, as you are the expert, tell us what this guy can't.

And this is just one of your scientists. I think he throws just a little bit more doubt onto the "evidence".

This is Abiogenesis and not evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and being a hypothesis is nowhere close to being called true. Evolution on the other hand is a theory and doesn't include the origin of life in its theory. If it did, if would be bumped back down to a hypothesis, so it instead starts with the premise that life exists already on the planet.

Please don't conflate the two. Not all science is equal. Some ideas are more further developed than others, but invalidating one doesn't necessarily invalidate the other. Especially when one has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying that Jesus didn't live because Noah didn't either. It's stupid and unrelated.

Then that is a faith and a belief based on assumption. Of course not all science is equal, however, we are talking about facts and truth here and all the sciences must work in tandem in order to answer all the questions.

But there are many people who are saying that exact thing, Jesus didn't live and Noah didn't live, those are just fantastical stories. If Noah did live, then what implications does that have on the current acceptable theory of evolution?

If science has given up on the origin of life, then what good is science doing when it can't answer the first fundamental question of human intellect? You are saying that science is only concerned with the here and now, how we got here from there and how long the trip took, without giving the starting point?

As long as humans live there will always be questions about the origins of life. Doesn't it behoove scientists to answer this?

Fact, selective breeding is an answer for us today.

I have blue eyes, neither of my parents had blue eyes. Three of my grandparents had blue eyes. Two of my siblings have brown eyes. Is that because it was a random mutation? No, it was because my mother did not express the recessive trait, and neither did my father, but they consciously had sex and passed it on to me.

We could go all the way back and wonder who my blue eyed ancestor was, and some people would say that ancestor was subject to a random mutation that made their eyes blue, but it might have been adaptation..whatever. But that ancestor had a sexual relationship and therefore all subsequent generations had that trait. Not one single ancestor had another mutation, either random or otherwise, that made their eyes for a different purpose or structure, and that was well over 10,000 years.

My mtDNA haplotype is T2b. That means 17,000 years ago an ancestress mutated a haplotype, without changing the fact that she was Homo Sapien. Yet, phenotypically, I probably do not look like her, as that arose in what is Syria today. And I am 2.9% Neanderthal, which means at some point in history, I had a Neanderthal ancestor, as I am a descendant.

Since I am AMH, but a descendant of Neanderthals and AMH, that makes my ancestors as hybrids...of the same species because species can only interbreed. And certainly not one single ancestor of mine was infertile. But if it is true that Neanderthal adapted because they had to be able to synthesize Vitamin D (a theory), then why today do I still carry that adaptive mutation, because it wasn't random?

Can anyone explain then how this happened, in less than 1,000 years?
Ata the 6 inch human

Random mutations?

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

From the conclusion section on page 5 of the PDF

"At a biological level, the dataset generated here can be mined
to provide global pictures of how evolution has occurred"

I am unclear how this paper furthers any of your points.

Well spotted! And hilarious as well.

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

From the conclusion section on page 5 of the PDF

"At a biological level, the dataset generated here can be mined
to provide global pictures of how evolution has occurred"

I am unclear how this paper furthers any of your points.

Yes, but how many in this thread just said that mutations are random?

Here the guy is saying that mutations are for adaptation.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Or they could be as a result of god's hands.... this is far outside of the question if evolution is valid.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Then that is a faith and a belief based on assumption. Of course not all science is equal, however, we are talking about facts and truth here and all the sciences must work in tandem in order to answer all the questions.

Not necessarily. You shouldn't need one hypothesis to test a theory. The idea is that each piece of science is independent of the other ideas. That way if you invalidate one idea, it doesn't invalidate all of science. That doesn't mean however that multiple fields can't corroborate and come to the same conclusions (as is the case for evolution).

But there are many people who are saying that exact thing, Jesus didn't live and Noah didn't live, those are just fantastical stories. If Noah did live, then what implications does that have on the current acceptable theory of evolution?

Certainly there are, but you are missing my point. I am saying that you can't use one to prove the other. They are unrelated. You disprove each of them separately.

If Noah had lived, it would throw a wrench in the theory of evolution. There hasn't been enough time to rediversify the planet since the alleged flood took place with only 2 of every animal surviving. Even punctuated equilibrium doesn't work that fast. Good thing a world wide flood is a physical impossibility huh?

If science has given up on the origin of life, then what good is science doing when it can't answer the first fundamental question of human intellect? You are saying that science is only concerned with the here and now, how we got here from there and how long the trip took, without giving the starting point?

Wait, where did I say that science has given up on the origin of life? Abiogenesis IS about the origin of life, but it's only a hypothesis. It isn't fully fleshed out yet. Scientists need to experiment more with this idea before they can create a theory around it.

As long as humans live there will always be questions about the origins of life. Doesn't it behoove scientists to answer this?

Uh... Yes. And they are. Again Abiogenesis.

Fact, selective breeding is an answer for us today.

I have blue eyes, neither of my parents had blue eyes. Three of my grandparents had blue eyes. Two of my siblings have brown eyes. Is that because it was a random mutation? No, it was because my mother did not express the recessive trait, and neither did my father, but they consciously had sex and passed it on to me.

Answer for what? It certainly is proof of evolution, but not the origin of life.

We could go all the way back and wonder who my blue eyed ancestor was, and some people would say that ancestor was subject to a random mutation that made their eyes blue, but it might have been adaptation..whatever. But that ancestor had a sexual relationship and therefore all subsequent generations had that trait. Not one single ancestor had another mutation, either random or otherwise, that made their eyes for a different purpose or structure, and that was well over 10,000 years.

Sure, I guess so. But you are one genetic line. There are THOUSANDS if not millions of genetic lines and mutations occurring. So you are comparing rain drops in a hurricane.

My mtDNA haplotype is T2b. That means 17,000 years ago an ancestress mutated a haplotype, without changing the fact that she was Homo Sapien. Yet, phenotypically, I probably do not look like her, as that arose in what is Syria today. And I am 2.9% Neanderthal, which means at some point in history, I had a Neanderthal ancestor, as I am a descendant.

Ok.

Since I am AMH, but a descendant of Neanderthals and AMH, that makes my ancestors as hybrids...of the same species because species can only interbreed. And certainly not one single ancestor of mine was infertile. But if it is true that Neanderthal adapted because they had to be able to synthesize Vitamin D (a theory), then why today do I still carry that adaptive mutation, because it wasn't random?

There are many possible reasons for this. I do not have enough knowledge of your ancestry or about your genetic makeup to adequately answer that question. There are many variables in science that are still unknown, but that doesn't invalidate what is known.

Can anyone explain then how this happened, in less than 1,000 years?
Ata the 6 inch human

Random mutations?

Mutations are strange. Just look at all the varied mutations that have occurred throughout the world. Look at a species, EVERYTHING that makes up that species (anything alive, not just animals) was a mutation at one point. Now step back and realize that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg of possible mutations. So it's all possible. Don't look at the bizarreness of a certain mutation as evidence against evolution. There are many factors that are working in tandem here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is known, for me, is that selective breeding works. Thousands of years humans have been doing this consciously with themselves and other humans and with dogs, horses, plants and other things.

Moose and deer might mate with cows, but there is never a cow-moose or cow-deer that comes from it, and those are all different species. Why are we hesitant to apply that same concept onto humans?

I think if we were to apply the standards of scientific taxonomy to animals, but not humans, even though science says we are animals, why the hesitation?

I was told in the response to my OP that individuals do not mutate at the same rate...

Evolution and mutations

Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population.

Was the original common ancestor one or many individuals? If we are still mutating, then are some individuals left behind and no longer part of the population?

I asked about Africans and Inuits (not for racist reasons) because they are living in different habitats, have different inherited characteristics from adaptive mutations and yet both are capable of interbreeding. How does this quote justify the different populations of archaic humans living in different habitats?

Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live.

How is it that Inuits live without citrus and Subsaharan Africans live without whale blubber? Evolution does not change what one eats, because people today can go from habitat to habitat and take on a whole new diet without mutating.

I think it should rather say it changes the way the individual's body processes different foods. Australian aborigines eat cats, some people in India eat rats, were they mutated to eat those things?

If evolution does not change an individual, then why are the genomes of individuals tested? If it is not at the individual level, then would it not be possible for those individuals who were separated from a group to not mutate along with the group they came from?

So evolution is concerned with populations and not individuals. Is there evidence of an original population?

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

Or they could be as a result of god's hands.... this is far outside of the question if evolution is valid.

At that point, you still have to figure out which god and where it came from. I don't know about you guys, but "Oh it was god" doesn't tell me crap. Even if its true.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

Or they could be as a result of god's hands.... this is far outside of the question if evolution is valid.

At that point, you still have to figure out which god and where it came from. I don't know about you guys, but "Oh it was god" doesn't tell me crap. Even if its true.

So you believe one way, even if another way is true?

Now that's faith. See the conundrum?

Even if it's true, you won't believe it? Who or what encourages you to not believe something, even if it's true? That's not real science. Science is supposed to be "follow the evidence, no matter where it leads". Even if it leads to God you won't accept it.

I suppose by that reckoning, then I have proven my case beyond a shadow of a doubt because I have given you all kinds of physical evidence to support my claim, but the moment it makes you think it could be leading to God, you immediately try to shut it off, because there is no way you can let a divine footprint in the door.

I think you qualify under the Asch Conformity Experiement, in which you must go along with the group so you don't make waves among your peers that you find control your thoughts through conformity. Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is known, for me, is that selective breeding works. Thousands of years humans have been doing this consciously with themselves and other humans and with dogs, horses, plants and other things.

Moose and deer might mate with cows, but there is never a cow-moose or cow-deer that comes from it, and those are all different species. Why are we hesitant to apply that same concept onto humans?

I think if we were to apply the standards of scientific taxonomy to animals, but not humans, even though science says we are animals, why the hesitation?

There is no hesitation. Humans are classified just like any other species on the planet. Haven't you heard of the term Homo Sapien Sapien?

I was told in the response to my OP that individuals do not mutate at the same rate...

Evolution and mutations

Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population.

They don't. That paragraph isn't saying what you think it is saying. That paragraph has NOTHING to do with species mutating at the same rate as other species.

Was the original common ancestor one or many individuals? If we are still mutating, then are some individuals left behind and no longer part of the population?

We don't know. Could be one, though since evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life, we haven't traced that far back. No one leaves a population. I'm not sure what that even means. You either adapt or you die, but you are going to die at some point anyways, sometimes the person next to you has the means to not die a little longer than you.

I asked about Africans and Inuits (not for racist reasons) because they are living in different habitats, have different inherited characteristics from adaptive mutations and yet both are capable of interbreeding. How does this quote justify the different populations of archaic humans living in different habitats?

Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live.

Africans and Inuits are still both Homo Sapien Sapiens... They are the same species. Just because they have two different cultures doesn't mean they are a different species? That is same argument racists use to justify white privilege.

How is it that Inuits live without citrus and Subsaharan Africans live without whale blubber? Evolution does not change what one eats, because people today can go from habitat to habitat and take on a whole new diet without mutating.

Well because all life on this planet shares common DNA. At the basic level all life is made of the same building blocks. So as long as a body can break down the object, the body can utilize the parts that compose it. You aren't really making a point here.

I think it should rather say it changes the way the individual's body processes different foods. Australian aborigines eat cats, some people in India eat rats, were they mutated to eat those things?

You could eat any of those things too. Rats, cats, they are both just meat. If you can eat meat, you can eat rat or cat.

If evolution does not change an individual, then why are the genomes of individuals tested? If it is not at the individual level, then would it not be possible for those individuals who were separated from a group to not mutate along with the group they came from?

Because that is how statistical sampling works. It is impossible to test an entire population, so you make up representative samples of the population that tries to simulate the larger population as a whole. Why don't you take a class on statistics? You'd understand this process a bit better.

So evolution is concerned with populations and not individuals. Is there evidence of an original population?

I don't know what this question means. It doesn't make any sense.

a reply to: WarminIndy

This whole post is a strawman. You interpreted TzarChasm's post COMPLETELY differently than how he wrote it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?



Really? I heard this argument brought up earlier in the thread and it is just as invalid now. Again, the theory of evolution and the idea of god are not incompatible concepts. Unless this debate is framed as Biblical literalism versus.... well anything and everything else, this persecution you are describing doesn't exist.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So you believe one way, even if another way is true?

Now that's faith. See the conundrum

Please quote me where I said that. You seem to have an awful habit of drawing the strangest inferences.

Even if it's true, you won't believe it? Who or what encourages you to not believe something, even if it's true? That's not real science. Science is supposed to be "follow the evidence, no matter where it leads". Even if it leads to God you won't accept it.

Okay, let me be clear on this, in light of your apparent love for jumping to conclusions. In the event that a god is proven to exist, we would still have to determine which god, where it comes from, what it actually is, its intentions for us, its physiology, etc. I did not say I would continue to disbelieve. Learn to read. Seriously.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Before you have a discussion as complex as to where god's energy fits in our current understanding of the universe, I believe WarminIndy really needs to address how the theory of evolution and god are concepts that could not both be true at the same time. Until we understand that, we have no idea what sort of "universe" s/he believes they exist within.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason that I asked that is because at some point in history the two groups diverged and settled in different habitats, that's all.

If archaic humans inched their way across the Arabian Peninsula and into India and then down into Papua New Guinea, then they did that as tiny groups, in essence they were separated from each other and became different populations in different habitats.

I am not implying racism in any way, just simply saying this is what happened.

How many skulls were found of Australopithecus afarensis? All that means is that 300 individual were found, separated from a large group. We don't know if there are any descendants of those particular individuals. And those skeletons were from a vast amount of time separated from each other. They were in East Africa.

Are there any descendants of Australopithecus afarensis?

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: TzarChasm

Before you have a discussion as complex as to where god's energy fits in our current understanding of the universe, I believe WarminIndy really needs to address how the theory of evolution and god are concepts that could not both be true at the same time. Until we understand that, we have no idea what sort of "universe" s/he believes they exist within.

I believe God is too big to define but is also that Unmoved Mover, that is energy. Why do I say this? Because God used audio energy that moved in such a way that all things came from that original movement.

God moves, the Bible states that God moved upon the waters. Our bodies also thrive on electro-chemical processes.

I do not believe God is physical like a person is, but has physical properties of audio and kinetic energy. I believe God is a spirit, which is not physical like we are.

God isn't an old bearded man sitting on a cloud playing a harp with the angels. I think maybe some people might believe that, but God is eternal. God has intelligence that is above and beyond what our human minds can fathom. Does that help?

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

Evolution groupthink denies freedom of thought and those who do not conform lose their jobs and face much persecution. Is that how science should be?

Really? I heard this argument brought up earlier in the thread and it is just as invalid now. Again, the theory of evolution and the idea of god are not incompatible concepts. Unless this debate is framed as Biblical literalism versus.... well anything and everything else, this persecution you are describing doesn't exist.

I just responded from your last sentence. "Even if it's true".

How can I take that out of context? And so far, I have been implied as a racist troll, but so far not so many people are agreeing with that, but if you cruise the different forums, you'll come across much of it. Science should not enforce public opinion, but it does. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

Tell me, when you hear the words "Creation scientist" do you automatically think that person is not a real scientist? Do you base that on popular accusation or do you base that on their credentials?

They have very good credentials, but how do you respond to "Creation Scientists"?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Is there any reason why that definition of god and the theory of evolution can't exist in the same universe?

originally posted by: slip2break
a reply to: WarminIndy

Is there any reason why that definition of god and the theory of evolution can't exist in the same universe?

Because that Intelligence created. If that Intelligence is so immense, then why would it be impossible for that Intelligence to design life to perpetuate with the vast amount of information required to make a human body so fully functioning?

The intelligence in the design itself shows me that an Intelligence did this.

If we can't know everything the universe holds then how can we dismiss a designer? Because we haven't found a physical entity yet?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Tell me, when you hear the words "Creation scientist" do you automatically think that person is not a real scientist? Do you base that on popular accusation or do you base that on their credentials?

They have very good credentials, but how do you respond to "Creation Scientists"?

My reaction to such scientists depends if they are trying to explain to me how every two animal in god's creation could fit on a boat of specific dimensions- or worse, how the shape of a banana was intentional so that it could easily fit into a human hand for consumption. If the creation scientist is approaching things from a rational perspective, I'm willing to entertain any argument.

As to how I respond, are you asking a specific point they have posed?