Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr 360 Replies latest jw friends

Satanus

Reminds of the saying, 'you can't handle the truth'. Reason for atheists to try to go easy on believers.

S
Deputy Dog

derek
A clade is a taxonomic group comprising a single common ancestor and all its descendants. You'll need to be at least familiar with this concept to be able to discuss evolution. All organisms within a clade have features that are not shared by organisms outside that clade. Furthermore, as predicted by the evolutionary model all organisms within a clade have DNA sequences that are not shared by organisms outside that clade. This is expected and necessary if all life has evolved from a common ancestor. (It is not at all obvious why an intelligent designer would feel the need to organise things so rigidly.) A single DNA sequence of sufficient length that was shared by, for example, a pig and a spider, but not by a horse would be enough to falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection.
A clade is also an evolutionary term, based on genetics (DNA).
Why you see DNA as a problem is beyond me, it makes perfect sense to me that an intelligent designer would organize things so rigidly, if DNA truly is the building block of life.
As for your example, a humming bird and a crocodile can be in the same clade.
http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/science/biology/phylogenetic_tree.html#Cladistics
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_06
Someone would want to try such a thing in order to measure rates of evolution...
Bacteria changes are not examples evolution. Bacteria changing into an Ameba would be.
funkyderek

Deputy Dog:
A clade is also an evolutionary term, based on genetics (DNA).
That's correct. Obviously, if all life on earth did not share a common ancestor, the concept of clades would be meaningless. The taxonomic nomenclature we use would be completely arbitrary. We might as well group organisms by size or colour, and the debates that occasionally rage in biological circles over where to place certain organisms would be nothing more than quarrels over personal preference.
As for your example, a humming bird and a crocodile can be in the same clade.
Any two organisms must be in the same clade, even if it's the clade of [all life on earth]. The term only becomes relevant when you include a third organism. If you like, you can use humans as your third organism in this case. Humming-birds and crocodiles share a more recent common ancestor than either of those organisms does with humans. Not only does comparative morphology support this claim, so does the genetic and fossil evidence. There would be no reason for all three fields to be in such strong agreement if each species had been created independently.
Bacteria changes are not examples evolution. Bacteria changing into an Ameba would be.
Bacteria changes are an example of evolution. Bacteria mutate over time and the mutations that are beneficial to their survival are selected for, and so they become resistant to antibiotics or able to digest a new foodstuff such as nylon, in exquisite agreement with the predictions made by neo-Darwinism. We would not expect to see bacteria become amoeba (or anything like amoeba) in a laboratory as this took around 2 billion years to happen in the real world.
Thank you for at least making the effort to learn about this subject. You'll find that it rewards careful study, transforming biology from a list of facts into an endlessly fascinating detective story
Warlock

fd,
You just don't get what I am saying.
Anyway, I will miss you when this place closes down.
Warlock
Galileo

fd,
You just don't get what I am saying.
It's funny how the ignorant accuse the knowledgeable of not understanding. I think we all get what you are saying. They are standard creation apologist logical fallacies based on a lack of education about the subject you are defending. Many of us, including myself, used similar arguments when we were Witnesses. After educating ourselves about evolution we realized these arguments are nonsense and don't hold up under scrutiny. You are the one that doesn't understand what we are saying, and in fact cannot, because you clearly don't know enough about evolution to form a coherent argument.
funkyderek

Warlock:
You just don't get what I am saying.
Well, explain it to me then. Because from here, it seems like you are just ridiculing something you know little or nothing about.
Anyway, I will miss you when this place closes down.
Don't worry, I'll still be around.
Deputy Dog

derek
Any two organisms must be in the same clade, even if it's the clade of [all life on earth]. The term only becomes relevant when you include a third organism. If you like, you can use humans as your third organism in this case. Humming-birds and crocodiles share a more recent common ancestor than either of those organisms does with humans. Not only does comparative morphology support this claim, so does the genetic and fossil evidence.
If what you are saying is true, I think you are making my point and rendering this your previous statement inefective,
"3) A single (moderately long) sequence of DNA that appeared in organisms from different clades but not on all organisms within a clade."
as a way to show evolution to be falsifiable.
There would be no reason for all three fields to be in such strong agreement if each species had been created independently.
Your logic escapes me here. I don't know why it wouldn't, if DNA Is what it is, the material that all living things are made (created ) of.
Bacteria changes are an example of evolution. Bacteria mutate over time and the mutations that are beneficial to their survival are selected for, and so they become resistant to antibiotics or able to digest a new foodstuff such as nylon, in exquisite agreement with the predictions made by neo-Darwinism. We would not expect to see bacteria become amoeba (or anything like amoeba) in a laboratory as this took around 2 billion years to happen in the real world.
I see this as little more than selective breeding like dogs or horses
KingArthur

I have read most of this thread. I see a lot of name calling and insults and find it uncalled for. Why not just discuss the topic? I have seen many good thoughts on both sides and also disagree on many points.. I remember reading Darwin Origin of Species years ago ant thought that if Darwin was alive today he would not believe it anymore as the results of his expectations did not occur. This was mentioned several times. He also said that someone could interpret his research either way (prove evolution or creation) and both viewpoint would be reasonable. Sorry I don't have the book anymore or my notes or I would scan the appropriate pages for you.
funkyderek

Deputy Dog:
If what you are saying is true, I think you are making my point
I think I must be missing your point (and you mine) but I'll try to clarify what I mean based on what I think you mean.
You highlighted my statement: Any two organisms must be in the same clade, even if it's the clade of [all life on earth].If, as it appears to be, all life on earth is related, then this statement is necessarily true. Any two organisms will have a common ancestor. If they are closely related, this will be a small clade. If they are distantly related, the smallest clade into which they fit may be extremely large and encompass most life forms. For example a horse and a donkey are obviously quite closely related and their common ancestor is quite recent (maybe a million years or so, I haven't checked). The smallest clade that includes horses and donkeys probably includes a few other species (mostly extinct) but excludes most life forms. On the other hand, an E. coli bacterium and an elephant have a very distant common ancestor (at least a billion years ago, I'd estimate) and the smallest clade that includes both of them must also include nearly every other life form on earth.
You then quoted my possible falsification of evolution:
"3) A single (moderately long) sequence of DNA that appeared in organisms from different clades but not on all organisms within a clade."
What I mean here is that there are genetic markers shared by (for example) horses and donkeys that are not shared by say, pigs. There are no such genetic markers that are shared by horses and pigs but not by donkeys (or by donkeys and pigs but not by horses. If we step back and look at the larger clade that includes donkeys, horses and pigs we find that they still share a large percentage of DNA. Again however, there is no significant sequence of DNA that is shared by say, a pig and an octopus, but not a horse or a donkey. Now, while a creator might decide to use nested hierarchies in this manner, by doing so he (she/it/they etc.) would make his creation look like it had evolved from a common ancestor. In any case, a single exception to this rule - a single example of a creator using a modular approach - would disprove the theory of common descent. None has been found.

There would be no reason for all three fields to be in such strong agreement if each species had been created independently.
Your logic escapes me here. I don't know why it wouldn't, if DNA Is what it is, the material that all living things are made (created) of
Because a creator could have used mostly the same DNA in horses and donkeys, but he could also have used a bit of the "donkey DNA" in pigs and not in horses. Given that whales and dolphins are aquatic, a creator could have used a little bit of "fish DNA" to make things easier, but he didn't - it was all mammal. He apparently "reinvented the wheel" numerous times - actually that's a bad metaphor as he never invented the wheel, too difficult perhaps? - but he apparently used different DNA to do the same tasks when animals werent' in general genetically similar. He did this right down to various quirks and errors. For example, there are several different codons (DNA "letters") that can code for the same protein. A mutation in one of these codons into another that codes for the same protein makes no difference to the survival rate of the organism but it does provide a useful marker. A creator could use whichever version he wanted in any organism, but if organisms had evolved from common ancestors, then the most closely related ones would show more similarities in these arbitrary variations. Guess what we find in nature. Do we find that these variations occur arbitrarily as if at the whim of a creator or do we find that they are nested hierarchically? The latter, of course. And while I concede that a suitably shy or sneaky creator could do this, at some point surely one has to consider the more parsimonious option, namely, that all life forms bear all the features of common descent because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
I see this as little more than selective breeding like dogs or horses
That's exactly what it's like, except instead of a person deciding which traits to keep, that is decided by nature. New genetic information appears due to random mutations. If that new information causes the organism to be better adapted to its environment, the organism is more likely to survive and reproduce and thus is more likely to survive and reproduce and thus.... This recursion may seem like a tautology but it is exactly this recursion which gives natural selection its power. There is apparently no limit to the number of times this can happen (indeed how could there be?) and with every single generation a testing ground, all the bad ideas are quickly and ruthlessly discarded while the good ideas get constantly refined and improved. After four billion years, and squillions of generations, this has produced some spectacular results.
KingArthur

Derick: Just curious, what have you studied? What have You read, did you do University? Or are you just spouting off? I love your arrogant attitude,if I was still a JW I'd quote “love builds up but knowledge puffs up” remember that one?

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

Share this