Image: Doug Alves (illustration); Granger Collection (Darwin)
In Brief
- Charles Darwin’s insights about evolution have withstood 150 years of scrutiny.
- But evolutionary theory has broadened and changed as his ideas have been melded with genetics.
- Evolutionary biology still must contend with some of the same questions that preoccupied Darwin: What, for one, is a species?
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Time Line: Evolution Before and After Darwin
When the 26-year-old Charles Darwin sailed into the Galápagos Islands in 1835 onboard the HMS Beagle, he took little notice of a collection of birds that are now intimately associated with his name. The naturalist, in fact, misclassified as grosbeaks some of the birds that are now known as Darwin’s finches. After Darwin returned to England, ornithologist and artist John Gould began to make illustrations of a group of preserved bird specimens brought back in the Beagle’s hold, and the artist recognized them all to be different species of finches.
From Gould’s work, Darwin, the self-taught naturalist, came to understand how the finches’ beak size must have changed over the generations to accommodate differences in the size of seeds or insects consumed on the various islands. “Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends,” he noted in The Voyage of The Beagle, published after his return in 1839.
This article was originally published with the title Darwin's Living Legacy.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
128 Comments
Add CommentIf the fossil record is crap, what are the handed down stories about the creation of earth? Can you accept the yarns of prehistoric man as the truth? On what basis. If you believe in chemistry - study chemistry to the particle level and you come to understand evolution. Where is the lab work to prove what you believe in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to have a prokaryotic bacteria "evolve" into a eukaryotic bacteria, it would also need pressure to do so, not just radiation. It is entirely like that there are several possible paths a bacteria could take to develop radiation resistance, not all of which would involve developing a cell nucleus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, just because we can't recreate a few steps that you claim are impossible, doesn't mean that the entire system is impossible. Evolution is common sense. Now that we have a sense of genetics and inheritance, it just makes sense. All other theories fall woefully short of explaining the same processes.
"...If the fossil record is crap, what are the handed down stories about the creation of earth?..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose would be, fossilized memories, for lack of a better analogy. Some better preserved and better interpreted/understood than others.
frgough: "Show me your lab work. Forget this fossil crap, evolve me an organism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissigh ... how about: "Show me your God. Forget your book of fables, create me an organism."
Sounds juvenile and insulting no? :-(
Before you begin criticizing, you might actually attempt to understand what evolution is and how it works. There are not magic tricks, no miracles.
Rather than whining about science, you might try participating in it. If you find some aspect of if lacking, contribute. If you're able to, all will owe you a debt.
From a theistic perspective, I also find your comment insulting. Who are you to tell us how God did his work?
Perhaps scientists should demand that the Theory of Evolution be preached during every church service, and the principal conclusions recited in all prayers? I doubt if creationists would agree to this...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ.Bronowski's following words taken from his book The Ascent of Man provide the joining ground to what is given by fossil record (too shallow)and what is given by handed down stories (too ethreal):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We must always remember that the real content of evolution (biological as well as cultural) is the elaboration of new behavior. It is only because behavior leaves no fossils that we are forced to search for it in bones and teeth."
For now I may only add that elaboration of new behaviour is a gap thing, manifests in four-phased cyclical patterns which give the look of Design but has nothing to do with any supernatural agency or God. (The believers can yet invoke the supernatural agency or God in the sense that He made the whole universe if at all why limit Him to only Design? He made Darwin as well lol.) All it needs is the original force of the big bang now acting through myriad subordinate-to-universe heirarchical systems and four basic interactions all those systems have to go through from their minute spacetime accretion to that of their whole lives.
I will be happy to elaborate if ther above arouses anybody interest...
You say you're a science student, so of course you know the scientific method: Observe a physical phenomena, gather data/experiment, propose an explanation and publish, so others can support or disprove your work. Darwin has done that, you have not. The beauty of science is that it's a relentless search for the truth, wherever it may lead. So even a chemistry student can challenge old Charles. We await your data and critique. The one thing you have going for you is that natural selection does not always weed out the unfit from the gene pool, at least over the short term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow anyone can truly believe that evolution is 'blind' or left to chance, is beyond me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like for any darwinists to enlighten me as to how exactly a bug can 'mutate' a leaf on their back, to match other leaves in their area.
The amount of genes needed to mutate in the correct sequence, I imagine is many...
What is the feedback mechanism for that???
How did the bug 'know' that the leaf it finally mutated on its back, matched other leaves, and would now keep it safe????
I definitely understand not wanting to believe in a creator God, and Im definitely not saying 'God' did it....all I'm saying is that evolution suspisciously seems to know where its going, and that its definitely not 'blind'.
Heres a good example of what I mean....
Some may have read Dawkins' book 'The Blind watchmaker'. In one of the chapters he tries to prove random mutation by running random letters through a computer which 'mutates' the letters, to form a readable sentence. Basically every time it finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds a right letter it keeps it. So, according to him, its basically mimicking natural selection, choosing whats best, and getting rid of the rest. And he claims that after only 30 or 40 iterations of his program, he went from totally randomized letters to getting this coherent sentence.
"methinks it is like a weasel"
What blows my mind, considering he's a pretty smart guy, is that he says it's a perfect illustration of evolution via random mutation/natural selection.
But its nothing of the sort!!!!!!
Its actually a brilliant example of intelligent design or guided/conscious evolution.
Cuz for the computer to be able to throw away the bad letters, it had to know what the good letters were!! It had an END GOAL that was pre-programmed into it. The random letters had a 'template' that they were mutating towards.
Sure the mutations were 'random', but the end result was predetermined by a 'higher' intelligence. (a la Dawkins selecting a Shakespeare sentence as the goal)
So what Im getting at is that forms can only 'randomly' evolve TOWARDS a SET DESIGN / GOAL.....randomness can never just PRODUCE designs of infinite complexity, without knowing that complexity beforehand.
Hence, guided evolution, or ID (ugh, hate that term) is the most likely answer.
Heres a site that proves that strictly random mutation can only bring extinction.....
www.randommutation.com
by showing that a coherent sentence can never be formed by random selection.
So my conclusion then....
Is that the universe's evolution has an END GOAL, that everything is evolving towards.
Whether that End Goal, was put there by a 'higher intelligence'/ 'God', is beyond answering.
But nonetheless....its like a fractal.
A fractal cant exist without an equation, and before that equation is entered, the shape of the fractal is known. Even though chaos rules the fractal, the shape in the end is the same.
The end is in the beginning, the alpha in the omega.
And its no coincedence that everything around us is fractal, and that the universe is fractal...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/
Just proves even more so, that there is
a strange attractor guiding the evolution of the universe.
Is that God? Who knows....who cares. All I know is evolution is DEFINITELY NOT BLIND!! Random, sure....but not blind.
The guy looks mean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKK, the bug example is actually quite simple to explain. The confusion seems to arise when suggesting intentionality on the part of individual bugs - they aren't trying to evolve, just to live, and to mate with other bugs like them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen a change appears in a bug's offspring, say, a spot of colour on their back, three outcomes are possible: 1. it makes it easier for the bug to be spotted on a tree branch and gets eaten before it can reproduce [this is an "unsuccessful" mutation]; 2. it makes it slightly harder to be seen on a tree branch and the bug has improved chances of living to reproduce; 3. the colour, though different, offers no camoflage advantage, and the the bug is only as likely to reproduce as the average, "no-change" individual.
Since more bugs from the second possible outcome are more likely to reproduce, there are likely to be more bugs in the next generation which share this characteristic and the gene responsible. As subsequent generations [randomly, and through increased genetic potential based on their lineage] appear with more of the effective new back colour [and perhaps refine the colour itself], they and their offspring are increasingly likely to survive longer, and reproduce more successfully. Over the generations, as fewer bugs have the "wrong" colour backs, only those with a more leaf-like pattern will tend to have an advantage. This continues until the leaf-back bugs can no longer mate with the old, plain bugs [if any survive].
The bugs only "know" they have achieved the correct colour/pattern on their back in as much as they are not being eaten as often as those without it. That doesn't mean they won't continue to mutate, each change "winning" or "losing" a chance to be passed on based on the survival advantage they offer [their appeal in sexual selection notwithstanding, though traits for sexual selection often appeal due to health/survival benefits they suggest].
Yes, Im aware of 'natural selection' at work, but the bugs have existed for millions of years....and theyve found 'leaf bugs' and 'leaf fish' in amongst the pre-cambrian explosion fossils.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuggesting that the 'mutations' were already there.
But why is it that when humans genes 'mutate' all you ever get is hideous disfigurement, you never get a third arm, (very useful IMO) being 'passed on'.
Or in this case, we dont just 'mutate' a couch cushion camouflage so as not to be disturbed while playing video games. lol
If I was born the same colour as my couch, and then blended in and found it very useful for my 'couch potato' lifestyle, do you really think my children would all have the 'mutation'. I think not.
Intentionally or otherwise, you're missing the notion that these are small, incremental things that offer a *slight* advantage [you only need to be a little bit harder to find and eat than your neighbour]... The bugs may have existed for millions of years, but that still leaves plenty of time between then and the appearance of single celled life that led to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the plainly silly suggestion that human mutations are uniformly "hideous," don't forget that our species has the added issue of social pressures regarding reproduction, and not all mutations are fit for Hollywood. "Unseen" traits that may not help survive a drought [say, good rhythm] might still impress potential mates.
Indeed, "recent" hominid evolution [which may still be continuing - you or I needn't mutate for the species to evolve] has largely involved increased mental capacity. No, it's not as visibly amusing as an extra arm, couch camouflage, etc., but clearly more effective as we have greatly improved our collective chance for survival. Not being disturbed on the couch might be "useful" to you, but doesn't provide a survival advantage.
And again, no living thing can intentionally evolve [or elect to "stop evolving"], deciding what neat-o new traits to sprout. Accidents happen in gene replication. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.
It's also important to remember that the present is not the de facto "end point" of evolution. As the environment plants and animals live in continues to change, so will it dictate who will continue to populate it.
whoever wrote this story is an idiot. Neither the finches nor the cichlids changed genetically to alter their traits. Both were genetic re-expressions of the same gene(s). No genetic change means no evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntentionally or otherwise, youre missing the notion that all mutations NEED a goal to mutate towards. Regardless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.randommutation.com
If you go there....and click mutate, you will see that a coherent sentence can NEVER be formed from random mutation.
My conclusion is that coherent DNA 'sentences' must also follow this logic, no?
So like the example from Dawkins Blind watchmaker....
He shows that letters 'randomly' mutate to construct a readable sentence, in only 42 generations of mutations.
What he doesnt tell you is he picked the sentence to 'mutate' towards.
If he didnt do that....NO SENTENCE WOULD HAVE FORMED!
He was the 'higher intelligence' in that example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho/what is the higher intelligence behind our forms? And our DNA 'sentences'?
Id really love to know how 'randomness' can create SUPER coherent grammar structures we see in DNA??
Nobody can explain that to me, sufficiently enough, to get the faith to believe in blind evolution.
Again, I dont doubt evolution. Just that something is 'guiding' it.
And Im not a fundamentalist, or christian.
Just a seeker of truth.
And blind randomness, fits nowhere in that truth.
Really this type of trolling posting is a reason for comments to be moderated, I do not want to read this type of bunkum, the like of which one sees so often.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis guy is not worth replying to, because he is only here to disrupt an otherwise reasonable discussion.
No Im here to shake up your immovable views about random evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike you all say creationists cling to the bible, well you all cling to randomness.
I know my math, and random evolution is mathematically impossible.
Especially in the short time frame of the universe.
For it to carry any weight at all the universe would need to be close to 500 Trillion years old, not the mere 15 billion.
And on top of that the earth would need to be almost quadruple the age of the whole universe. For the theory to even be considered in my books, that is.
So please....study math before implying random mutations created everything.
Im not saying God did it....Im just saying 'chance' is a copout.
The sad thing is no matter how hard I try I will always forever be lumped in with the 'creationists' and christian fundamentalist, of which Im neither.
I don't even believe in God.
I just believe in a strange attractor guiding evolution, like a chaotic attractor guides a lorenz butterfly.
Its the only sensible answer.
Like a said a million times...templates
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskk, please enlighten all of humanity and propose a hypothesis for the origin of species. Be sure that it may be tested, and when it is ... perhaps the resulting theory will carry your name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts easy to participate from the couch and tell those who endeavor to contribute what you think of their efforts ... where are *your* efforts?
Glad you said that, I have been writing a book for about 4 years now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts already 380 pages, and will only continue to grow.
I will be releasing it in 2010 probably, but cant say for sure.
It'll all be in there if youre interested.
But judging by comments on here.
Nobody will care, cuz nobody likes a major paradigm change.
kk-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."--
Arthur Schopenhauer
kk: "I have been writing a book for about 4 years now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts already 380 pages, and will only continue to grow."
Skip the book and offer what was requested ... being, a testable hypothesis for the origins of species.
Hypotheses don't require 380 pages. A few sentences are sufficient.
Well thats true...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut judging by what Ive written, Im sure you can gather what my hypothesis is....no?
And yes, for people like all you guys who cant grasp what Im getting at, in a few posts, I DO need 380 pages. Cuz if you dont get what Im getting at by now, then you'll need all the math and theory that goes with it to truly understand.
If you need me to restate my hypothesis I will....
"To prove that the mechanism behind evolution isn't random mutation through natural selection...but instead evolution through predeterminism, or guided design based on evidence from chaos theory, and fractal mathematics."
This is actually quite similar to Intelligent Design, and will probably get lumped in with that, when the book is released, however the theory doesn't really require a designer. Because consciousness is the designer.
Meaning, the species design themselves. With freedom to evolve a million different ways, but no freedom to create structures outside of the 'code' (per se)
Hence the universe is predetermined, in the BIG picture, but highly random and chaotic from our tiny little viewpoint.
It's really frustrating to try to get this across without being attacked, or lumped with creationists/christians/fundamentalists. But Im gonna do it.
And perhaps, like you say, my theory will brand my name one day.
But the most likely scenario is that it will get swept under the rug, ignored, ridiculed, and forgotten because its far too radical. We'll just have to see.
"If the fossil record is crap, what are the handed down stories about the creation of earth?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue, which you failed to address is the inability to re-create an evolutionary pathway in the laboratory.
"In order to have a prokaryotic bacteria "evolve" into a eukaryotic bacteria, it would also need pressure to do so, not just radiation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe selection is the lab technician picking out bacteria that look like they are heading toward eukaryotic strains and killing off the rest.
"It is entirely like that there are several possible paths a bacteria could take to develop radiation resistance, not all of which would involve developing a cell nucleus."
The purpose is not to develop radiation resistance, it is to demonstrate that mutation and selection pressure can produce evolution by re-creating a path (it doesn't have to be the same path) in a laboratory.
"In any case, just because we can't recreate a few steps that you claim are impossible, doesn't mean that the entire system is impossible. Evolution is common sense. Now that we have a sense of genetics and inheritance, it just makes sense. All other theories fall woefully short of explaining the same processes."
On the contrary. A process that is so common place that it occurs all the time under our noses throughout the history of the planet should be trivial to re-create. And the inability to re-create any of the steps would demonstrate the theory as fundamentally flawed. Your argument is like saying because we can't demonstrate time dilation doesn't mean einstein's theory should be abandoned, even though it's a foundational prediction of the theory.
The scientific ignorance here is astounding.
"sigh ... how about: "Show me your God. Forget your book of fables, create me an organism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds juvenile and insulting no? :-("
It does when you say it because it's the product of juvenile thinking. I never mentioned creationism. I mentioned the foundational tenet of science. Experimentation.
"Before you begin criticizing, you might actually attempt to understand what evolution is and how it works. There are not magic tricks, no miracles."
Exactly. Which is why I'm calling for laboratory experimentation to re-create the purely mechanistic path. The theory claims to know the mechanism and the process. So do it in the laboratory and put it to rest once and for all.
"Rather than whining about science, you might try participating in it."
I just have. I have called for an experiment to demonstrate evolution in the laboratory using bacteria. A very doable experiment. And very scientific. Any true experimental evolutionary biologist should be jumping at the chance to run this experiment.
"From a theistic perspective, I also find your comment insulting. Who are you to tell us how God did his work?"
Since I made no mention of any theistic position, your comment is nothing more than a projection of your bigotries.
"Darwin has done that [experiment], you have not"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be interested in finding out exactly what experiments Darwin actually did in support of his theory. He did a lot of observation and arguing, but that's Aristotle's method, not the scientific method.
The relevant information in this article is that Darwin was a theologian...at a time when the balance of power was shifting from religion to science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I think this particular person's posting is nothing but a Troll. He has probably done a Google search for articles on evolution. Posted his posting, then gone. I very much doubt if he has any intention of replying to any answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this illustrates the need for SCIAM to moderate postings. Regrettably his actions can result in less freedom to express opinions.
There is no predetermined end product of evolution, there is only the passing of genes from generation to generation. Changes in genes result (as has been stated before) in advantages, disadvantages, or no change in the chance to survive and therefore a chance for that organism to pass those genes to the next generation. The passing of genes IS the goal of evolution, and while random changes in the genome (of which there are many sources) are the prerequisite for changes in phenotype, the pressure placed on the species (in the form of natural selection) is the guide that determines whether or not these changes are carried on in the gene pool of the species or discarded. There is randomness in the equation, but NATURAL SELECTION IS THE GUIDE AND SURVIVAL OF GENES IS THE GOAL. (Not a third arm, handy as it may be.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all changes are bad, for example resistance to diseases most people would consider beneficial , and would increase that individual organisms chances of survival. The opposite is also true. Antibiotic resistance is an excellent example of evolution, and one that can be quickly seen. The most visible changes to fellow humans tend to be deforming and so they might come to mind more readily. However these people would be less likely to pass their genes on to subsequent generations and so, by natural selection, these genes and their phenotype would be eliminated form the gene pool.
Also please remember that the life had BILLIONS of years to evolve, and that of an entire planet full of bacteria it took most likely (sorry no good reference on hand, only wikipedia :) close to, if not more than, a billion years to go from prokaryotic to eukaryotic organisms. There are plenty of examples of evolution that are very well documented. Please pick up a copy or two of the peer reviewed scientific journal Evolution and read it with an open mind. (and please no conspiracy theories, these are individual, hard working people who are actually out there doing the science and writing about their findings to share with collegues, not trying to convice nonbelievers in evolution.)
People have always passed of what they dont understand as magic or the work of god, but just because we dont currently understand it doesnt mean that it is unknowable.
Not all changes are bad, for example resistance to diseases most people would consider benificial , and would increase that individual organisms chances of survival. The opposite is also true. Antibiotic resistance is an excellent example of evolution, and one that can be quickly. The most visable changes tend to be deforming and so they might come to mind more readily, but these people would be less likely to pass their genes on to subsequent generations and so, by natural selection, these genes and their phenotype would be eliminated form the gene pool.
Also please remember that the life had BILLIONS of years to evolve, and that of an entire planet full of bacteria it took most likely (sorry no good reference on hand, only wikipedia :) close to, if not more than, a billion years to go from prokaryotic to eukaryotic organisms. There are plenty of examples of evolution that are very well documnted. Please pick up a copy or two of the peer reviewed scientific journal Evolution and read with an open mind what. (and please no conspiracy theories, these are individual, hard working people who are actually out there doing the science and writing about their findings to share with collegues, not trying to convice nonbelievers in evolution.)
sorry about the double post of last two paragraphs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no predetermined end product of evolution, there is only the passing of genes from generation to generation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoure missing what Im getting at.
To water flowing in a stream, gravity is the guide. To evolution, a strange attractor is the guide.
(chaos theory anyone?)
Thats what Im getting at. Evolution towards a goal/shape.
Like a massive fractal. And like a fractal, its predetermined to an extent.
You enter an equation into a computer and you get the mandelbrot set.
The edges are infinite in shapes and complexity, yet the WHOLE structure takes the same shape everytime.
Thats what I mean by predetermined.
The system has some degree of freedom, but the overall structure in the end is always the same.
And the mandelbrot cannot come into existence without infinity.
Photons represent infinity, cause they are timeless. They experience no time/all time at the same time. They exist in the future and past.
They are omnipotent. Without photons, nothing would exist.
Just like the mandelbrot.
See what Im trying to get at?
IMO photons fit the best description of most religous definitions of 'God'
Please dont think of me as a creationist/believer, Im more of an agnostic, trying to make sense of stuff. Trying to see it from both sides.
"To evolution, a strange attractor is the guide."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you make the same posts on every article?
Yes I do
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm a hardcore internet litterer, so sue me
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGOD called, he said he bet these atheists wouldn't talk like they do to his FACE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPressure from a competitor, that is all you have to say about AR Wallaces contribution? They were corresponding all during Alfred Russel Wallaces travels, a large number of letters were exchanged. Wallace independently derived Darwins theory . Both Wallace and Darwin had their thoughts on the topic of natural selection published at the same time. How about a lot more respect for this man! You do his contribution to this major intellectual step forward a disservice. Remember Wallace had his completed essay published. Darwin put forth some unpublished writings on the same topic. Again, published at the same time! It should be called the Darwin / Wallace Theory of Evolution... in fact it, many times, is by more accurate, less biased, writers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuy looks mean, but he also looks mean
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite the plethora of information showing Darwin's theories to be just that - unprovable theories - your magazine has chosen to cling to the notion that Darwinism is a proven fact and that there is more quantifiable evidence supporting it than other schools of thought. If this is true - and I am supremely skeptical of such a claim - it is only because of the exhaustive research made in trying to prop up this claim despite an equal amount of evidence that shows this idea to be suspect. No one with any intelligence at all will argue the idea that micro-evolution - that is to say, adaptation to environmental circumstances - is true. But to cling to the absolutely unproven claim that macro-evolution - one transitory species randomly becoming another - categorically does no. Indeed, most of the examples cited as being "proof" of macro-evolution nearly always refute your own control standard of "survival of the fittest" in the process. And if the base standard of identification is that flexible, how can unbiased scientific method possibly be in use? Instead, I have found through repeated readings like this issue, that so-called scientists disregard fair and just application of science and instead use their insecure need to be seen as right no matter what as license to break the code of their fellowship and abandon healthy skepticism in favor of a fundamentalist fervor used to promote this questionable theory. That is not science - it is simply another form of religion. Since your formerly prestigious magazine has chosen to give in to this zealous bigotry I have no choice but to cancel my subscription. Immediately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwwin was the greatest thinker of all mankind. His genius surpasses Einstein's and Newton's. Intelligent humans owe him a great amount of gratitude. It is time that we ignore the babbling of the superstitious and ignorant and start celebrating him, as we do his peers in the physical sciences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biochemical interactions directly contradict a random evolutionary process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Foster. QFT mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, and with any luck maybe you'll stop posting. Immediately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bug doesn't know it looks like the leaf. Over time, the bugs that blended in with their surroundings were left uneaten, while those who didn't blend as well were. Natural selection eventually led to a perfect match. Just because you know what a leaf looks like can you telepathically make yourself or your offspring look like that leaf? No.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, Gary Stix was wrong to say
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat Darwin graduated with a degree in theology. He had just a
routine B.A. He had thought of being a clergyman, but he
took the post on the Beagle instead and never even enrolled
for a theological degree.
Having read you discussion page forr the first time, I am disappointed at seeing as much mudslinging as when visiting discussion pages in other less distinguished magazines. Most of the participants have nothing to say, but that nothing is usually put in the most offensive language possible. However, there are some interesting contributions: some challenging questions and some illuminating answers ( but very few I'm afraid). To the ongoing discussion about randomnes in the natural selection, I would like to draw the attention to recent studies from Umea University in Sweden and University College in London about genes being able to 'learn' from experience. "The northern Swedish population is well suited for genetic studies of familial forms of disease, since an internal expansion of the northern Swedish population, coupled with a low frequency of immigration and a high frequency of consanguineous marriages, has resulted in a relatively homogeneous gene pool. This simplified genetic background increases the probability of identifying genes contributing to disease."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving read you discussion page forr the first time, I am disappointed at seeing as much mudslinging as when visiting discussion pages in other less distinguished magazines. Most of the participants have nothing to say, but that nothing is usually put in the most offensive language possible. However, there are some interesting contributions: some challenging questions and some illuminating answers ( but very few I'm afraid). To the ongoing discussion about randomnes in the natural selection, I would like to draw the attention to recent studies from Umea University in Sweden and University College in London about genes being able to 'learn' from experience. "The northern Swedish population is well suited for genetic studies of familial forms of disease, since an internal expansion of the northern Swedish population, coupled with a low frequency of immigration and a high frequency of consanguineous marriages, has resulted in a relatively homogeneous gene pool. This simplified genetic background increases the probability of identifying genes contributing to disease."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the interesting January, 09 special issue on the Evolution of Evolution. Darwin pointed out that the fossil record would either prove or disprove his novel theories. In the most recent scientific study of the worlds known fossil evidence, physicist at Berkley used Fourier mathematical analysis of the fossil strata. The data from the scientific fossil record, revealed to these physicists, to their amazement a periodicity, or repeating pattern, not a linear progression. They concluded that life here on earth was essentially wiped out about every 62 million years, and then the process started over. With about 3 million catalogued species, to evolve over the long enough time of 62 million years, means that on average, a new species makes its appearance about every 21 years! Why has this incredible expected rate of evolution never been observed ?
Statistical improbability: If we assume that nature tinkered with randomly finding the right sequence of the rungs of the DNA ladder to create ( evolve ) the DNA strand ( and incredible information needed for life) how long would it take to evolve? The DNA uses a four letter code, sometimes referred to with the letters A, T, G, and C. If we think of the number of combinations to try of a four letter code, across the three billion positions of DNA, it would take enormously long to assemble it correctly by random chance (~3.38x10^36 combinations). Again if we assume nature was very efficient, and at conservative rate tried a million new combinations every second, it would take ~1.07x10^23 years (one followed by 23 zeros) to randomly try to assemble the combinatorial variations of a the human DNA! This is far, far longer than the universe has ever existed. For all practical purposes this is infinity. However the Universe has only existed at most for about 15 years, and the earth about 4.5 billion years, to try this lottery game; and life has only been around for ~ 100 million years? Add to this the time to evolve and form the mitochondria and cell membranes etc. to form a cocoon for the DNA to reside in and perform as a chemical factory. The mystery of life is unfathomable.
Now that we understand the DNA molecule and its role, its equivalent to understanding the transistor, or hardware which holds the bit codes. The real mystery of life is the software or intelligence programmed into the DNA (hardware).
As I entered the great Hall of Evolution at the Smithsonian, I saw the same evidence Darwin observed in the Galapagos: finches, some with small beaks, some with medium, and some larger. This is not evolution, but cyclical population variations from an existing gene pool, related to changing environmental conditions. Evolution cannot explain even the basic things I observe, things such as sex and procreation. How did the sperm function for millions of years, until it acquired enough incremental changes to form a tail for propulsion ?
Darwinists make the subtle mistake of confusing micro evolution with macro evolution. Do I believe in survival of the fittest? I observe it every month when I watch new candidates being interviewed for job positions. Does it explain the origin of living species? NO!
The question is not whether evolution is true. The question is how can one be so blinded by the paradigm of evolution.
Regards,
Ron McK, PhD
(Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana)
References:
Letters to Nature, Nature 434, 208-210 (10 March 2005)
Cycles in fossil diversity , by Robert A. Rohde1 and Richard A. Muller1
I noticed that all the church people only read these articles to start fights. It's best to not respond... because it prevents honest, sincere, comments about the article from happening. They have no bussiness reading stuff that upsets them so much....They need lots more time in church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know I must admit that I really don't care to try and educate the the religious fanatics anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is they are not looking for answers, they are looking for affirmation.
"A process that is so common place that it occurs all the time under our noses throughout the history of the planet should be trivial to re-create. And the inability to re-create any of the steps would demonstrate the theory as fundamentally flawed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo an inability to re-create any of the steps would demonstrate our lack of ability, it would not demonstrate anything at all regarding the theory.
You can go on and all about bacteria this and lab that until you are blue in the face and we will still be right back where we started. Evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain the origin of species and there is at present no completing scientific theories that oppose it.
I prefere the expression probability,rather than chance to explain the evolution of our species.Chance means accidental ,probability means that it depends on the conditions it evolved in,that decides what species evolves.It is more like inevitable than pure chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin = Edison = Not the fittest
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeonardo = Tesla = The Fittest
The world likes to deny true genius obviously, dare the next true genius deny the world?
Fossil records are crap because the reality is that they are not truth, 4% matter is really like saying, "Don't bother with any of this when your done painting, just burn it all and move on."
So man's evolution must have a 'Set-Goal' of unreasonable qualities locked in the irrational bloody cutlet of Art.
All of Man's time must have at one point been successfully surpassed by the greatest science ever created which is the Art of Painting. Only this divine alchemy contains all the cosmic qualities of space, time and matter and all the elemental animistic properties of the dream e/dark e or whatever you want to refer it by.
Of course the only catch here is that the future event horizon would have to expire corporeality, and that the Ouroboros produced a final divine alchemist with precog...
Genesis 1:27, "So God made man in his own image".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."
Genesis 2:21-22, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, &the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her unto the man".
From the above verses, it is obvious that God formed man/woman from dust instead of transforming apes to human beings.
Genesis 1:27, "So God made man in his own image".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."
Genesis 2:21-22, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, …the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her unto the man".
From the above verses, it is obvious that God formed man/woman from dust instead of transforming apes to human beings.
Hi McKeir
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming Ph D are you ?- Ph D in what I ask myself?
62 million years ago ...earth nearly wiped out
Why do you assume small number of species survived ? The only thing we know is that a very large percentage of species were wiped out. How many species remained - no idea - could have been millions (out of 100s of millions)
2) you say 3 millions of species evolved over 62 million years = 21 species /year.
Why have you asumed linear growth ? - Could have been exponential, or step functions, or reverse exponential......... After all only small creatures survived. Large planet - no predators, species explosion maybe. No reason to assume linear growth.
3) The old (and stupid) and irrelevant probability calculation. Assumes DNA created from nothing to be as it is today by random chance . Completely ignores that a) it could have evolved as with species, b) it did not evolve by random chance.
Afraid your calculation/argument irrelevant as it is based on faulty assumptions.
4) Why have you assumed that millions of years ago fertilisation took place the same way as today i.e the sperm HAD to have a tail? Perhaps previously sperm had small/none existant tail. Sperm with tail (the longer the better) had advantage in fertilisation - evolution takes over - creature evolves so that sperm tends to get longer tail. Hence here we are today.
5 ) Darwin (ism) does not mistake macro/micro evolution. Darwin only recognised evolution and does not distinguish. These terms are for your benefit not Darwin.
6) Please read the 15 answers to creationist if you think evolution = survival of the fittest.
If you cant be bothered then let me enlighten you
IT DOESN'T
7 ) the question is how can someone working (supposedly) in a university be so stupid and ignorant ?
You dont appear to have obtained a Ph D in anything that required logic or maths
Jonathan CHM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good - Quoting genesis
So ??
Are you trying to say that genesis if fact ?
FRom what I can see there are only 3 explanations as to how the population of earth arrived at what is today
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) That at the beginning of the earth ALL the species we see today were created and continued unchanged (though some died out) to today
2) As with 1) except that each species was created at various times after the earth was created - but then continued unchanged
3)That ceatures evolved over time , creating new species, and some becoming extinct.
Until such time as a fossil of man is found alongside dinosaurs then 1) is a non-starter .
Until such a fossil is found it also negates genesis and leaves 2) or 3)
NOW - which if these do you creationists believe, and what scientific evidence do YOU have for your belief?
It is of great problem that it was Darwin who published instead of Wallace. Species do not ever evolve from a single individual but from entire populations that become separated and have traits that emerge differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecies become different mostly because of physical isolation that continues, and then may cease as mountains corrode or individuals make it back across the barrier.
It is only traits that "evolve" in a population, and even then a small change that exists in one group might be enhanced by the chance encounter with another trait present in another group. Eventually both traits might dominate the population but the ancestry would include those with the trait as well as those without it, with each trait "evolving" quite separately from the rest.
For example a particularly useful horn formation might first appear on an individual with a redder coat, but unless those genes were very close the horn formation might stay and the redder coat not, they would not be connected.
No matter how you guys spin it evolution does not make its case on evidence but on authority that says there is enough evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf evolution was right it would be simple to show so.
The examples of fast speciation make indeed the point Darwin was wrong. Evolutionists today just scramble up other ideas to fill in problems that competent research shows contrary to evolution.
Evolution is headed for the dustbin of history.
@ Robert Byers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No matter how you guys spin it creationism does not make its case on evidence but on authority that says there is enough evidence.
If creationism was right it would be simple to show so.
The examples of fast speciation make indeed the point Darwin was right. Creationists today just scramble up other ideas to fill in problems that competent research shows contrary to creationism.
Creationism is headed for the dustbin of history."
You see how easy it is to twist things around, Mr. Byers? Even a smidgen of rationale might have imparted some credibility to your comment. It seems typical of the creationists' confused mindset that they expend an exorbitant amount of energy attacking evolutionary theory, apparently not realising that attacking a scientific theory, no matter how vigorously, will not even dent it.
So creationists take note: accredited theories in science cannot be removed by attacking them, no matter how much effort is expended. They can only be superceded by another scientifically accepted theory. And remember: no theory in science has ever been made redundant on religious grounds. Ever.
frgough 12/15/08
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 100% accurate statement of creationism/id is
Proponents of creationims/id have successfully ignored any requests to provide evidence of their beliefs for over 2000 years, and have failed to elevate their completely non-scientific beliefs to any level of scientific hypothesis
I'm still waiting for any creaionist/id to produce ANY evidence of any intervention of any entity in any physical process. After all, we know the supposed mechanism.
You have had millions of generations to pick from, surely enough generations to find such evidence.
As my chem professor would say: Forget your beliefs crap, show me some evidence
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No matter how you guys spin it evolution does not make its case on evidence but on authority that says there is enough evidence."
Is this not a contradiction ?
On the one hand you say that evolution does not make its case on evidence.
On the other you say that evolution makes its case on evidence that authority that says is enough.
Either evolution has evidence or it doesn't
So far there in NO (that means NONE) evidence that contradicts evolution.
So far there is NO (that means NONE) evidence that supports id/creationism
"The examples of fast speciation make indeed the point Darwin was wrong. "
How so ? - I dont think evolution specifies any particular rate of speciation, either slow or fast.
"Evolutionists today just scramble up other ideas to fill in problems that competent research shows contrary to evolution."
What research would that be EXACTLY?
"Evolution is headed for the dustbin of history."
You present no evidence - Your opinion is worthless
Jonathan CHM at 05:35 AM on 03/27/09: "Genesis 1:27, "So God made man in his own image". Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." Genesis 2:21-22, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, …the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her unto the man". From the above verses, it is obvious that God formed man/woman from dust instead of transforming apes to human beings."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the above verses??? That is your 'proof'? You've got to be kidding. Even if you are a Christian and accept the scriptural authority of the Bible, this still has nothing whatever to do with science. Truly, is it a wonder that commenters such as Laughing gravy and myself wait in perpetuity for creationists actually to come with some sort of substantive evidence for their claims? The Bible is scripture, and cannot be used as scientific argument. Were that possible, then you could just present your King James and receive your doctorate. That it just doesn't work like that underscores the folly of the creationist mindset.
As for that woefully inaccurate and unscientific 'transforming apes to human beings'... sheesh. *exit ambertooth stage left, facepalming*
Robert Byers at 03:47 AM on 04/09/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf id is right it would be simple to show so it.
Pick ANY of the following
Pick anything you like and show ANY evidence that it was in fact designed.
Show ANY evidence as to HOW anything was (or even could have been) designed
Show ANY evidence that there is in fact a designer
Simple enough.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Pick anything and show any evidence it was designed?"
You've got to be kidding...
How about the trilobite eye... perhaps the most complex eye ever to exist. It appears suddenly in the fossil record in the early Cambrian without ancestry.
From nature.com--- "The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group oftrilobites were doublet structures DESIGNED to eliminate spherical aberration. The shape of the optically correcting interface is in accord with constructions by Des Cartes and Huygens and is dictated by a fundamental law of physics. Trilobites may have evolved such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment"
NATURE JOURNAL IS NOT A CREATIONIST OR ID SITE yet they claim design. Your wrong again.
I asked for evidence that it WAS designed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFisrtly I notice that you start by saying
".. perhaps the most complex eye ever to exist. It appears suddenly in the fossil record in the early Cambrian without ancestry."
I notice an article -also in Nature -
"A highlight focused on the development of the trilobite eye ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX EVER CAPTURED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD." (by capitals) - remarkably similar wouldn't you say ?
Could this be the source of your quote?
If so - Why did you omit the first part which clearly refers to the "development of" the eye.?
Or are you quoting selectively?
Secondly
The quote does not say it WAS designed ,i.e. by a "designer"
Natural selection can be said to be "designing" organs/functions, as natural selection will tend to produce more efficient organs/functions to suite the creatures environment.
(just because something appears to be designed (by a designer) does not mean it WAS)
Thirdly
The quote also says
"Trilobites may have evolved such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment "
I think this clearly indicates that the author(s) are in no way trying to imply that the eye was "DESIGNED" by any designer, (in fact quite the contrary as THEY clearly indicate that they believe the eye evolved "in response to a dimly lit......") but imply that it was "designed" by the process of natural selection (evolved) to be as efficient as it could be for a particular environment.
Fourthly
Fourthly someones opinion in an article is not evidence , no matter how well qualified.
Fifthly
"NATURE JOURNAL IS NOT A CREATIONIST OR ID SITE yet they claim design."
NO THEY DONT - quite the contrary.
Lastly
My understanding is that eyes do not fossilise readily. So finding a fossilised eye would be very rare. Therefore I would not be suprised at the lack of precursors.
P.s
I also notice that you completely ignore ALL the other articles in Nature that refer SPECIFICALLY to the EVOLUTION of the trilobite eye.
You are quote mining (and also possibly quoting selectively) - try again
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI asked for evidence that anything WAS designed
You respond in typical creationist/id manner
You refer to an article containing the word " design"
To you that is end of story - that is - you regard this as evidence
No matter that the word is not used in the context of a "designer" ,
No matter that nowhere in the article does the author indicate or imply that ANY organ was designed by a designer
No matter that the author CLEARLY indicates that the basis for the article is the EVOLUTION of some particular organ/function
NO - to you this is evidence for design.
My but you aint half dumb.
Evidence does not consist of the use of a word, or someone's opinion.
In the real world (that is - not the world of the creationist/id) evidence consists of scientific data and the logical analysis of it.
I ask again for ANY evidence that ANYTHING was in fact designed.-
NOT someones opinion, nor that it "looks like" it was.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a good reference for the EVOLUTION of the trilobite eye refer :-
http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm
You will note that the author says that the eye provides an" excellent example of EVOLUTION in action"
He also uses the word "design" but he EXPLICTLY states that this does not refer to id.
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may also note the following quote from the site.
"I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief. Ignorance and intolerance damage the benefits of faith."
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne last thing
As your supposed "evidence" you gave a suppose partial quote which you allege came from Nature.com
Maybe it did , maybe it didn't. Maybe the quote is representative of the article, maybe it isn't.
If you think I am going to search around the thousands of articles in Nature to find the source of your quote, or accept you have represented a quote accurately then you are more stupid than I thought (from past experience of your prevarication)
By all means refer to articles, but I expect to see either the specific site where the article can be read, or the date of the journal+name of author+ date of publishing,+ if possible the subject of the article.
Just referring to the name of the journal is typical of creationists/id, you expect everyone else to do your work for you.
You are the one presenting the evidence, then YOU present it, do not expect me to search for it..
A partial quote is meaningless and is certainly not evidence.- Selective/partial/mis quoting are other another tactics used by creationists/id.
(The "quote" you refer to looks like a misquote from the site I identified, again this would be typical of creationists)
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour quote,which you say is from nature.com
"The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group oftrilobites were doublet structures DESIGNED to eliminate spherical aberration. The shape of the optically correcting interface is in accord with constructions by Des Cartes and Huygens and is dictated by a fundamental law of physics. Trilobites may have evolved such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment"
My quote from from www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm from a paper originally published in Nature - reproduced EXACTLY and IN TOTO
The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group oftrilobites were doublet structures designed to eliminate spherical aberration. The shape of the optically correcting interface is in accord with constructions by Des Cartes and Huygens and is dictated by a fundamental law of physics. Trilobites may have evolved such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment.
This it the TOTAL extent of the quote on the site and is from the original paper in Nature.
Remarkable that you should refer to EXACTLY the same quote as this site, even down to the "oftrilobites" which I would say is a copying mistake on the site and should have read "of trilobites", but YOU say YOUR quote is from NATURE.COM
I say again - REMARKABLE.
Could it be the old creationist lies of quote mining and referring to quotes out of context I wonder.?
I say again, referring to quotes without the original paper is meaningless, both in itself and ESPECIALLY if you are proposing it as evidence.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line is that the trilobite eye is very complex and it appears in the early Cambrian. The only evidence for evolutionary development is strictly in the wild imagination of Darwinists.
Fossil evidence for a precursor to the trilobite eye is ZERO.
nealt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo the bottom line is that YOUR evidence is ZERO
YOU presented the quote regarding the trilobite as evidence that the eye WAS designed
I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
Secondly
IF you had read ANY of the papers on the trilobite
YOU would see there are SEVERAL trilobite eyes, each distinct in characteristics.
IF you had read them you would also see that the ONLY reason they were fossilised is because they were crystaline.
My understanding it that the eye as of creatures today does not fossilise. Perhaps there were MANY other creatures with just as sophisticated an eye WHICH DID NOT FOSSILISE.
Fourthly.
EARLY trilobite fossils did not have such an eye.
Fifthly
The cambrian explosion lasted over 40 MILLION years, DURING WHICH TRILOBITES EVOLVED. Thats 200 times the length of time homo sapiens (in all stages) has been on the earth. Plenty of time to evolve I would say
Sixthly
There is significant evidence (though not conclusive) of predecessors to the trilobite BEFORE the cambrian explosion. So I would say that you have no evidence to support your claim of the sudden appearance of trilobites DURING the cambrian explosion.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing
The eye optically complex, (as it allows large depth of field) but I would not say it is biologically complex. (it does not have the ability to change focus or direction)
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven a light sensing spot (so called third eye) has the complex cellular signal transduction pathway that an image producing eye has. It is not the simple spot that Darwin thought.
Also, the oldest trilobites in the fossil record had complex eyes (biological and otherwise) based on the Des Cartes and Huygens physics previously mentioned. Simply saying something is not complex does not make it so, but its biological complexity is accepted even by evolutionists.
"Also, the oldest trilobites in the fossil record had complex eyes (biological and otherwise) based on the Des Cartes and Huygens physics previously mentioned"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reference to Des cartes and huygens refers to the optical properties of the lenses only, not the complexity, and not all trilobytes had eyes with these properties.
"Simply saying something is not complex does not make it so, but its biological complexity is accepted even by evolutionists."
Also saying something is complex does not make it so
The eyes of the trilobyte could not change focus or direction, unlike other creature of the period. So the eyes overall were less complex biologically than other eyes of the period
You say its "biological complexity is accepted even by evolutionists. "
Evidence please.
PS I am still waiting for your evidence for creation/id
To Laughing Gravy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm. Trilobytes again. Neil and I went round and round on trilobyte eyeballs over at "15 Answers to Creaionists N(b)O(u)N(l)S(l)E(s)N(h)S(i)E(t)" - he lost. Of course, I know you realize that you would have more success squeezing bourbon out of a piece of granite than ever seeing Neil produce so much as one quarks worth of actual scientific evidence for ID creationism. Neil can only continue to reiterate his perceived weaknesses of evolutionary theory. But, definitely continue to demand the evidence. Neil, of course, will continue to evade the demand.
Hi Guys,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a related note, and by way of refuting ID's irreducible complexity, I ran across this Quicktime movie of Richard Dawkins answering the question "what good is half an eye".
http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c148271/eye_explanation_sm3.mov
Anybody with at least half a mind can see the fatal flaw with irreducible complexity is its assumption that everything has to work exactly the same way in the past as it does in the present.
Nice link jpill. Here's another one for you:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34544_Irreducible_Complexity_Shot_Down_in_Flames
If you want some real laughs, go to the original link here:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/
and some some of the comments from the dimwits who don't have a clue.
In reviewing the past contributions to this particular forum, I would like to focus on one point that has been raised by some people who I believe have sincere objections to Darwinism specifically and evolution theory generally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a consensus among anti-evolutionists that Microevolution is accepted while Macroevolution is not. At the risk of poisoning myself in the eyes of those I seek to engage in dialog, I declare that I see no useful or practical distinction here. With that said, I hope that those who wish to engage in meaningful dialog will help me understand their point of view.
Keelyn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI realize that it is extremely unlikely that neal t will provide evidence. (personally I dont see what positive evidence he could provide, but I live in hope)
The reason I repeatedly ask is due to the length of time neal t has persisted in examining evolution at great length.
Anyone coming fresh to the forum may be unaware of his long standing evasion.
.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. I agree. And I just want to add, for anyone new to this thread, please be aware that Neil has been consistently WRONG in his long "examination" of evolutionary theory. Again, aside from Neil's long "critique" of evolution, a number of people here are still waiting for just one (count them, one) piece of scientific evidence supporting ID. Saying, "It sure looks complicated to me, it must be the result of ...(fill in the blank)" doesn't do it.
A “possible “ way to understand parts of the so called Darwins theory may be to try to walk in the shoes of Gregory Mendal who preceeded him by a few years. Gregory very simply made choices of which pea plant to breed with what pea plant and kept careful records as to what the effects were from each breeding and then try to form a theory that explained what the results were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGregory was of course a monk devoted to Religion but simply tried to layout a theory that would explain what occurred rather than concluding that the changes that occured were due to “Gods will.” Instead he found from his observations and careful note taking, “logical” explanations for the changes in his peas, and found some of the relationships that exist between what you have and what you would get from certain choices of breeders to cross. and was actually able to predict what would happen when certain peas were bred with certain other peas other than taking the easy way out and attributing the results as “gods
will.”
One question I have about Gregory’s work is how did he control what pollen from which plant was responsible for fertilizing which stigma from another plant? In other words how did he know what actually occured. In recent years, due to what we learned as a result of mendils work we know that fertilization is the result of a single set of genes with a similar set of genes forming a diploid cell and going on to develop as a new individual.
As a result we know that part of the puzzel lies in the haploid set of genes known as pollen and the merging of this pollenes haploid set of genes with the haploid set of genes that reside in the pistol to form the diploid needed to create the seed. So we can employ various methods of collecting specific pollen with a tiny brush or pollen extractor from a specific plant and manually place it on the stigma of the plant we want to pollenize. Gregory on the other hand probably did not have a clue that the pollen and the stigma both had haploid genes and that brining together the specific pollen with the specific stigma would allow the creation of a diploid cell which would then form a seed that would express the various gene combinations of the haoloid parent donors.
So, How did Gregory Mendil “know.” When we know what he knew that perhaps we will know enough to speculate where we are going in Gregory’s shoes, and conjure up a theory of how Mendil’s work influnced Darwin????
Granted that the evolution theory is a common sense, we should not consider Darwin and his ideas as unfallable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is still some, if not mounting, mistakes in his theory.
It is the duty of the people nowadays to think critically about his classical theory.
Granted that the evolution theory is a common sense, we should not consider Darwin and his ideas as unfallable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is still some, if not mounting, mistakes in his theory.
It is the duty of the people nowadays to think critically about his classical theory.
Absolutely
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you think theories progress and improve ?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID "1. Irreducible Complexity is defined by taking existing systems apart, which does not argue against evolutionary theory, as that is defined by putting new systems together.
MY REPLY: The biological systems still need to function continuously throughout the supposed process of an organ evolving. Like we discuss previously with the household item, each incremental step has to be selectable. Dawkins could describle a 4 piece BOX EYE, but try doing that with a realistic model of the eye.
2. There are literally thousands of procaryotic species without flagellae specifically, or any other method of independent motion for that matter, so to be without one is hardly the "death" Chait's argument rests on."
MY REPLY: Do any of these prokaryote bacteria without flagella have anything like 25% or 50% or 75% of one? Is it either all or nothing. Where are the intermediates? Did the full fledged flagella just appear suddenly on one lucky prokaryote?
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you still haven't given me One manmade object that is more complex than the prokaryote cell. Do you now admit that it is complex?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps moving to a new site for discussion will motivate you guys to provide evidence for evolution other than just insisting that it is enough for scientists to say it's a fact.
Neal, your recycled trash is still trash no matter where you dump it. The SA gods have spoken. Hopefully they won't wait as long here and take it out before it smells up the place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill avoiding nearly every question presented to you?
- Is your God eternal?
- Name one manmade object more complex than a living cell
- Do flagella that are not 100% formed exist? Do you have intermediates in the fossil record?
I suspect the Scientific American has some kind of limit on the size of their topic discussions and that is why they closed the 15 Answers to further comments.
Neal wrote: nothing worthwhile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout Ambertooth or someone on your side you are speechless.
I guess it's time to declare victory for the creation model. Darwinism loses.
Children should be in bed by now. Say goodnight, Neal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CLIMATEGATE" has been termed the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Scientists are resigning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
It is a stark reminder that even PEER-REVIEWED scientific research can be driven by hidden agenda's that twist the data to support their theory.
Climategate may well be the worst scientific scandal of our generation, but...
DARWINISM IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE MILLENIUM .
ATEGATE" has been termed the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Scientists are resigning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
It is a stark reminder that even PEER-REVIEWED scientific research can be driven by hidden agenda's that twist the data to support their theory.
Climategate may well be the worst scientific scandal of our generation, but...
DARWINISM IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE MILLENIUM .
- Is your God eternal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does religion have to do with science?
- Name one manmade object more complex than a living cell
Internet is pretty damn complex, almost to the point of consciousness, but we aren't speaking about consciousness here...
- Do flagella that are not 100% formed exist? Do you have intermediates in the fossil record?
Flagella and the nemastocye cells are very similar in physical and genetic appearance. Don't have the articles on me, if you want them I'll dig 'em up. But do a google search and be proven wrong once again.
Finally intermediates do exist, ever heard of Archaeopteryx.... A dinosaur like dude with bird wings, hmmm, didn't Jurassic park say chickens came from dinosaurs...So even hollywood can shine some light on some commonly, and easily found, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, that PROVES SCIENCE and DISAPPROVES creation/ID.
NIGHT
TennJed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution is based on negative theology concepts that "God would not create the world the way it is". Darwin spoke more about God than the average sermon on Sunday morning. Because Evolution boils down to a religious philosophy it is nearly impossible to falsify its slippery concepts.
Evolution as I understand it,or,perhaps don't...anyway. Am I correct in saying that animals basically change their appearance and dietry habits to cope with other animals changing their appearance and so on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA carnivore who runs at 10 mph eats animals who can only manage 8 mph.The 8mph creatures change suddenly and run at 11 mph,the 10mph carnivore starves and becomes exstinct..no I hear you say,the 10 mph carnivore also changes and is able to run at 12 mph,so it's back to square one then...so there was no need to change at all really.
I gather then that all species have to change in groups and at the same time,however,do the species remain with the same skills and insincts as before,or indeed reborn so to speak with new skills,instincts that would give their new appearance some meaning.
If it were the former I would to say why,what's the point,but if it's the latter I would ask where,how were they developed,certainly not from their mother...?
I'm perplexed the whole thing seems rather unnecessary,ilogical even.
Amused, you posted at just one of many sources of a virtually limitless fountain of knowledge. Drink from it and your veil of confusion will disappear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary theory makes predictions that can be stretched more than gumby. For example, it predicts both inefficiency and superb efficiency. The theory is cannot be falsified because in order to do so one must prove a negative. In other words one must prove that it couldn't have happened under every circumstance (even those not thought of) in order to be proven false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it's the same for a creator as in God..no-one can prove or disprove his existence. Although there are many people who will testify by their own experience that they know there is a God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary theory claims to be based on hard science and not faith. Evolutionists should just be honest admit that their theory is driven by religion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be a pleasant and welcome surprise to see a thoughtful and reasoned argument from anyone who denies the evolution of life, instead of the pathetic and mindless canned phrases splattered everywhere by creationist/ID shills. If I have to wait for it until the end of the world, it won't matter then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding? Why aren't you honest with yourself and with those who read your posts and that is according to your evolutionary view, by default, nothing that questions your theory is admissible, reasonable, or to be considered. You are immovable from your theory, not because of the evidence, but because you are uncomfortable with any explanation that is not materialistic.... even if that materialistic explanation falls far short.
I couldn't prove my point better if I tried.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDawkins said that proof against evolution would be if a single fossil was found in the wrong stratum.
As I've already stated with articles from Nature and from the Tiktaalik roseae website (which you convenently ignored), tetrapod footprints predated the Tiktaalik (so called transitional fossil between fish and land animal) by nearly 20 million years. So you have fully formed land animals in wrong evolutionary stratum.
By Dawkins own evolutionary test, the theory has been falsified. Of course, to avoid such an unpleasant outcome, they will simply move the target yet again and presto--- a falsified theory gets another pass.
A good theory is supposed to make accurate predictions. The more accurate its predictions the better the theory. As it turns out the evolutionary interpretation of the signficance of Tiktaalik was plain wrong.
Repeating the same false claims does not make them correct, and only serves to prove my point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIdentify which prediction specifically has failed, and who predicted it.
Then explain without weasel words how anything about tiktaalik is evidence of that failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just to cover all the bases here, Dawkins was not quoted but paraphrased, and no citation was given. Strike 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe specified Nature article is behind a paysite, and is not available to the general public. More to the point, the Nature article was not quoted but paraphrased. I give long odds the poster never even read the article, but merely regurgitated an ID press release. Strike 2
Tiktaalik is not a fully formed land animal. It is a transitional form. In either case, evidence of earlier transitional forms no more negates Tiktaalik than Tiktaalik negate Coelecanth. Strike 3.
ID/creationists post nothing but weasel words, evasions, and outright lies.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou conveniently ignored the links I posted for you before from Nature and the Tiktaalik website. The Nature article in question was available to non-paying viewers and I read it and you could have read it too. Is it laziness or do you just have a made up mind and don't care to investigate?
I did paraphrase Dawkins but it is accurate. Are you questioning whether he said it? I can provide the direct quote and reference, but its not going to help you support evolutionary theory.
Tiktaalik was trumpeted by evolutionists as transitional between fish and land animals, but much older animals were already walking the land.
I provided the links to the evolutionary sites so you could read it for yourself and not accuse me of setting a trap or making it up.
Maybe you didn't follow the links because you assume that evolutionists could not be that stupid as to fumble with the evidence
No strikes you just threw ground balls.
"You conveniently ignored the links I posted for you before from Nature and the Tiktaalik website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know of no different links from before. Post them now.
"The Nature article in question was available to non-paying viewers and I read it and you could have read it too. "
If so, which I still doubt, then read it again. This time try to understand it.
"Is it laziness or do you just have a made up mind and don't care to investigate?""
Yes, it is your laziness and dishonesty. It can't be all that hard to post it now, even for you.
"I did paraphrase Dawkins but it is accurate. Are you questioning whether he said it? "
I question that you paraphrased him correctly. I question that you cite it in the correct context. These are things that creationists/ID types have problems doing, and particularly you.
"I can provide the direct quote and reference, but its not going to help you support evolutionary theory."
So you admit you haven't already. What are you waiting for?
"Tiktaalik was trumpeted by evolutionists as transitional between fish and land animals"
Then identify the so-called "trumpeter(s)", specifically, by name, and cite your source(s) where they allegedly "trumpeted".
"but much older animals were already walking the land."
So what? Explain, specifically, why you that this makes any difference to anybody but creationists.
"I provided the links to the evolutionary sites so you could read it for yourself and not accuse me of setting a trap or making it up."
No you didn't.
"Maybe you didn't follow the links because you assume that evolutionists could not be that stupid as to fumble with the evidence."
You provided no links that show what you say they show.
"No strikes you just threw ground balls."
You aren't even playing in the same ballpark.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are your references:
“What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum” Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth - page 146
PBS: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Neil Shubin says, “What evolution enables us to do is to make specific predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. The PREDICTION IN THIS CASE IS CLEAR CUT. That is, if we go to the rocks of the right age, and the rocks of the right type we should find transitions between two great forms of life, between fish and amphibians. What we see when we look at the fossil record, AT ROCKS OF JUST THE RIGHT AGE, is a creature like Tiktaalik”
Here’s the link to the Nature article I cited previously that contradicts this prediction.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463040a.html
“The fish–tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a CONSENSUS that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys)3 and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391–385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores2.
Now, however, Niedźwiedzki et al.1 lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zache mie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago)…”
In a 2006 NY Times article, evolutionists are in full glory beating their chests in victory over creationists on the finding of the Tiktaalik fossil..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=tiktaalik&st=cse&scp=3
“Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land….In their report, the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik was an intermediate between the fishes Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys, which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods. The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365 million years ago.”
The problem with the prediction of this transition at “rocks of just the right age” is that fully formed tetrapods were walking the land at least 18 million years before this so called transitional Tiktaalik creature.
I am inclined to regard the previous post as a good-faith effort. However, I keep in mind it is the 5th iteration over two weeks yet the original fatal flaws remain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can ignore for the moment all of the unremarked EMPHASIS, although such things dishonestly suggest they came from the authors being quoted, and not from the poster twisting the authors' intent. Distortions are supposed to be done outside the quotes.
I can ignore for the moment the cynically exuberant description of the scientists' behavior, although the poster presents nothing that reasonably supports his cynicism.
I can ignore these things because the fatal flaws of the original post remain. In the poster's own words, is it laziness or does he just not care?
The poster repeats his contradictory assertion that Tiktaalik is a fully-formed tetrapod and a transitional form. The poster needs to decide which argument he wants to make.
The Nature URL the poster cited is the same one he cited before, which is a paysite not available to the general public. The poster said he knows this article is available on non-paysites, so I can only imagine why he does not cite them instead.
The poster repeats his assertion without explanation that the tetrapod trackways negate the claim of Tiktaalik as a transitional form. I am unaware of any scientist's claim that Tiktaalik is the first or only transitional form of its type to exist, only that it's the first to be found. I can only imagine if such a claim appears in the Nature article locked behind a paysite.
Finally, the poster's claims are identical to the published claims of many creationist/ID websites. In their mindless rush to show what they think is a contradiction, they conveniently forget their own historical claim that fish don't have legs. It seems to me ironically fitting that the poster would now claim as evidence something he previously insisted never existed.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you know how to perform a copy and paste on the Nature magazine link? Some articles in Nature are free to view and this is one of them.
The Tiktaalik was called a transitional by evolutionists. It was hailed as the predicted transition between fish and land animals. The new evidence from fossil prints 18 million years older than Tiktaalik shows that animals were already walking on land before the transition! Evolutionists failed in several points regarding the Tiktaalik:
1. They predicted the age of rocks that the transitional should be in and they found evidence to support it only to be contradicted by more evidence that animals were already walking on land 18 million years before the Tiktaalic.
2. Evolutionists formed a wrong consensus around the meaning of the Tiktaalic fossil based on their theory.
3. Evolutionists used the Tiktaalik fossil as proof of a transitional species to rebuke creationists. Creationists criticize the labeling of the Tiktaalik as "transitional", not the finding of the fishlike creature with legs any more than a platypus is transitional.
4. It is instructive to see how quickly evolutionists were to jump on a fossil finding that they believe proves their theory. Tiktaalik was all over the news in 2006. However, the contradictory evidence somehow did not make it into the mainstream media but is found in technical journals only. Perhaps evolutionists feel that the general public is not intelligent enough to understand the new evidence. It is an altogether deceptive occupation in my view. Their view is to trumpet the evidence that they feel supports their view on the front page of the news and to bury contradictory evidence.
There is no way I can know that the specified link is behind a paywall unless I used it. It is unavailable to me. Provide a link that "proves" your assertions if you can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have overcome your earlier problems accepting fish with legs. I am glad that you have finally accepted evidence for macroevolution.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your problem with putting the Nature link on the address line of your Internet browser and pressing the Enter key? Copy the link from my post and then paste it on the address line and press enter. Perhaps your firewall blocks it but that is not the same as having to pay for it. Can you tell the difference?
Only in your imagination did I ever deny that a creature like Tiktaalik existed.
The behavior I described can NOT come from my firewall. If you really are as computer-savvy as you say then you already know that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I go to the specified website, I see a NATURE banner. Immediately below this banner is the following text in RED:
"Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."
If you are getting a different webpage it is because you or your employer has a subscription.
I see no way to read the entire article without either having a login/password or paying for the specific article.
You are being deliberately uncooperative and deceitful in order to avoid admitting that your argument about science and Tiktaalik is nonsense. Once again, you prove yourself to be a waste of time and a typical representative of the creationist/ID community.
Jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki1, Piotr Szrek2,3, Katarzyna Narkiewicz3, Marek Narkiewicz3 & Per E. Ahlberg4
Department of Paleobiology and Evolution, Faculty of Biology, Warsaw University, 2S. Banacha Street, 02-097 Warsaw, Poland
Department of Paleontology, Faculty of Geology, Warsaw University, 93 Żwirki i Wigury Street, 02-089 Warsaw, Poland
Polish Geological Institute, 4 Rakowiecka Street, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland
Subdepartment of Evolutionary Organismal Biology, Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18A, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Correspondence to: Per E. Ahlberg4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.E.A. (Email: per.ahlberg@ebc.uu.se).
Top of pageAbstractThe fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
The last quarter-century has seen a dramatic expansion in the known body fossil record of Devonian tetrapods, the earliest known limbed vertebrates1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Equally importantly, the discovery of articulated specimens of elpistostegids, the animals that fall immediately below them in the tetrapod stem group, has greatly enhanced our understanding of the origin of tetrapod morphology22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik show a tetrapod-like head and body shape combined with the retention of ‘fish’ characters such as paired fins23, 28, 29 and the absence of a sacrum28. Their close similarity to Devonian tetrapods and stable phylogenetic position below the latter in the tetrapod stem group23, 29, 32 provide a morphological outline of the fish–tetrapod transition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn parallel with this expansion of the morphological data set, the environmental, ecological and temporal contexts of the transition have been reassessed. It has become clear that many of the earliest tetrapods and elpistostegids derive from brackish to marginal marine deposits, and their wide geographical distribution also points to marine tolerance13, 16, 19. Temporally, the earliest record of tetrapod morphology has been pushed back from the late Famennian (about 360 million years ago) to the late Frasnian (about 375 million years ago)3, 6, 9, 33. Known elpistostegids range from late Givetian to mid-Frasnian (approximately 386 to 380 million years ago), and the Frasnian Elpistostege and Tiktaalik appear more derived than the Givetian Panderichthys12, 29, suggesting a good fit between stratigraphy and phylogeny, with tetrapods originating sometime during the mid–late Frasnian. Many recent publications argue that tetrapods evolved from and rapidly replaced the elpistostegids, probably in brackish to freshwater environments, in response to the modification of the terrestrial and water’s edge environment caused by the development of extensive tree-sized land vegetation21. However, a few data points have clashed with this consensus picture. Notably, the fragmentary genus Livoniana, although Givetian and thus contemporary with Panderichthys, is more derived than Tiktaalik, judging from its limited preserved anatomy12.
Supposed trackways of very early tetrapods have been recorded from a number of localities in Europe and Australia34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. The most securely identified of these, the Genoa River trackways from Australia, are Late Devonian (probably Famennian) in age34, 37. Two large trackways from Valentia Island, Ireland36, have been dated radiometrically to 385 million years ago. At the time of publication this was taken to imply an Eifelian (early Middle Devonian) age39, which clashed with the occurrence of the Late Devonian index fossil (for Laurussia) Bothriolepis in the same strata. However, subsequent recalibration of the timescale indicates that 385 million years ago corresponds to the Givetian–Frasnian boundary33. This is consonant with the biostratigraphy but nevertheless suggests an earlier origin for tetrapods than indicated by the body fossil data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur discovery of diagnostic and securely dated tetrapod tracks from the marine Eifelian (early Middle Devonian) of Poland shows that the current consensus based on body fossils is substantially mistaken in both the timescale and, probably, the environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've included the majority of the nature article in the previous posts for your reading pleasure. The posts are in reverse order so the first post from the nature article (the oldest) is the top of the article and so on because of the limit on the number of characters allowed per post.
Could you briefly summarise your understanding of natural selection, please?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdunkleosteus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will spare you a copy and paste of Natural Selection from a scientific journal and instead give you my take on it. Natural Selection means that nature selects which organisms survive and reproduce the most and pass along their genes to offspring.
Bacterial resistance is often cited as an example of observable natural selection and evolution. I suspect the story is more complicated than evolutionary predictions. For example, in some bacteria the antibiotics themselves trigger the synthesis of the bacterial enzyme that captures the resistance genes and enables their expression in the integron. The bacteria survives not because of dumb natural selection processes, but because of a sophisticated ability of the bacteria.
ok ..First of all ,there is an evil power in the world that we all live in..we cant deny it..alot of musisians and wathever else ,in this world do admit it :exemple..ozzy osbourn..etc so there is really a devil and there are peoples who worship him..and it does exist because I have heard alot of storys about peoples who had contact with demons and spirits and stuff..IT DO EXIST , so if there's an evil spirit, there is a good power in this world and that good power is god! nevermind trying proving that evolution is wrong or right or whatever.. there is a god in heaven and he sent his son the lord jesus christ in this world 2000 years ago and he died for the sins of all the peoples on that had ever lived on the planet to save us from the eternal condonmation hell because he loved us so much! and all we have to do according to the bible (the only thruth), is to trust him and belive to what god says and he will save you from that place called hell! you can ignore this fact and you can deny it if you want but the day that you will see the lord jesus himself (and you will..everyone will) , you'll have your mouth shut and you will have to face the unfaileble thruth..the bible is a unique book and I belive in that book. the peoples who try to banish the bible and god just dont want to endure the fact that they have to meet god after death for their sins..whathever people says will not change the fact that there is a god ..god wont stop existing ..he was he is and he will be forever!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tapped the button on the random mutation website until I got bored and it was still gobbledygook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the simplest micro-organism has 3000 times more information than the sentence 'the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog' you have to start holding up your copy of Origin of Species and scratch your head.
Darwin never discusses the origin of species in the book - no one even knows what a species is 150 years later anyway! Darwinism has been embraced by those who prefer the abandon of naturalism against the moral accountability of a Creator, and are willing to gloss over lack of evidence, censorship of ID and creation evidence and the hard facts of mathematics to continue in their relativistic and hedonistic livestyles.
Darwin plagiarised from Wallace anyway!