Evidence for Evolution

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by merrian webster dictionary

Main Entry: sci·ence

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

note #1 and #3

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

note #1 and #3

#1 is an alternate meaning... that's what #'s under definitions mean

#3 is similar to mine, but it does not spell out the scientific method as mine does... which is exactly what evolution is based on... observation (of current evolution on a small scale), hypothesis (projecting this onto a larger scale) and prediction (of how organisms may change over time)

[rohirrim TR]

there is no tested,conclusive, result of an evolution model, you have ideas and theorys, but so do ID'ers. we have observed mutations and interspecies changes, but nothing that points to people coming from gloop

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

there is no tested,conclusive, result of an evolution model, you have ideas and theorys, but so do ID'ers. we have observed mutations and interspecies changes, but nothing that points to people coming from gloop

it doesn't have to be conclusive... just testable

which ID is not

[Rían]

[quote=brownie]" ... hypothesis (projecting this onto a larger scale) ... "

I've never seen that meaning of hypothesis

What you're talking about is called extrapolation - making an educated guess BEYOND where any data points lie. And that's very dangerous.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What you're talking about is called extrapolation - making an educated guess BEYOND where any data points lie. And that's very dangerous.

i know, scientists die every day... but someone's gotta do it

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it doesn't have to be conclusive... just testable

which ID is not

dude, i hate to tell you this, but neither is evolution

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

dude, i hate to tell you this, but neither is evolution

yes it is!

*thinks this would be just the kind of argument where the 90-second rule is a good thing*

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

dude, i hate to tell you this, but neither is evolution

Yeah, tell it to the geneticists... Not to mention the biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, etc... etc...

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

[rohirrim TR]

well, i'll have to reply when i have more time and info,

[Spock]

If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.
(Selections from the Allen Notebooks, New Yorker)

[rohirrim TR]

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

swiss banks aside.

so this experiment predicted chimps mutations from chimp to chimp, it is more evidence of microevolution and mutations, which i might add, we have been over; obviously we should look at theorys with open minds, i have looked at evolution with an open mind,but things don't add up BTW you guys need to read this article it was quite controversial and some uber-evolutionist got quite defensive and hostile to the author (makes you think they have something to hide no?) click here

[Spock]

What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.
--W.A.--

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

so this experiment predicted chimps mutations from chimp to chimp, it is more evidence of microevolution and mutations

Actually it used information from a completely different species to predict the differences in the chimp genetics. Furthermore, this can also be done in a wide range of organisms and they tend to align quite nicely with predicted evolutionary models. So unless you are reeeeally fudging your definition of "microevulotion" then there you have it. Tested and scientific...

[rohirrim TR]

ok then dude i'll research it some

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Actually it used information from a completely different species to predict the differences in the chimp genetics. Furthermore, this can also be done in a wide range of organisms and they tend to align quite nicely with predicted evolutionary models. So unless you are reeeeally fudging your definition of "microevulotion" then there you have it. Tested and scientific...

I didn't comment before, because I get tired of pointing out things and then getting unpleasant comments, but that DNA thing certainly doesn't show macroevolution Not at ALL! How does it? ALL it shows is that the number of harmful mutations that show up in various animals' DNA can be predicted from KNOWN numbers in other animals' DNA, adjusting it according to population size. They can make predictions about DNA based on KNOWN info from other species' DNA - fine and good, but certainly not proof for macroevolution or any of the important, unproven parts of the theory of evolution.

[Count Comfect]

Regarding rohirrim's ID article - it really does a lot of hand-waving, particularly towards the end. "Probably" shows up a lot - including in a very crucial point ("the probable brevity of the Cambrian explosion relative to mutation rates") about how long the Cambrian explosion had to happen. This latter bit is also interesting because of the claim that " This analysis will, for the most part, therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion" - yet it seems to be depending on a short fuse explanation.

In general, I find it to be an interesting article, with some good points about the gaps in current evolutionary theory. Yet I do not find it to be a convincing rationale for why that theory cannot be used to explain the development of life - it has an awful lot of hedging for an article that intends to do that. And, naturally, though the article goes on about how "specified complexity" cannot be explained except by design, it ignores the clear "specified complexity" implied by a designer. A designer is MORE complex than its designees, and so their theory in fact posits more prior complexity than evolutionary theory.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't comment before, because I get tired of pointing out things and then getting unpleasant comments, but that DNA thing certainly doesn't show macroevolution Not at ALL! How does it? ALL it shows is that the number of harmful mutations that show up in various animals' DNA can be predicted from KNOWN numbers in other animals' DNA, adjusting it according to population size. They can make predictions about DNA based on KNOWN info from other species' DNA - fine and good, but certainly not proof for macroevolution or any of the important, unproven parts of the theory of evolution.

Its proof that there is an observable rate of relatedness between a wide range of species. One that is predictable mathematically based on a few factors and one that largely echoes the pace predicted by evolutionary biology. I mean thats simply an undeniable fact. And this fact alone makes a huge hit on the creationist concepts of special creation with no relatedness among species.

[Curubethion]

Form follows function, so wouldn't that explain the DNA similarities? E.G., the similarity between chimp and human DNA is explained by our anatomical similarities. It doesn't mean we evolved from a common ancestor.

[Count Comfect]

Not true though. Fish and whales do not have similar DNA (well, they do in the "animal" sense, but they aren't close within animals) while they have very similar forms. Whales are more like us than fish, DNAwise, but their form and function are not.