THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE THEORY. They belong to the separate, but related theories of abiogenesis, and genetics/heredity. That some components of the modern theory of evolution rely upon other theories, like genetics, does not mean that those theories are subsets of evolution.
DNA exists, and it changes in fairly well-understood, but unpredictable, ways. Those changes cause changes in structure and function, usually slight ones. If that change is inherited by a larger number of offspring, then it will become more common. Eventually, the changes will accumulate enough that a new species appears. Evolution describes those changes, not the origin of DNA, or life, or the Big Bang, or geology.
If one drops “prove”, and replace it with “provides evidence for”, as it should be with any scientific theory, the same way that one can describe geological layers when one doesn’t know exactly how the earth formed.
Hmm. I am awaiting the post that will contradict you. I am told that the “secret” is DNA. So we shall see how much or how little DNA composition is part of Evolution.
Sorry but I am having 2 parallel discussions that appear to be contradictory. Perhaps I have got it wrong. We shall see.
Are you saying that I have to prove abiogenesis before I can use DNA tests to determine if two people share heredity? DNA tests have been used to reunite siblings for a while now.
How mutations occur is one of the biggest pieces of evidence for common ancestry. The pattern of differences is part of the proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) for common ancestry. @glipsnort spells it out here:
We have evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes. We don’t need to evidence that initial spark of life in order to evidence common ancestry with other apes.
That’s what we have. We have the human genome and the genomes of other apes. This gives us a good idea of where those genomes started and the mutations needed to produce the modern species.
That has ever been in contention. I am being told that DNA proves ancient heredity that spans both time and species, even class.
I have granted you abiogenesis.
Just a distinct lack of proof that it ever occurred or even could occur. The day I see (or hear of) a (primitive) human born of an ape I will accept the possibility. Unfortunately modern ethics probably preclude the attempt to do it artificially, so you will just have to hope that history repeats itself and somewhere a primitive human is created from an ape population due to Evolution.
First, we are apes already, just as a lion is also a cat.
Second, we don’t expect specific evolutionary pathways to repeat since evolution is a stochastic process. It’s a bit like expecting the same lottery numbers to appear with each drawing.
Third, no one is claiming that there was a single generation between a more primitive ape and modern humans. The process took millions of years and millions of accumulated mutations. Why would you expect it to happen in one generation?
I get the distinct impression that you don’t understand the very theory you claim to reject.
There is the basic principle and there are numerous applications of the principle. Because the theory of evolution is the foundation of theoretical biology, it is sometimes used to excess and applied incorrectly. Evolution doesn’t explain everything and some simple minded uses of the theory distort both the facts and understanding. In fact we can see an example right here in the forum with this other thread talking about love. Some have become so focused on the principles of individual evolution that they have become blind to the implications when evolution involves communities and social relationship.
Furthermore sometimes we see in softer science which don’t have such a strong theoretical foundation, borrowing from the theoretical tools of other sciences, such as trying to use the mathematical modeling of physics or the evolutionary theory of biology to explain phenomena in their own science. This can cause serious distortion. (*) You will see a lot of complaints throughout academia that evolution has inappropriately become some kind of theory for everything.
No, that is your assertion, belief or dogma.
There are examples of development, diversification, even growth, and improvement but it is all within species and genome. In all the quadrillion of creatures observed or studied by man not once has there been a cross-species development. Even your precious 2% remains uncrossed and unproven.
Why the hell not? If it is random and uncontrolled why would it stop?
And I qualified it as a primitive.
And the classification of Ape is by the same scientists that claim the hereditary. Homo Sapiens is the Species. 2% is still 2%. Besides, where did the 1st ape come from? I am claiming that species are created, so it is just a matter of at what point humans are that creation
Cats begat cats Dogs begat dogs etc, etc etc.
Give me a break! I did not claim the emergence of modern man. Development is part of the Evolutionary theory I agree with.
I never said it stops. I said that it doesn’t repeat. We don’t expect evolutionary pathways to repeat because the starting points are different, as are the mutations that accumulate in the background.
If chimps and gorillas are apes, then we are too. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas.
Also, the person who first put humans in the same group with other primates was Carl Linnaeus who was a creationist that lived a century before Darwin. Might want to check your history on that one.
Humans and chimps are apes. Humans and macaques are primates. Humans and bears are mammals. Humans and fish are vertebrates. It seems you accept way more common ancestry than you are letting on.
Yes, you did.
“The day I see (or hear of) a (primitive) human born of an ape I will accept the possibility.”
Evograd also has a blog post on the same evidence. He added information on the observed de novo rates of transition and transversion mutations which I think is useful for explaining the evidence.
You don’t know about neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution, not to mention population genetics. And then there’s the little detail about God’s random providence, mutations in DNA included. The correlation to lotteries has been made before, like winning five on the same day and in the same order that the tickets were bought.
Sorry, Although I liked the plant one there was an interesting part of it that brings up the main problem of new species. ie that there were similar mutations within reach of each other. If the mutation goes beyond the capacity to interact with the donor organism there must be similar ones for it to procreate or even mature. So there needs to be enough instances of the transformation to become self-sustaining. Why would this be? Especially if the change is both random and by chance. And if it becomes endemic to the donor the donor would be wiped out.
However, most of the examples appear to be growth or improvement within a species rather than the radical changes involved to get to Humans from an amoeba.
