i think that most people are not aware of the problems with evolution from scientificly prespective. its feel like a complex sobject. but its actually doesnt. its very easy to explain that micro evolution (actually its variation, like different species of dogs and cats) isnt macro evolution (like a fish evolve into a human). a micro evolution even happan in a human-made objects. for example: if we will leave a car in nature it will add a small changes (like the color will change). but it will never evolve into something like airplane or a truck. so a small changes over time will not evolve into a big change.
“i think that most people are not aware of the problems with evolution from scientificly prespective.”
Please enlighten us with current results of research into those problems that have produced contrary results? Do you have any results that are contrary to latest genetic finding? How about the latest fossil finds? Do you have anything that falsifies any aspect of evolution? How about timeline of the history of life on Earth? Please provide and discuss those results.
“so a small changes over time will not evolve into a big change.” Why not? Please show some evidence of why your claim is true.
Making statements without any evidence of their truthfulness lowers ones credibility.
Looking forward to hearing about the research results that falsifies anything discussed here.
hi patrick. lets start with my first argument: do you agree that a car can evolve into an airplane in a bilions of years? (according to the evolution)
- here is a paper that show us that even a short protein need near 10^70 mutations to evolve:
and for 10^70 mutations we will need a lot more then 4.5 bilion years.
lets start with my first argument: do you agree that a car can evolve into an airplane in a bilions of years? (according to the evolution)
No, a car will not evolve into an airplane in any amount of time. A car will rust. Using our understanding of chemistry we can determine how long it will take the car to rust away. Perhaps a few hundred years. Regarding evolution, note that evolution is about biological life and processes. Please give an example of biological life and processes that are counter to today’s understanding of evolutionary processes.
- here is a paper that show us that even a short protein need near 10^70 mutations to evolve:
and for 10^70 mutations we will need a lot more then 4.5 bilion years.
Thanks for the paper, I read the abstract only as I am not subscribed to that journal. However, in just reading the abstract, it clearly doesn’t show what you says it show. The paper says that 10^70 random mutations are clearly too large a number to says that the particular protein folding studied occurred at random. The paper says that there must have been other natural processes involved. The paper goes on to list two possible alternatives. Were any of those alternatives found latter to be true? I don’t know? But I do know that this was a 2004 published paper and a lot of work has been done on protein folding processes. Perhaps you can see if a new 2015 paper either falsifies these results or extends or modifies these results based on new research.
But in any case, no where does this paper show any “scientific problems” with evolution as you claim. If it did and the results held up to verification, the authors would be very famous.
Evolution needs to be falsified in order for it not to be accepted as the best, clearest explanation for all the biological processes on Earth.
patrick. you say that a car will stay as a car. true. as we see dog stay as a dog.
“Using our understanding of chemistry we can determine how long it will take the car to rust away. Perhaps a few hundred years”-
again- true. but we can see that car can add small changes. again- just like dogs and cats.
“Please give an example of biological life and processes that are counter to today’s understanding of evolutionary processes”
i will try after we will finish to talk about the first argument.
about the paper- its still hold water today. i dont know about any paper that can show us that an average protein can evolve in a geologic time. so this paper show that the chance to get a new protein by evolution is very low (i call this a problem). so science actually disprove the evolution claim to date.
again- true. but we can see that car can add small changes. again- just like dogs and cats.
Well not exactly. A car can’t add small changes, it is not a biological organism. It can just slowly rust according to well known chemical processes. However, dogs and cats are alive biological life forms that reproduce. Dogs can have puppies and perhaps one (or several or none) of the puppies can have a small number of mutations that makes those puppies slightly different than their parents. They are still dogs just like their parents. But as this process goes on for hundred and thousands of generations of populations of thousands or millions of dogs, mutations in a population accumulate. At some point there will two different species who have a common ancestor to the orginal dog. Very simple process. Very easy to understand. This process (common decent through natural selection) has been shown to explain all species of life on Earth both all today and those that are extinct. Until you can show evidence that falsifies it, it is accepted as true about biological life on Earth.
Do you have a better explanation of all the different forms of life on Earth?
about the paper- its still hold water today. How do you know that? Are you up to date on protein folding evolution to be so sure that this paper “actually disproves the evolution claim to date”? You do know that the authors of this paper don’t say that and that they most likely published numerous additional papers in the past 11 years extending their results.
For you to be credible, you really need to present evidence.
@Patrick, as there’s apparently no problem with evolution, I would like to hear your take on (1) the origin of life (you obviously will say that that doesn’t have to with evolution, but I am curious to hear your opinion about that) and (2) stasis.
Regarding the origin of life, I recently read the new book, “A New History of Life,” by Peter Ward and Joe Kirschvink. Although the exact origin of life is not fully understood, the framework is all there. It really is amazing as what has been discovered and worked out in the past few years. I really enjoyed the book. Life on Earth has been a 3.4 billion year journey to what we observe today. If anyone finds anything in this book to be contrary to present scientific understanding, please note it for discussion as their are folks on Biologos staff much more knowledgeable about the subject area than I am. But I enjoy the discussion and we all might learn something new.
Thank you very much Patrick for your kind answer and invitation to read “A New History of Life”.
I would like you to let me know you take on stasis, if possible.
Rgds.
The paper indicates that undirected evolution would require that 10^70 mutations would be required to generated a short protein. In a later critique, two alternatives are suggested: recombination and transposition. However, in this critique, the possibility of getting the beneficial results are posited, but no explanation is given as to why this would require fewer mutations. Just because a recombination could happen, does not by itself give justification for changing the real number of mutations required to generate the posssilities for recombination. Nor does it deal with the statistics of how many useless recombinations would be required to generate a useful one.
Mutations would be required in what, John? From where in the paper did you get that phrase?
ok partick. lets see. you claimed that a car cant add small changes. i dont think so. a birds can add small changes by defecation. a gum can stick to the car and so on. so a car can add small changes. again- like dogs and cats. so why you agree that a car cant evolve to somthing that isnt a car, but you agree that a dog can evolve into a something that isnt a dog?
“Do you have a better explanation of all the different forms of life on Earth?”-
yes. lets say that you are find a self replicating watch. but with a self replicating system and dna. do you agree that this kind of watch will be evidence for design?
about the paper- the author actually admit that is paper is very strong c ase for intelligent design. but not in the paper itself. we can check this paper even by a simple logic. lets say tat you want to made a sonar system. how many parts do you will need to make a minimal sonar system?
I really don’t know what you mean by stasis. Please explain what is meant by the term.
Evolution is about biology. Don’t see the connection between cars and dogs. Dogs evolved from wolves. All dogs alive today are decent from (evolved) from a population of Siberian Gray wolves that lived about 27,000 years ago in Siberia. How is this known? From analyzing the genomes of numerous living dogs and a single 27,000 year old bone of a now extinct gray wolf.
The authors of the paper does not make a strong case for intelligent design. Again you are making stuff up.
You want to talk a sonar system design? Sure let’s discuss as I have worked on sonar system design many years ago. You want to talk about the design of active sonar systems or passive?
How about bouncing sonar signals off of different layers of water based on the water’s salinity to extend it range?
In very few words stasis can be defined as “the longterm stability of fossil species, even through major environmental changes.” Gould. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, page 746.
In the page 749 Gould writes: “…the tale illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well–geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species…Most importantly, this tale exemplifies what may be called the cardinal and dominant fact of the fossil record, something that professional paleontologists learned as soon as they developed tools for an adequate stratigraphic tracing of fossils through time: the great majority of species appear with geological abruptness in the fossil record and then persist in stasis until their extinction. Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives.”
Gould is an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist and phylosopher, but these words are very surprising.
I advice you to find and read “The Structure…”
patrick. i just want to check the evolutionary logic first. and according to the evolution if we see small changes happaned then we can claim that over time small changes will become into a big change. so i show that this claim usnt true by the car example.
about the paper. this is what the authors said about is paper:
“In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.”
about the sonar system: lets say that you want to design a minimal sonar to a robot. so the robot will use it to navigate in a dark place or something. how many parts you will need to make a minimal sonar?
This seems to fit well with the many mass extinctions that occurred over the past 3.4 billion years. The fossil records track well with the abrupt stops caused by these mass extinction events followed by large, rapid diversification that fills in the ecological gaps that are left. I don’t find Gould’s words surprising at all. If he were alive today, he would enjoy reading about the latest discoveries in the ten major mass extinctions and the rapid diversification that followed.
The theme of stasis is not extintions but the longterm stability if species as a norm in the fossil record.
1 Like
A population of a given species will stay the same for long periods of time. The genome of algae has not changed much in billions of years. Change occurs over time from within the population of a particular species as a sub-population accumulates enough naturally selected random mutations that the sub-population is said to be a different species from the larger population. At some point in time, the sub-population will not be able to reproduce with members of the larger population and may look different when compared to the whole population.
Environmental changes in local areas across the planet is the driver of these changes. Sometime the environmental changes are catastrophic as in the case of the Snowball earth. Mass extinctions occurred, the species in populations that remained then over time diversified in unpredictable ways and again accumulate random mutations within sub-populations. A very simple process that produces “Endless forms most beautiful.”
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.