What is the Evidence for Evolution?


#1

Using whales as an example, this “Stated Clearly” video explains how multiple lines of evidence point to evolution.

What is the Evidence for Evolution?


Can the age of the earth be a litmus test for what "counts" as science?
(George Brooks) #2

What a Great Find, @beaglelady !!!

It combines multiple lines of evidence, with analysis of all sorts of exemplars that Whales provide.

This is a quality exhibit!


(William DeJong) #3

Hi Beaglelady,

You asked: “What is the evidence for evolution?” In order to answer your question, it is necessary to disentangle two completely different types of change: Variation and Innovation. In current evolutionary theory these two types of change are confused with each other, resulting in the 7 key problems mentioned below.

Key Problems in the theory of evolution

(1) Two completely different types of change (variation and innovation) are confused

The theory of evolution in its current form confuses two totally different kinds of change: variation and innovation.

Variation = the change of a (biological) system in its parameters, mathematically represented as (a1, a2) → (b1, b2).

Innovation = the change of a (biological) system in its dimensions, mathematically represented as: (a1, a2) → (b1, b2, b3).

The mathematical representation of variation and innovation shows that billions variations of a (biological) system for billions of years, can not lead to the innovation of that system.

(2) Two completely different mechanisms of change are confused

The mechanism in living nature for the realization of variations (= the variation-motor) consists of: gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase, and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action. By the variation motor living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances. An example of the results of variation motor is the change of the beaks of finches.

The presumed mechanism for the creation of innovations (= the innovation motor) consists of the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations.

In science, a theory where two completely different mechanisms play a role, will be formulated more accurately sooner or later by distinguishing these different mechanisms and the associated empirical phenomena. This will also happen to the theory of evolution.

(3) Changes in the DNA cause cancer and genetic diseases, not continual improvement

Cancer research proves unambiguously that mutations of the DNA cause genetic diseases and cancer. Cancer research also proves that cancer is a severe disadvantage in the struggle for life. In every cell, every day hundreds of thousands of mutations of the DNA occur, which are fortunately largely repaired by mutation repair mechanisms, for the discovery of which the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded in 2015. In addition, the passing of code expanding mutations to the offspring is counteracted by sexual reproduction.

A population with dysfunctional mutation repair accumulates in its gene pool the material with which, in theory, new functionalities might arise after about 1000 generations. But the population will get extinct within a few generations, because it will lose the struggle for survival with a population that posesses well functioning mutation protection. As a consequence the theoretical future innovations of the DNA disappear within a few generations. Therefore, the innovation engine can only function in theory; not in reality.

(4) The empirical evidence for evolution by the variation engine are used as proof for the functioning of the innovation engine.

Evolution exists, as living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances, by the variation motor. However, the empirical evidence of the variation motor (for example, the change in the beaks of finches or the changes in the appearance of horses, dogs or bats) is unjustly used as evidence that the innovation motor can function. All empirical data on (code expanding) non-repairable mutations show that they lead to cancer and hereditary diseases and severe selective disadvantage. The innovation motor therefore operates only in theory. This is reflected by the fossils archive in which intermediate forms are missing. All fossils look like the organisms look today, with the same variations in appearance as today (large horses, small horses; large beaks, small beak; etc). Also ‘living fossils’ that have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, show that the innovation motor does not work.

(5) Natural processes are processes of decay and cannot innovate.

Natural processes (e.g. caused by: solar radiation, lightning, radiation from space, meteorites, rain, wind) are processes of decay that will disintegrate eventually any complex structure. Natural processes can vary the parameters of a system, but cannot innovate a system and expand the information content and energy content of a system. If this would be really possible, then energy would become available for free and the chemical industry would have to close down.

6. An alchemistic view of matter lays at the basis of the theory of evolution

The current theory of evolution assumes that (organic) molecules possess an intrinsic desire to organize themselves to increasingly complex structures, and that gain in complexity is a natural process. This alchemistic view of matter is diametrically opposed to the fundamental properties of our reality and the physical laws that describe this reality. In matter no hidden power is present, and every complex structure of matter decays sooner or later by natural processes into the smallest possible units and towards the lowest possible energy level. Any difference in elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, tension, will equalize sooner or later by natural processes, according to the natural laws for elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, stress.

7. The theory of evolution can not explain the existence of mutation repair mechanisms.

In 2015 the Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the mutation repair mechanisms that repair the hundreds of thousands of mutations of DNA that occur daily in every cell. An important part of these mutations is caused by ‘oxidative deamination’, which makes the letters of the genetic code to be unreadable, such as the letters on a receipt gradually become unreadable by the oxidation of the ink. Fortunately, the rubbing out of the genetic code is actively repaired by detection of the damaged letter and subsequently repaired using the backup information on the other DNA strand. The repair of oxidative deamination cannot be explained by the theory of evolution because Logic prevents mutations to produce mutations repair (a process that accomplishes M cannot not simultaneously produce Conversely-M). Also according to the laws of chemistry, it is impossible that mutations can bring about mutation repair because oxidation can not produce reduction. On the question how the mutation repair mechanisms have originated, scientists must answer: “We do not know (yet).” Such an answer is perfectly normal and accepted in every branch of science, and is the driving force for any scientific research. This answer is not a “science stopper” but a "science driver.

Secondary problems.

For 12 secondary problems in current evolutionary theory, see:
http://www.evoskepsis.nl/english/problems.html


Information = Entropy
#4

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense to me.


Can mutations produce mutation repair systems?
(Benjamin Kirk) #5

William,

I think you need to spend more time understanding evolutionary theory before attacking it.[quote=“WilliamDJ, post:3, topic:35086”]
Variation = the change of a (biological) system in its parameters, mathematical represented as (a1, a2) → (b1, b2).[/quote]
Incorrect. Variation in an evolutionary context refers to the genetic variation in a population, which is measurable and real. What you and many others (George Brooks!) don’t understand is that for diploids like us, most evolution acts upon this existing reservoir of variation–on new combinations (recombination), not the new mutations which they greatly outnumber.

When a species loses that reservoir of genetic variation, it is endangered. If you think the whole thing is driven by mutations, you should be arguing against any need to save species such as cheetahs.

Incorrect. Populations of diploids aren’t sitting around waiting for new mutations.

You’re eliding the equally important fact that without existing variation, populations become extinct. You see, there’s an optimum!

I’m very skeptical that you’ve examined all the relevant empirical data.

False.


(Stephen Matheson) #6

Essentially every word was false.


(William DeJong) #7

Evolution is a change process of small steps. With simple math, I pointed out that two completely different types of evolutionary change exist: variation and innovation. As a consequence the question: “What is the evidence for evolution?” can only be answered after distinguishing these two types of evolutionary change and their corresponding empirical evidence. In current evolutionary theory both types of evolutionary change and their empirical evidence are confused. Notice that the articulation of a theory belongs to the core business of science. Bashing the articulation of evolutionary theory is unscientific.


(Larry Bunce) #8

Saying that mutations only cause cancer and hereditary disease is like saying that because some humans kill each other, humans can’t love.


(Stephen Matheson) #9

I encourage you to read the scientific literature to see if your ideas fit in any way into scientific discourse.


(George Brooks) #10

@WilliamDJ

There are three categories of Easy proof of Evoluton… if you choose to ignore them, the onus is on you:

  1. the multiple lines of evidence showing whales and hippos share common descent.

  2. the multiple lines of evidence which shows Australia’s life forms are completely incompatible with a Young Earth.

  3. and the present reality of Ring Species… which demonstrate that as various sub-populations differentiate from a common ancestral group that reproductive compatibility is significantly impaired to the point where there is virtually a new “kind” of life form living at one end of the population gradient that is basically incompatible with the genetically distinct group living at the other end of the population gradient.

If you don’t get it … you never will.


#11

Youtube’s Potholer54 has a great video were he explains how even Kent Hovind had come to agree with the idea of evolution—as long the word is avoided:

I sometimes use that video as an example of directly observing macroevolution today, because a North American rabbit species has diversified to where Florida rabbits of that species can’t/won’t breed with Canadian rabbits (I think it was) but rabbits living in the Midwest can breed with both.

Of course, the science-denialists will say, “But that’s not evolution. They are still rabbits. No rabbit turned into an elephant.”

And that explains why it is virtually impossible to find anyone to actually debate the evidence for evolution: The denialists never know what evolution is. It almost always comes down to straw man arguments.


My General Disavowal of all Threads "Rabbit"
The mathematical probability of Evolution?
My theory about the Flood
Biological Information and Intelligent Design: New functions are everywhere
(William DeJong) #12

Not any scientist will put his/her genitals under an X-ray machine to improve and expand the DNA of his/her offspring with new functionalities. This empirical fact disproves the theory that mutations of the DNA can improve and expand the DNA. According to the playing rules of empirical science, this theory must be rejected.

In the peer reviewed Open Evolution Journal, DeJong and Degens have made a distinction between two completely different mechanisms of evolutionary change; see: “The evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes: a mutation protection perspective” at http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf

(1) The mechanism of: gene regulation and the recombination of gene variants and selection. By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action.
(2) The mechanism of: the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations. By this mechanism the length of the DNA increases. The mechanism is antagonized by the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell.

The mechanism ad.1 can be denoted as ‘the variation motor’; the mechanism ad.2 as ‘the innovation motor’ of evolution.

By the variation motor, living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances. An example of the results of variation motor is the change of the beaks of finches, or the change of the tails of whales.
By the innovation motor, it is thought that a bacterium can transform into a human being, over billions of years. Cancer research however proves unambiguously that mutations of the DNA cause genetic diseases and severe disadvantage in the struggle for life. Therefore, the innovation motor can only function in theory; not in reality.

The consequence of the scientific fact that two completely different mechanisms play a role in evolutionary theory, is that the empirical evidence for the existence of the variation motor cannot be used as evidence for the existence of the innovation motor. For example, the change of the beaks of finches or the tails of whales, cannot be used as proof that a bacterium can change into a human being if you wait long enough.

Note that the articulation of theories is core business for scientists.

Evolution exists. Don’t worry. Populations continuously adapt to changing circumstances by the mechanism of gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection (the variation motor).

Evolution exists! But science teaches us that there are two completely different types of evolutionary change:

Variation = the change of a (biological) system in its parameters, mathematically represented as (a1, a2) → (b1, b2).

Innovation = the change of a (biological) system in its dimensions, mathematically represented as: (a1, a2) → (b1, b2, b3).

The question: “What is the evidence for evolution?” can only be answered after distinguishing these two types of evolutionary change and their corresponding empirical evidence. In current evolutionary theory both types of evolutionary change and their empirical evidence are confused. Articulation of the theory of evolution is a scientific necessity.


(George Brooks) #13

@WilliamDJ

I think it would help if you provided a case or example for each kind of evolutionary change. What have you to share


(William DeJong) #14

The mechanism in living nature for the realization of variations (= the ‘variation motor’) consists of: gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase, and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action. By the variation motor living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances.
_Example_s: the change of the beaks of finches observed by Darwin; or the change in the appearance of whales, dogs, horses, rabbits, chickens, beans, tomatoes, cabbages, wheat, tulips, orchids, daisies, ants, spiders, flies, worms, algae, bacteria, etc.

The presumed mechanism for the creation of innovations (= the ‘innovation motor’) consists of the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf . By this mechanism the length of the DNA increases, as well as its information and energy content.
The innovation motor, however, is antagonized by the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell. Therefore the innovation motor can only function in a population with dysfunctional mutation repair, resulting in Syndrome of Down like deviations, which expand the length of the DNA, combined with a high presence of cancer and hereditary diseases, which are caused by unrepaired mutations. In such a population, the gene pool will accumulate the material with which, in theory, new functionalities may arise after about 1000 generations. According to Darwin, however, this population will get extinct within a few generations, because Syndrome of Down like deviations, cancer and hereditary diseases are a severe selective disadvantage. As a consequence the theoretical future innovations of the DNA will disappear within a few generations. Therefore, the innovation engine can transform a bacterium into a human being only in theory, not in reality. Reports of the discovery of new genes that were created by the innovation motor are based on computer simulations of the transformation of the DNA of a bacterium into the DNA of a human being by the innovation motor, not on empirical evidence.

Science teaches us:

1. The variation motor does not expand the length of the DNA. Therefore the variation motor cannot expand the DNA of a bacterium into the DNA of a human being. Waiting for trillions of years cannot do the trick.

2. Empirical evidence for the existence of the variation motor cannot be used as empirical evidence for the existence of the innovation motor.


#15

I am pretty much a rank amateur when it comes to evolution, but based on the little that I do know this sure looks wrong to me.


(Lynn Munter) #16

Why on earth would a mutation have to be BOTH instantly advantageous AND code-expanding? There’s tons of examples of one or the other, I don’t understand why you would require them simultaneously???

Just by way of the first analogy off the top of my head, babies first grow a lot of random neurons and then pare them down so they’re useful. I’m sure you could think of many similar examples if you wanted.


#17

I had exactly the same reaction.

And there are plenty of mutations which are not “instantly advantageous”----and whether or not they are “code-expanding” probably depends on what William means by that.


#18

Seriously? I want to believe that you are making a joke----because that is incredibly illogical. If that is your “reasoning”, I really can’t justify reading any further.

So…please. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please clarify that that is not how you reason. (I really don’t care if you deny the Theory of Evolution. Lots of people deny it. But I do care if you make decisions in this manner.)


(Larry Bunce) #19

The innovation engine does not necessarily add to the length of DNA. The human DNA sequence is actually shorter than that of many plants and “lesser” animals.

Most mutations have no effect one way or the other, so they are neither selected for or against. An organism with a particular mutation may eventually acquire another mutation that when combined with the first one produces an advantage. A neutral mutation can, by chance, disappear in time, so the beneficial change will have to happen fairly soon after the neutral one. We of the EC mindset believe that God will insure that beneficial change will happen, even if the processes seem random to humans, and the chances for success seem to approach zero.


(William DeJong) #20

Maybe you can learn something new. Science teaches us that there is not one type of evolutionary change, but two types: variation and innovation. In living nature, each type is driven by a completely different mechanism. Please start reading from the beginning of this thread to get more scientific information.

There are tons of examples http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic that mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases, which produce severe selective disadvantage. The nasty disease Cistic Fibrosis, for example, is caused by the mutation of only 1 nucleotide in the so-called CFTR-gene of 1480 nucleotides. It is a myth that the DNA can flexibly absorb non repairable mutations without detriment to the organism, and that after thousands of generations the accumulation of these non repairable mutations will result in beneficial expansions of the functionality of an organism. The change of a bacterium into a human being requires instantly advantageous code expanding mutations. Such mutations, however, are antagonized by the mutation repair systems in every cell and by sexual reproduction.

Long ago, people believed that the earth was flat and that the sun was spinning around the earth. Empirical science has erased that belief in about 150 years. Today, many people believe that mutations improve the DNA and expand it with new functionalities. Empirical science will erase that belief too, because cancer researchers have found that mutations are the cause of cancer and hereditary diseases http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic . Fortunately, the hundreds of thousands mutations that occur every day in every cell are antagonized by mutation repair systems (Nobel Prize Chemistry 2015). Not any scientist in the world, nor you, will put his/her genitals under an X-ray machine to bless his future children with improved DNA. The theory that mutations produce improvement of the DNA is clearly contradicted by empirical evidence ( your refusal to mutate your own DNA, and the refusal of any scientist). Therefore, this theory must be rejected according to the playing rules of empirical science. Only in wonderland, mutations produce improvement in stead of cancer and hereditary diseases. Fortunately, living nature does not need mutations to adapt to changing circumstances, because empirical science teaches us that living nature adapts to changing circumstances by recombination of gene variants and selection and by gene regulation. http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf