The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")

by Spook 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  drwtsn32

  The individual ‘facts’ of evolution are without support.

  How so?

  Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria. Bacteria have gained abilities they previously did not have. This is a fact.

  Atavisms occasionally manifest themselves. This is a fact. This goes against special creation but is actually predicted and supported by evolutionary theory.

  DNA contains genes (junk, retroviral, etc). This is a fact. It proves common descent, which again goes against creation but is supported by evolutionary theory.
• 

  Spook

  In the interest of substantiating Mad Dog's position, I'll respond to these

  Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria. Bacteria have gained abilities they previously did not have. This is a fact. Atavisms occasionally manifest themselves. This is a fact. This goes against special creation but is actually predicted and supported by evolutionary theory. DNA contains genes (junk, retroviral, etc). This is a fact. It proves common descent, which again goes against creation but is supported by evolutionary theory.

  He could make the case that the mechanism in some of these bacteria cases is horizontal gene transfer or some other sorting / selection mechanism.

  Atavisms, without further argumentation as support, are a judgement about a trait - as Mad Dog would probably argue - and would have to prove that it is an atavism. This theory requires additional construction

  (For Drwtsn, all of these I would accept, for the record, but do admit they are no prima facie evidence.)
• 

  sir82

  there would have to be a genetic bottleneck around 4,400 years ago.

  There have been very tight genetic bottlenecks in humanity's past.

  Biblical chronology requires a 4400 year old genetic bottleneck for virtually every species of animal life on earth, including hyper-evolution of one beetle "kind" into 350,000+ species today.

  Or else a "beetle-dinghy" towed behind the ark.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria. Bacteria have gained abilities they previously did not have. This is a fact.

  It is acknowledged on both sides of the issue that natural selection happens frequently and before our eyes. What has not been observed is the change of one species into what is clearly another species.

  Bacteria have a number of mechanisms to bring substances into its cell. If it loses a mechanism, it is no longer able to bring the corresponding substances in. Therefore that substance cannot harm it. Keep in mind that this is the result of loss of genetic information, not a gain. Just like albinoism is a loss of genetic information.

  Natural selection does not prove goo-to-you evolution any more than my jumping a mud puddle proves that I can jump the Grand Canyon in a single leap.

  Atavisms occasionally manifest themselves. This is a fact. This goes against special creation but is actually predicted and supported by evolutionary theory.

  Atavism per http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx

  1. reappearance of genetic feature: the recurrence of a genetically controlled feature in an organism after it has been absent for several generations, usually because of an accidental recombination of genes.

  In other words, it is the expression of genes that are already present. There is no new information or genes.

  DNA contains genes (junk, retroviral, etc). This is a fact. It proves common descent, which again goes against creation but is supported by evolutionary theory.

  To declare a gene ‘junk’, one must have absolute knowledge of all genes. We don’t have such knowledge. It would be much more accurate to state “We don’t know what this gene is for.” Basically the ‘vestigial argument’ on the DNA level.

  So far nothing is proven. The items that you have cited can point to either evolution or creation.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Spook said:

  1. The answer to the first one is 60 miles, the product of average velocity and time.

  2. The answer to the second one is 240 miles, the difference between the reading at B and A.

  3. The answer to the third one is not less than the product of 1.5 hours and the minimum average rate capable for the vehicle, and also not more than 12009 miles. Given many defensible assumptions about the nature of driving you could infer more knowledge out of these details. If you disagree with the not less than assumption, your question is clearly non-sensical if the driver had no net distance the query is linguistically false and has no meaning.

  Thank you for your response. The answers to the first two questions are correct. Simply put, the answer for the third is "We don't know." We can deduce a range, perhaps. But the bottom line is we don't know. In 1 and 2 we have complete information. In question 3 we have a rather large range of possibilities. If you don't think so, try walking that range.

  In the case of the Neanderthal, let's look at what we have versus what we need. Just as all of the information need not be present in a single case, per 1 and 2 above, it is instructive to recognize what we do or don't know.

  We Need	Do we have it?
  The current state of the human genome	Yes
  The rate of change of the human genome	No, the sample size is too small for the populations
  The original state of the human genome	No, we have no way of knowing
  The spec limits for what is human	No, although we have mapped the genome, we still don't know what it means
  The end state or the state at one point in time of the Neanderthal genome	No,we have mapped 63% of their genome from 3 skulls that had 95% foreign DNA
  The rate of change of the Neanderthal genome	No
  The original state of the Neanderthal genome	No
  The spec limits for what is a Neanderthal	No

  Frankly, we know too little too make any conclusions.
• 

  Spook

  This time I'll defend drwtsn32, since I'm not quite sure if Mad Dog was also addressing his conclsuionary comment at my remarks. I'll consider my points unrebutted unless I hear otherwise.

  Mad Dog said:

  What has not been observed is the change of one species into what is clearly another species.

  Here we arrive finally at one concrete claim made by Mad Dog. He asserts no speciation has been observed and assumes - without merit - that the observation of discreet prima facie speciation is both predicted by and necessary for confirming the evolutionary hypothesis. We will eventually see if Mad Dog has his own definition of species or not, and will further see why he believes that discreet speciation events should occur and be observable in his understanding of the theory of evolution.

  He then proceeds to claims of information theory - yet another branch of discourse having nothing to do with the OP - but one which I will happily address.

  As we sit, my conclusion for the first point of the 7 required remains unaddressed or contested.

  And again, I'm building the case slowly and specifically - also generally - because any one of these tangents could be a lengthy conversation in itself.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Spook said:

  He asserts no speciation has been observed and assumes - without merit - that the observation of discreet prima facie speciation is both predicted by and necessary for confirming the evolutionary hypothesis.

  My, my, you do love those straw men, don't you? Where have I said that speciation doesn't occur? It occurs within 'natural selection.'

  Speciation (from Encarta):

  formation of new species: the evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by one species that divides into two or more species that are genetically unique.

  The words species and speciation are not clearly defined. You should know as well as I do (I hope) that there is as much debate over what a species is as there is what a planet is. To clarify my intention, replace "clearly" with "unarguably."

  Where have I said: "...that the observation of discreet prima facie speciation is both predicted by and necessary for confirming the evolutionary hypothesis."?

  You would do well to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, rather than what you WISH I had wrote.
• 

  Spook

  We Need	Do we have it?	Problem
  The current state of the human genome	Yes	Don't really have it. Surprised you agreed to it.
  The rate of change of the human genome	No, the sample size is too small for the populations	The exact rate is irrelevant to the original analogy. Only the comparative rate, from variables was mattered.
  The original state of the human genome	No, we have no way of knowing	Not necessary, and as I have mentioned a shared assumption in the particular argument I'd make.
  The spec limits for what is human	No, although we have mapped the genome, we still don't know what it means	For me, no such spec limit exists. Yet another reason this was an anology with a specific target.
  The end state or the state at one point in time of the Neanderthal genome	We have mapped 63% of their genome from 3 skulls that had 95% foreign DNA	See above - not sure about your claims on the cases. Source?
  The rate of change of the Neanderthal genome	No	Again, by comparison to a hypothetical rate in the closed illustration.
  The original state of the Neanderthal genome	No	See above again.
  The spec limits for what is a Neanderthal	No	Again, no such spec limit exists. If evolution is true, it's a soft boundary and species classifications are inherently arbitrary.

  It's a bad example for the general argument that "more change than we observe is less likely to be the case than a similar amount or less." Furthermore, to say we cannot say what is not human from a sample genome is erroneous. I said before I would not have levied this against your position because I don't believe there is hypothetical amount of information about the Neanderthal genome which could prima facie convince you it was not human. For the sake of actually getting something meaningful accomplished, I retract this argument and will not raise it again. Enjoy it, you won't get many.

  Now, on to Mad Dog's example.

  Thank you for your response. The answers to the first two questions are correct. Simply put, the answer for the third is "We don't know." We can deduce a range, perhaps. But the bottom line is we don't know. In 1 and 2 we have complete information. In question 3 we have a rather large range of possibilities. If you don't think so, try walking that range.

  You're welcome. The answers to the first two may be correct, but cannot be proved in the way you seem to think, as I pointed out earlier - we simply don't know! in your words. If you wrote them in symbolics with a closed set of meaning, then this would be the case, but not as word problems. The answer to the third one gives more information than you're admitting.

  Listen, I know what you mean by these example, but it is erroneous to extrapolate this to other questions. If we were talking about light for example - or maybe that's where you're going. Why don't you come right out and say we can have no meaningful knowledge about the past? If light is observed at point X and travels at a known velocity, even in a vacuum, regardless of the observers location and velocity, from a known source, we know a great deal unless you engage in a counterfactual metaphysical argument.

  And hell, even if you don't think we can have knowledge about the past I can still prove it is rational to accept evolution in the present - just please say so.
• 

  drwtsn32

  What has not been observed is the change of one species into what is clearly another species.

  As was mentioned before, if you are asking to see one species "clearly" change into another species in front of your eyes, you're asking for something that is not possible and not predicted by evolution. The changes that we can see in front of our eyes (ie, that only take a few decades to manifest) are going to be small changes. You asking for something that evolution does not claim will happen and then not getting it is certainly not evidence against evolution.

  If it loses a mechanism, it is no longer able to bring the corresponding substances in. Therefore that substance cannot harm it. Keep in mind that this is the result of loss of genetic information, not a gain. Just like albinoism is a loss of genetic information.

  The example I am thinking of is where E. coli bacteria gained the ability to use citrate as an energy source.

  In other words, it is the expression of genes that are already present. There is no new information or genes.

  Correct, but this is proof of common descent. It is evidence against special creation.

  To declare a gene ‘junk’, one must have absolute knowledge of all genes. We don’t have such knowledge.

  My point is not about junk DNA per se, but that genetic sequences within our DNA (whatever they may be: junk, retroviral, etc.) are shared among ancestor species as predicted by evolution. For example, a retroviral sequence that appears in a specific part of the genome in one species would be inherited by descending species. Due to the highly random nature of when (and where) retroviruses inject their DNA, we would not expect to see that exact same retrovirus in exactly the same spot in a species located in a completely different "branch" of the evolutionary tree.
• 

  drwtsn32

  And about speciation: I have read of examples where speciation has been observed, but I don't think it would qualify to Mad Dawg as "clearly another species". As spook has mentioned, it can be difficult to even define what a species is and where the line is drawn.

  Usually when I hear a challeng like Mad Dawg's, people want to see drastic change quickly. That just doesn't happen. If it did, it would decimate the current theory of evolution.