by gubberningbody 66 Replies latest jw friends
I see people take positions all day long and I rather suspect both sides are woefully ignorant.
I read and hear people speak of the volumes of data pro or con and when I ask for specific examples of what each may be referring to, I am often met with silence.
I have researched Evolution quite a bit and consider myself pretty knowledgeable, for a non-evolutionary biologist. Of course there is much I don't know about the topic, and many things are quite complex and I don't remember all the details. Evolution, like many topics, is one of those things where the more you study it, the deeper and more complex you realize it is.
I see it all the time though.... someone fighting the theory of evolution in a debate and it is clear they have no real knowledge of it. The JW's are a perfect example. They think the books the WTS publishes on Evolution give them a good knowledge of it. They couldn't be more wrong, yet they are extremely confident that they can defeat the theory in a debate.
It would be better to learn what your opponent truly believes before debating him/her, but that takes more effort than what most are willing to put into it. Those debates are pretty worthless...
i am not a biologist but have educated myself quite a lot about evolution the past six months. if you want destilled, well-researched evidence, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . i study information theory and have recently written about information geometry, so i know with high certainty there is no basis for the specific claim that evolutionary processes cannot increase information.
(bring it on, jw apologists, i love to talk about math ;-) )
So far no one has said anything to the question put.
So far no one has said anything to the question put.
Well, I'm a little fuzzy on what you are trying to accomplish here, but I will give it a go...
Without refreshers from Googleing, I can think of three "mechanisms" that have the
end result of evolving, over time, a population of reproducing lifeforms:
Natural selection:
The simple idea that ANY variation between specific members of a generation
has a chance of effecting the likelihood of that individual successfully
procreating in thier particular enviroment and genetic peer group.
Therefore, traits that increase procreation potential tend to be passed
on to the next generation.
Given a changing environment, this will cause dramatic change over time.
Genetic drift:
Honestly, I am fuzzy on this. My understanding is that it has to do with
variation in traits that are effectively survival/procreation NEUTRAL, and
therefore are free to evolve randomly without pressure in any partucular
direction.
Sexual selection:
A subset mechanism of natural selection, this is specifically referring
to traits that propagate not because of a direct survival advantage,
but instead because of some quirk or whim of preference of potential
sexual partners. The classic example is the peacocks tail. It is actually
a survival HANDICAP, because it is big and expensive and awkward and
visible, but it survived and in fact increased in size over the generations
because females happened to have a preference for males with flashy tails.
(one theory WHY is that it is a "proof of health" parasite wise, and "wealth"
food-wise)
So sexual selection involves a trait that may not improve the survivability
of the individual, but does increases its reproductive success.
Ok, that was without the use of Google or any reference of any kind...
Feel free to point out the many likely errors!
:)
[inkling]
What do you know "without googling" about the reputed mechanisms for evolution?
The universe, at a very basic level, seems to be geared for the spontaneous self assembly of simple things into more complex things. More complex things combine into yet more complex things. And as the complexity increases, under the right conditions some things can make more of themselves.
Subatomic particles turn into atoms. Atoms into molecules, molecules into bigger molecules. Bigger molecules into self replicating molecules.
Complex things that are capable of replication selfishly make more of themselves. Subtle variations lead to different levels of fitness in terms of sustaining replication. More successful replicators drown out less successful ones. And so on: Self replicating molecules combine into prokaryotic cells. Prokaryotes combine into eukaryotes, and eukaryotes combine into multi cellular organisms. Multicellular organisms combine into cooperative communities of multicellular organisms.....and so on.
You can take all the base proteins of a T4 bacteriophage (virus) agitate them in a test tube, and the proteins will self assemble into a T4 bacteriophage.
Seriously.
Those that oppose evolution based on evidence have lost the debate. The evidence is not there.
Spntaneous complexity. It is the way the Universe works. It is like a one way ratchet over time.
That is not all I know, but it is a start.
BTS
You really don't know what you're talking about, BTS.
inkling... nice but neither one of you get it yet.
Gubberning: What exactly are you looking for? Maybe you could be more specific as to what you want because I thought Inkling did a pretty good job of answering your question.
Inkling nicely stated three of the many forces that power evolution. Those forces work on the "raw material" of genetic mutation. And as Burntheships pointed out, there seems to be a predeliction in the universe toward complexity, not away from it. The evidence for evolution, which includes among other things transitional features, transition fossils, the record of change found in pseudogenes as well as observed speciation both in the wild and in the lab, is diverse, convergent and overwhelming.
Here's a simplified illustration of genetic drift: A group of people leave their home and sail to another land. They meet with disaster at sea and only half of the people make it to the new land. By coincidence, all the survivors happen to have blue eyes. Therefore, while the proportion of blue eyes relative to other colors was only 50% of the original group, it is now 100% of the surviving group and therefore 100% of the genetic stock that will reproduce at the new land. As Inkling said, it's basically how chance, unencumbered by fitness, sexual selection or other factors, can affect the genetic "raw material" of a given population and, hence, their offspring.
It's a process that is supposed to take thousands, if not millions of years. We've been studying it for about 150. Give us some time and we may know something.
Cad - The answer is very simple.
The fact that people don't know the basic processes involved in evolution and have instead shot-gunned answers has so far confirmed what I've long suspected.
It's really pretty pathetic, actually.
