On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation...

he would certainly trigger more than a few folks. gotta remember that he stepped on some pretty powerful toes back in his day too, though.

quote:

---

I don't believe in the theory of evolution

---

You could've just said "I'm an idiot." You would've used less words.

Speciation or "evolution in action" is an empirical fact sport. Start with ring species. It is an observable, documented phenomena. Cool stuff.

Incidentally, how old do you believe the earth is?

quote:

---

fact that DNA is essentially a directory molecule. It requires RNA for protein expression. And RNA requires DNA for expression. People point to genetic material in RNA, but the premise is the same.

---

That's like arguing a mobile phone can't exist because you need radio towers for them, and no one will build cell towers without cell phones already there.

And yet, here we are.

Wonder if there is a chemical analogue to that chicken and egg argument.....

quote:

---

the 2nd law of thermodynamics

---

What are the boundaries of the applicable closed system in this case?

You're describing natural selection, which is the mechanism evolution operates under. I agree that natural selection is verifiable. However, the cohesive theory of evolution currently depends on things that are not verifiable.

For instance, its hypothesized that the prokaryotic cell was a precursor to the eukaryotic cell. Yet, there's not any evidence of prokaryotic cells "becoming" eukaryotic cells. You'll say that they didn't "become" eukaryotic cells. It's just the transition from an apoxic environment to a more oxygen rich selected for cells that had mitochondria.

But, the cells with mitochondria that could undergo aerobic metabolism had to predate the oxygen rich environment and at some point there had to be a "development" of what would be defined as precursors to eukaryotic cells. I'd say take some prokaryotic cells in an apoxic environment and see if the develop the machinery to develops to undergo aerobic metabolism. You'll say they were part of the transition and we can't "know" what the transition was like in the primordial soup environment.

And that's the point. Several fundamental concepts are not verifiable in evolutionary theory because if you take obligate anaerobes and expose them to oxygen, they don't suddenly develop the machinery to undergo aerobic metabolism. They die. I agree we don't know what the theoretical atmosphere would be like, but that's more reason the theory is not verifiable.

Just because Darwin was smart enough (and he admittedly was) to explain Natural Selection as a concept does not make every word he wrote or spoke afterward involving the subject of Natural Selection fact or truth.

quote:

---

You're describing natural selection

---

No I am not. Although I'll grant that to a novice the profound difference might seem like semantics.

Allelic frequencies are referring to the genotypic distribution of a population.

Natural selection are when an organism's phenotype, integrated with the conditions of the organism's environment, results in changes in the organism's genotype over generations.

It is possible for genotypic frequencies to change dramatically without the outward phenotypes experiencing similar significant change. And it is possible for phenotype differences to have absolutely nothing to do with the reproductive outcome, which is 100% required for natural selection.

Again, my earlier statement is the definition of evolution.

There are a LOT of forces involved of which natural selection is only one. Furthermore, these other forces aren't vague biologist hand waving: they are simply common sense applied to reality.

Example: Founder effects (another distinct evolutionary force), if a small population colonizes a new place, that groups genotype and phenotype will be representative of the new population, even if it is radically different from the host genotype and phenotype frequencies.

quote:

---

For instance, its hypothesized that the prokaryotic cell was a precursor to the eukaryotic cell. Yet, there's not any evidence of prokaryotic cells "becoming" eukaryotic cells.

---

quote:

---

You'll say that they didn't "become" eukaryotic cells. It's just the transition from an apoxic environment to a more oxygen rich selected for cells that had mitochondria.

---

Where are you getting this stuff?

Seriously, you seem like you received some education on the subject, enough to know the words at least, but the source comes across like it came from some hack anti evolution website.

Okay.


Lets first restate that this is an example that you gave that evolution has too many holes to be considered a cohesive explanation.

First, the statement of no evidence of prokaryotic cells "becoming" eukaryotic cells.

Then explain the following, because the current wide spread explanation is that eukaryotic cells arose from an event where a prokaryotic cell attempted to ingest another prokaryotic cell by phagocytosis, a process that is common today and is in fact occurring in your body right this second:

1) Why is the genetic material of your mitochondria distinct from the larger cell?

2) Why is the genetic material of your mitochondria is in a distinct format from the larger cell, using a style more typical in bacteria rather than higher organisms?

3) Why is the very genetic code of your mitochondria different from those of the larger cell?

Let me emphasize the point: if you take the genes of your mitochondria, and attempted to express them with the other genes the higher organism has, it will be fragmentary nonfunctional nonsense.

4) Why does the mitochondria replicate independently from the cell?

5) Best one of all: Why does the mitochondria have a constant gun to the host cell's head? So that if it experiences an attempt to kill it, it will "suicide bomb" the larger cell, killing both. The multi cellular organisms exploit this process as part of an immunological reaction against viral infections or cancer.

It all fits according to evolutionary theory. The only hang up is the lack of observed data for it, which is why it is only a hypothesis. But hypothesis doesn't mean wrong, or even a weak argument. It just means you haven't disproven everything else.

As you feel it is wrong, please give your own explanation that fits the data.

And it bears mentioning that in these types of discussions, its a self fulfilling prophecy regarding observable proof. We are talking about systems that are over a billion years from their formulative steps, that could have happened anywhere on the planet. But if any data comes from a lab, the immediate response was "well, yeah, in a lab" as if a scientist needs to observe it spontaneously occur in a volcanic pond on the other side of the planet for it to be admissible.

quote:

---

You'll say that they didn't "become" eukaryotic cells. It's just the transition from an apoxic environment to a more oxygen rich selected for cells that had mitochondria.

---

I don't know anyone knowledgeable that would say this.

You don't need mitochondria to survive or even thrive in an oxygen rich environment. Many organisms do excellently without them and still utilize oxygen. Also, for that matter, there is no requirement for mitochondria to exist in its current form for us to get the same level of efficiency. It could have just as easily been integrated to other organelles, or maybe even a sub layer in the cell structure.

So this:

quote:

---

But, the cells with mitochondria that could undergo aerobic metabolism had to predate the oxygen rich environment and at some point there had to be a "development" of what would be defined as precursors to eukaryotic cells. I'd say take some prokaryotic cells in an apoxic environment and see if the develop the machinery to develops to undergo aerobic metabolism.

---

Is complete contrived bullshite.

quote:

---

And that's the point. Several fundamental concepts are not verifiable in evolutionary theory because if you take obligate anaerobes and expose them to oxygen, they don't suddenly develop the machinery to undergo aerobic metabolism. They die. I agree we don't know what the theoretical atmosphere would be like, but that's more reason the theory is not verifiable.

---

I won't pretend that I can sit and explain every idea.

Because while you chose a very very poor example that shows you have a lot to learn about the subject you say is wrong, a broken clock is right twice a day. But just because we can't explain everything right now, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

Especially considering that nothing you have described thus far in this thread, even if accurate, wouldn't have discounted evolution in the slightest. Not knowing the exact process of the origin of life doesn't mean a damned thing regarding speciation events and adaptation. It just means I don't know.

Oh, and because you seem to be going the way of arguing that sudden development of new function doesn't happen, you are wrong by the way. Plenty of observed examples.

In keeping in the theme of my strength of the topic of conversation so far, read up on the spontaneous redevelopment of the lac operon in bacteria after they deleted it from the code.