Why Evolution?

I read some of the posts in this thread but not everyone. Please enlighten me with which scientific theory currently can better explain the life science on earth better than evolution? I will read up on it.

 

There are many seperate lines of evidence that converge on the conclusion that we are descended from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection. What you're saying is that it's not enough evidence for you. As far as the science is conerned, however, there is a very high degree of certainty for the aforementioned hypothesis. So, to indict evolution, you have to do one of the following:

1) Indict the scientific method itself
2) Indict the specific evidence as applied to the theory of evolution
3) Provide an alternative, scientific theory that better fits the evidence (intelligent design theories are not scientific)

 

Faith is fine but you cant pick and choose when to apply science.

You engage in skepticism by pointing out flaws in evolution by engaging in scientific analysis of evolution and then now you decide that science doesn't matter.

Look we can all choose to believe what we want but dont use science to justify ID/creationism. It doesnt work.

 

Scan the thread for my posts. I've outlined one such theory in a previous post of mine.

 

Actually there aren't, and that's the problem. I very much doubt that you'd be able to outline any such evidence, for example, and yet you are very convinced that it is there.

 

If you're saying that life was seeded from some extraterrestrial source (i.e. panspermia), your theory doesn't compete with evolution.

What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that some higher being has specifically intervened in the course of life on earth. If that were true, there should be some sign of this designer in the body of evidence. As it happens, there is no such sign. There are, however, many signs of common descent. Evolution is clearly better supported by the evidence.

Another important point is that your theory, while plausible, is both unnecessary (see: Occam's Razor) and untestable (what would constitute evidence for this designer?).

 

If you are referring to your terraform hypothesis, you do have to provide evidence to justify it. Otherwise it really is just a page from science fiction.

 

Your own personal incredulity really is irrelevant to the science at hand, but I'll give it a shot.

1) The fossil record's plethora of predictable intermediate forms.

2) Direct observation of evolutionary changes, like in the e. coli study we discussed.

3) The common genetic code shared by all life.

4) The common metabolic processes shared by all life.

5) Commonalities in "junk" DNA sequences.

6) Similarities in protein structures that are not essential to their function.


That's a good start. If you have any questions or doubts about these evidences as applied to the theory of evolution, we can delve deeper.

 

Who is 'we'?

Everything else you've said is completely the opposite from what I've even been taught in genetics and evolutionary biology, granted I haven't gone very deep in these fields as they were basic degree requirements, still...Evolution is constantly happening, even now...of course it takes quite some time from a 'phenotypic' standpoint to see a difference in a species...especially large multi-celluar animals like, say, humans. But it's basically fact that this is, and has been a naturally occuring process.

What 'scientific standpoint' states that evolution is far from being proven?

I know you're a very religious person and if you're a creationist, that's cool, just curious where you are getting your info when it comes to science regarding evolution.

 

No, that's not what I said. I am suggesting as one alternative hypothesis that a more advanced form of this might have occurred, and yes, it does compete with evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teraform

First of all, there is no reason to believe that any such evidence would have to be readily apparent to us, and you have made no argument to support your case. You claim to value science, and yet you are making a completely unscientific claim. Secondly, there is evidence. The gaps in the fossil record, the big jumps in the kinds of life and the complexity of life found on earth (see the Cambrian explosion), and the disappearance of certain kinds of life (i.e. the dinosaurs), are all consistent with a theory of staged engineering, and there are doubtless others as well. Your denial is again baseless and completely unscientific.

Again you make a completely unsupported claim. If you feel that evolution is clearly better supported by the evidence, then show it, and if you can't then stop saying that your position is a scientific one.

Unnecessary? What kind of scientific argument is that? It's not true, of course, because there are many reasons why such a discovery would be valuable to us, but again there is no science behind your argument period. On your last point, this theory is essentially as testable as evolution is.

Here's my question for you. Why don't you show real science proper respect? Clearly you don't respect it at all in your argumentation. I have a BSc., btw, and frankly I get really annoyed by people like you who don't respect scientific principles and yet who try to use the name of science to advance their non-scientific agendas.

 

Please read my post that was quoted in the one above yours. What we know of the fossil record is more consistent with a terraforming type theory than it is with evolution. If you want to know more about terraforming please feel free to look it up. You can start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraform

The fact of the matter is that it's an obvious alternative explanation. If we're thinking about and even planning to do this to some other planet at some point in the future, then how could we deny the possibility that some other life from might have done it to earth? Logically and scientifically it's an undeniable possibility, and yet you will see the hard core creationists and the hard core evolutionists alike desperately denying it and any other competing theory, and for the same reasons. They are the same animal but with different spots.

 

^As a BSG fan, I approve...

Seriously though, it'd be interesting to find junk that we didn't make on the moon. The moon's core is mostly solid. Preserving stuff there would be different than on the earth.

 

As far as I know evolution does not specify how life started. Let's say someone/thing/God/Alien seeded life on earth, evolution is still the theory that best explains how life evolved on earth. What does teffaforming have to say about the mechanism of how life form changes on earth? Does it make any theory on how the life forms will change?

Are you denying that we are similar to other primates even when we are extremely similar in genetic makeups?

 

Points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are entirely consistent with the theory that life on earth was engineered. The cause of point 2 is unknown at this point, but note that the 30,000 generations it took for that change to occur is a problem for the theory of evolution. The change that occurred is that this organism was able to digest a different food source. That is a significant, but still very small, change, and yet it took about 30,000 generations. 30,000 generations for humans represents about 750,000 years, for example, and that pace of change is incompatible with the time line. This doesn't mean that evolution has been disproven, of course, it just illustrates how big the holes in the current theory are. It's still a very interesting theory well worth pursuing, but there is certainly nothing here we could legitimately call proof.

 

There is no set pace for evolutionary change. There is no set catalyst for change. It's theoretically possible to make a disruptive change in one generation or have continuity through 30,000 generations.

Hence, there is no time line, other than the highly fragmented record of changes we are lucky enough to find in the fossil.

 

I didn't pick and choose. No one knows how life came here. You know that. Now, you're just being silly.

 

I believe the theory suggests that you would likely do it in stages. You’d create an atmosphere, and then perhaps seed it with plants and bugs. You’re trying to create self-sustaining ecosystems, which are very complex things, so you’d probably want to start with the simple things and then add more complex life forms later. Not everything is likely to work either. Maybe the dinosaurs ended up being a problem for some reason and the designers had to get rid of them and try something else, or maybe they were an important intermediate step for some reason. Maybe they served a purpose and then were eliminated and replaced with other life forms.

Studying evolution is not a bad thing, and in particular studying the way our genes work is a very useful thing, but there is no need to overstate the proof for the theory. Doing that is not good science, and it’s also not good for science to stifle alternative theories.

Not at all. In fact I'm saying that that's a likely way a designer would work. If you are a genetic engineer and your boss tells you to design life forms for planet X you'd probably reuse as much of the genetic code as you could, right? Why start from scratch every time if you don't have to? It would be best to have as much in common as possible, and then to just swap out the parts of the codes you needed to to create the kind of diversity you're looking for.

 

You do realize that this makes your theory entirely unscientific, right? Science is concerned only with the observable universe.

I'll take these one at a time, but first let me note that NONE of what you listed is evidence for a extraterrestrial designer/engineer. This is shown by the fact that you can replace the mechanism in your theory with any imaginary being without changing the substance of the theory itself. The nature of the "designer" is completely immaterial--it could be an alien, a god, a human sent back in time, anything.

If the gaps in the fossil record are evidences for your theory, then your theory is falsified every time we fill a gap. On the flip side, evolution is constantly making correct predictions as to how those gaps will be filled. Point for evolution! But seriously, this is a good starting point for debating the relative strength of competing theories. It just so happens that evolution has a really good track record in this area.

Sure, such a "jump" is certainly plausible under your hypothesis. But we still don't have any evidence that these jumps are being caused by some higher being. Contrast with evolution again, where we have directly observed the mechanism by which our theory operates (as in the e. coli study).

And they're all consistant with the theory of evolution, as well. The thing is, your theory really isn't a theory. There's no way to test the actual mechanism that your idea is based on. I could just as easily say that an invisible pink unicorn produces new kinds of life every time it takes a piss, explaining the so-called "jumps" in the types of life we observe. For my "theory" to hold any weight, though, we kind of have to find some indication that the invisible pink unicorn exists in the first place.

Dude, I just posted a list of seperate lines of evidence that converge on the conclusion that all life on earth has a common ancestor. If you have a problem with something on that list, post a clear objection that I can actually respond to.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? If not, I suggest you read the wiki I linked to. Even if you have heard of it, read the wiki. You clearly don't understand it.

Yes, as would the discovery that an invisible pink unicorn pisses out new forms of life.

Please give me one testable prediction that your theory makes. Evolution makes many such predictions, so your burden is pretty high.

With all due respect to you and your framed piece of paper, you clearly have little understanding of what science actually is (and is not).

 

Well if terraforming had a proof of concept, that alone would make it as credible as the cell origin hypotheses, if not more.