DNA Analysis proves evolution

Tim the plumber wrote: I am not after the scientific definition. I am after yours. The problem you will have is that whatever definition you use I can give you examples where there is a species just about to passover the line or has just passed over it. Those examples are the direct evidence you ask for. I cannot do that untill we agree what definition of species to use. I am happy to use which ever definition you wish to. It will not matter. There will always be loads of examples.If you are after an experiment to do in your own kitchen I can describe that as well.

I have already given the species definition before and if you think that definition proves evolution despite the fact that TE has no scientific observational or experimental evidence--then you are free to keep your beliefs, as I already mentioned that I have no problems with what people choose to believe.

Quranexplorer wrote: Hi Tim, Even I wish I could have a shorter turnaround time with my responses. But with the current demands it's simply not possible for me to respond quicker. The problem with the definition of biological terms like species is that they basically take the very basis for these definitions from the theory of evolution itself. So: 1. How can these definitions be an independent evidence for the theory? 2. What we need are real repeatable experimental or observational evidences and not theoretical definitions as evidences. Tim the plumber wrote: QE,You have written a lot but not answered my question; How do you define species?Your bringing in examples of human behaviour which do not seem to fit with a 100% competetive world is reasonable. But this is studied by science. The advantages of cooperation and in being trusted and like by your fellows very often out weigh any short term advantage. This is a big subject in the science of behavioural evolution. The defining species thing is the most important bit though. Once you choose a definition you will see that it will never really work and automatically produces the evidence you keep asking for.

I am not after the scientific definition. I am after yours.

The problem you will have is that whatever definition you use I can give you examples where there is a species just about to passover the line or has just passed over it.

Those examples are the direct evidence you ask for. I cannot do that untill we agree what definition of species to use. I am happy to use which ever definition you wish to. It will not matter. There will always be loads of examples.

If you are after an experiment to do in your own kitchen I can describe that as well.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 06 April 2015 at 3:20am

Quranexplorer wrote: 1.     When we talk about observational evidences, you say it�s not possible as allegedly the theory assumes these changes happen in millions of years�so for whatever reason, we don�t have any observational evidence.

I'm saying that it's not possible to directly observe evolution from one species ("creature"?) to another because that would take millions of years.  Anyone who claims to have done so in a lab would be talking about some other process, e.g. genetic engineering, but not evolution.

2.     When we talk about experimental evidence, you say it�s not possible for 1) thanks to the millions of years assumption 2) you think it�s actually counter to the theory(?)�so for whatever reason, we don�t have experimental evidence.

When did I say that?  There is plenty of experimental evidence that evolution happens.  However, these experiments can only be done on a relatively small scale (minor adaptations).  It would take millions of years for these minor adaptations and mutations to accumulate to the point where the beginning and ending animals could be considered different species, i.e., to the point where they are so different that successful interbreeding would be impossible.

3.     Now coming to the transitional fossils which was the biggest worry for Darwin, still remains a worry as there are no credible signs of such a thing.

Please read the Wikipedia entry on transitional fossils, which gives an excellent explanation along with lots of examples.

Based on the above facts when I say TE is just a theory, you say even gravitation is a theory�but again that argument doesn�t stand as gravitation has clear observational and experimental evidence to its credit.

We still can't directly observe gravity waves.  And although we can measure the gravitational attraction between to large objects in a lab, no one has directly measured the gravitational attraction between planets or between the sun and the earth.  I suppose it's still possible that God, not gravity, keeps the heavenly bodies in their orbits exactly as if gravity were doing so, but without universal gravitation.  So maybe universal gravitation is "just a theory" too.

Then you say leave all these evidences and just look at the DNA evidence, which as I explained earlier is not an independent proof as it�s just a mathematical model based on the assumptions under the very TE which it tries to prove.

Yes, and the law of universal gravitation is just a mathematical model too.

What is surprising though is the visible double standards of the proponents of TE�they would fight with tooth and nail and ask for proofs when someone says the visible signs around us clearly points to an ultimate creator, but have no qualms whatsoever to accept a theory with no proofs at all as fact!

The God hypothesis requires an extraordinarily high standard of proof because it is an extraordinary claim, i.e. it hypothesizes a Being utterly unlike anything in the natural world.  Also, it is merely a hypothesis, not a proper theory.  A theory should actually explain something to be taken seriously.  Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it just gives a name to our ignorance.

Now coming to the subjective part on reasoning, is it not surprising that a book 1400 years ago, wherever it agrees with modern science when it makes any scientific references gets it absolutely spot on, and wherever it differs from modern science, the modern science is left wanting for proofs and with serious criticisms�in all these there are signs for those choose to think in the right direction.

The Quran is full of errors and inconsistencies.  I actually mentioned one just this afternoon.  Or just Google "Quran errors" and take your pick.  

Come on, you made a statement on the theory, I just restated it in more explicit terms and then you come with an explanation that your earlier statement was in fact not correct and then you blame it on my understanding�in fact it seems the whole thing just shows a lack of your understanding or your inability to state things unambiguously�anyway, I won�t waste time on such discussions as I think people tend to divert to such discussions when they face a massive lack of real arguments.

No, your restatement shows that you don't know the difference between evolution and Lamarckism.  No non-human ever became a human.  It would make more sense to say that a non-human gave birth to a human.  But that would be wrong too, for the reason I have already explained: species transition takes millions of years and is never accomplished in a single generation.

1.     You say mutation is not an assumption under evolution�you are wrong, it is.

Random mutations are not an assumption.  They are an observed fact.  Are you doubting that mutations take place?

2.     If you say the evolutionary changes happens in millions of years which in fact depend on mutations and then you say the evolutionary changes can neither be observed and nor be experimentally shown�then how on earth you say random mutations and mutation rates have been studied and confirmed observationally and experimentally?

A species change would take thousands or millions of mutations.  We can observe only a few at a time.

Here�s the definition. The individual creatures/organisms are different as we see now and they matter to evolution because evolution postulates that all these individual creatures had a common descent, but fails to provide any proof whatsoever:

Your definition doesn't explain how to distinguish one type of creature from another; i.e., how we know when we've crossed the "creature barrier".

The point is that many behavioural and cognitive traits in humans do not show any real correlation with survival.

So what?  The theory of evolution doesn't require that every behaviour or trait must be adaptive.  It only requires that they are not maladaptive.

Edited by Ron Webb - 04 April 2015 at 6:48pm

Ron Webb wrote: Of course you're saying its mandatory. That's what you've been demanding throughout this discussion.

The whole point I have been making from the beginning is that TE is a set of assumptions with no credible evidence at all:

1.     When we talk about observational evidences, you say it�s not possible as allegedly the theory assumes these changes happen in millions of years�so for whatever reason, we don�t have any observational evidence.
2.     When we talk about experimental evidence, you say it�s not possible for 1) thanks to the millions of years assumption 2) you think it�s actually counter to the theory(?)�so for whatever reason, we don�t have experimental evidence.
3.     Now coming to the transitional fossils which was the biggest worry for Darwin, still remains a worry as there are no credible signs of such a thing.

Based on the above facts when I say TE is just a theory, you say even gravitation is a theory�but again that argument doesn�t stand as gravitation has clear observational and experimental evidence to its credit.

Then you say leave all these evidences and just look at the DNA evidence, which as I explained earlier is not an independent proof as it�s just a mathematical model based on the assumptions under the very TE which it tries to prove.

So based on the above, the objective part is clear�TE has no proof and can never be proved and even as a theory it�s far inferior to its other family members.

The only point of discussion remaining now is the subjective part�whether one should choose to believe in TE based on one�s own reasons and judgements�as I have made clear many times earlier, this is absolutely a personal choice.

What is surprising though is the visible double standards of the proponents of TE�they would fight with tooth and nail and ask for proofs when someone says the visible signs around us clearly points to an ultimate creator, but have no qualms whatsoever to accept a theory with no proofs at all as fact!

Now coming to the subjective part on reasoning, is it not surprising that a book 1400 years ago, wherever it agrees with modern science when it makes any scientific references gets it absolutely spot on, and wherever it differs from modern science, the modern science is left wanting for proofs and with serious criticisms�in all these there are signs for those choose to think in the right direction.

Ron Webb wrote: Okay, I was kidding before about your not understanding the theory (the point being that changes occur between generations, not within an individual), but now I'm beginning to think that you really don't understand it.Your constant demand for direct evidence of species change is counter to evolution theory, which postulates that such change is gradual, over millions of years. If somebody demonstrated a species change in a lab, that would more likely be evidence against evolution, not for it.I think part of the problem is that you look horizontally, across the tips of the branches of the evolutionary tree of life, and you see very distinct species. And so you expect to find the same kind of species distiction in the vertical direction, along the limbs and branches as well. But that's not how it works.A chimp and a human are obviously different, and nobody would expect a chimp to give birth to a human or vice versa. If we take the definition of species to be the ability to interbreed and create viable offspring, then we would never expect an animal to give birth to an infant of a different species (let alone "become" a different species).And yet, over thousands of generations, the species genome (as encoded in DNA) gradually changes. We can see those changes by direct observation as well as by experimentation. We can also see the eventual effect of those changes over millions of years in the fossil record, and by comparing DNA of related species, which documents the family relationships among current species and confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Come on, you made a statement on the theory, I just restated it in more explicit terms and then you come with an explanation that your earlier statement was in fact not correct and then you blame it on my understanding�in fact it seems the whole thing just shows a lack of your understanding or your inability to state things unambiguously�anyway, I won�t waste time on such discussions as I think people tend to divert to such discussions when they face a massive lack of real arguments.

Coming to the second part of your explanation, I have no problems with your theoretical beliefs. But when it comes to evidences, I can see lot of contradicting statements:

1.     You say direct evidence for evolution is counter to TE, but at the same time you say �We can see those changes by direct observation as well as by experimentation��so what are you trying to say? You have observational and experimental evidence or you don�t have?
2.     You say you can see the evidence in millions of years of fossil records, but at the same time you don�t see even one complete transitional fossils for transition of one species to another, and someone even says it is not possible to have these fossil records as they simply do not survive for such long durations�so where do you have these fossil records?
3.     Comparison of DNA evidence�a scientific evidence for a theory has to be independent of the assumptions under the theory which is not the case with the DNA analysis in your link

Ron Webb wrote: Sorry, you're misreading the page. (Not terribly surprising because it wasn't written with non-technical readers in mind.) These are two assumption made in the mathematical model, not in the theory of evolution. The model only works if those two assumptions hold true, but both assumptions have been exhaustively studied and confirmed experimentally and observationally.

I think the thermal engineering texts from my university days had more complex stuff than what is written in that link. But if you think there is something you find too technical, let me know and In Sha Allah I can explain you�but again I prefer not to waste time on such discussions that people tend to divert when facing shortage of real arguments.

However, we have more wrong statements and contradictions here:

1.     You say mutation is not an assumption under evolution�you are wrong, it is.
2.     If you say the evolutionary changes happens in millions of years which in fact depend on mutations and then you say the evolutionary changes can neither be observed and nor be experimentally shown�then how on earth you say random mutations and mutation rates have been studied and confirmed observationally and experimentally?

Ultimately both the theory and the model are based on assumptions and some common ones�how can such a model provide an independent proof for evolution?

Ron Webb wrote: That's not a definition. It's just an arbitrary statement. Why are they different creatures, and why does it matter to evolution?

Here�s the definition. The individual creatures/organisms are different as we see now and they matter to evolution because evolution postulates that all these individual creatures had a common descent, but fails to provide any proof whatsoever:
creature
ˈkriːtʃə/
noun
1.     1.
an animal, as distinct from a human being.
"night sounds of birds and other creatures"
synonyms:     animal, beast, brute; More
o     
o     
o     
     
2.     2.
a person or organization considered to be under the complete control of another.
"the village teacher was expected to be the creature of his employer"
synonyms:     minion, lackey, flunkey, hireling, subordinate, servant, retainer,vassal; More

Ron Webb wrote: Because there is no such thing as a "creature barrier". Unless you mean a transition from one contemporary species to another (from leaf to leaf in the family tree), which won't happen because that's not how evolution works.

As I already mentioned, I have no problems with one�s theoretical beliefs. In reality, you have no proof whatsoever for one to take evolution as a fact.

Ron Webb wrote: The DNA analysis is the evidence. (Well, that plus the abundant fossil record.) You want to erect a mythical "creature barrier" with no evidence at all.[IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Wink" /> Not even an adequate definition of what you mean by "creature", let alone any suggestion of why mutations should know to stay within its boundaries.

DNA analysis not an evidence as long as you run the TMRCA model on a set of assumptions some common to the theory itself.
A creature is an individual organism as defined above. You have no proof whatsoever to suggest mutation leading to change of species. Even from a subjective reasoning point of view, all known mutations have been causing negative impacts leading to inferior results and not something that correlates to better survival.

Ron Webb wrote: I would respond to this if I could figure out what point you are trying to make. You only have to look at groups like Al Queda and ISIS to see how religious convictions (true or false) can inspire warriors to self-sacrifice and thus promote the ideology -- and the genome.

The point is that many behavioural and cognitive traits in humans do not show any real correlation with survival. It was not wars that necessitated humans to develop religion, but it was the other way around in many cases�so here the survival need came after the trait, maybe you need a reverse evolution to explain the trait of religion based on your argument.

And even songs and stories�you will see more of the songs and stories as a means to satisfy the softer sides of human emotions like love, happiness, sorrows etc. rather than exhorting men for wars�so again these doesn�t correlate with the survival advantage.

Coming to Al Queda, ISIS etc. I am just puzzled as any true Muslim would be that how could men perform such atrocities to humanity in the name of religion. Yet, again it was the religion that came first, then people are getting misguided, manipulated and maybe politically used to carry out these self sacrifices etc� so here again the survival need came after the trait, still you may need a reverse evolution to explain this based on your argument.