DNA Analysis proves evolution

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 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