Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Techne]

There you go again. LOL All about the words.

It's plain English...

 

[alloytoo]

And there's that word again. In order for something to evolve there needs to be new genetic information added. Gene flow does not create new genes or alter existing ones.

So?

Who said Gene flow created new information?

 

[Swa]

Gene flow does not necessarily prevent differentiation. A simple example would be hybridization of wild crops with agriculturally modified crops. The hybridization may result in increased differentiation.

Now you're picking an example of artificially modified organisms. I did not say it would necessarily prevent it but it does act strongly against it.

No, evolution just means change. In order for something to evolve it just has to undergo some sort of change. It may be epigenetic (not genetic) or even something else without necessarily being a genetic change.

Evolution requires the change of genes for real change to occur. Suppose you get someone of medium stature that has a short mother and a tall father. This is not change it's simply a merging of different traits. Fast forward a billion years and if no genes have changed the human species as a whole would still be identical to now. Epigenome and something (hypothetical unknown?) else? What besides genetic change have been incorporated into any evolutionary model?

 

[Swa]

So?

Who said Gene flow created new information?

I think you missed the irony here. Gene flow was supposed to be evidence for evolution. It actually acts against speciation and the claim of common ancestors for species. It can actually therefor be used as an objection to evolution.

 

[Techne]

Evolution requires the change of genes for real change to occur.

No, not necessarily. Epigenetic changes is one example.

Suppose you get someone of medium stature that has a short mother and a tall father. This is not change it's simply a merging of different traits. Fast forward a billion years and if no genes have changed the human species as a whole would still be identical to now. Epigenome and something (hypothetical unknown?) else? What besides genetic change have been incorporated into any evolutionary model?

Epigenetic change is being incorporated.

Anyway, gene duplications, chromosomal rearrangements, gene deletions, etc. all happen, resulting in morphological and functional changes all the time in humans and other species. This is evolution, it happens. You basically evolved from your parents. You and your siblings (if you have any) basically have common ancestors, your parents. Your grand parents are common ancestors to you and your cousins. None of this implies that you were not created. The same applies if you follow the emergence of life to the very beginning, last universal common ancestor if you want. This is just change, simple evolution.

 

[Swa]

No, not necessarily. Epigenetic changes is one example.


Epigenetic change is being incorporated.

Being incorporated is not incorporated. I haven't seen any advocacy of epigenetics from evolutionary science.

Anyway, gene duplications, chromosomal rearrangements, gene deletions, etc. all happen, resulting in morphological and functional changes all the time in humans and other species. This is evolution, it happens.

Proving my point that change only happens when genetics are changed.

You basically evolved from your parents. You and your siblings (if you have any) basically have common ancestors, your parents. Your grand parents are common ancestors to you and your cousins. None of this implies that you were not created.

I don't see why this SHOULD be a problem. Indeed it's taught we all have two common ancestors. So common ancestry is not evidence for evolution unless you can show that common ancestry all the way back towards the first life form.

The same applies if you follow the emergence of life to the very beginning, last universal common ancestor if you want. This is just change, simple evolution.

But we can't. The documented lines of descent have gaping holes. Not only that but these holes are in all the most important places -
No trace from single celled to multicellular organisms.
No trace towards the first plants.
Fish seemingly appear out of nowhere so do insects, reptiles and mammals.
No transition from reptiles to birds - the first birds appear to have fully functional wings, no wing like structures in reptiles except some dinosaurs but again these these are FULLY FUNCTIONAL and not the ancestors of birds.
The fossil record of ape ancestry is still hopelessly incomplete and so is that of humans.

The fossil record is only consistent with evolution and in fact is more consistent with creation.
[video=youtube;LIFpevt8meA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFpevt8meA&list=UUFiWtZndNZ8jfSJzRQgXlnw&index=4&feature=plcp[/video]

 

[Techne]

Being incorporated is not incorporated. I haven't seen any advocacy of epigenetics from evolutionary science.

Lots of scientists admit the importance of epigenetics in evolutionary biology. Check out sciencedaily.com for interesting articles/

Proving my point that change only happens when genetics are changed.

Change happens when genetic as well as epigenetic changes occur.

I don't see why this SHOULD be a problem. Indeed it's taught we all have two common ancestors. So common ancestry is not evidence for evolution unless you can show that common ancestry all the way back towards the first life form.

Of course it is evolution, no matter how far back it goes. It appears your major problem with evolution is that humans share a common ancestor with non-humans. I suspect this skepticism is mainly driven by theological concerns. Once you realize that the idea that humans have a common ancestor with non-humans poses no logical or evidential problems for religion, creation, original sin, theism etc. then I suspect it won't much of an issue for you, i.e. you won't have much reason to argue against the idea.

But we can't. The documented lines of descent have gaping holes. Not only that but these holes are in all the most important places -
No trace from single celled to multicellular organisms.
No trace towards the first plants.
Fish seemingly appear out of nowhere so do insects, reptiles and mammals.
No transition from reptiles to birds - the first birds appear to have fully functional wings, no wing like structures in reptiles except some dinosaurs but again these these are FULLY FUNCTIONAL and not the ancestors of birds.
The fossil record of ape ancestry is still hopelessly incomplete and so is that of humans.

The fossil record is only consistent with evolution and in fact is more consistent with creation.

Sure, even if true, even if we can never fill all the holes, this simply does not imply that those holes should be plugged with alien intelligent designers or some other kind of weird deistic intelligent designers. This is probably the worst argument for theism and creation.

 

[rwenzori]

The species problem is one for evolution. The whole premise is that differentiation leads to speciation. Well fine but without a proper definition of species it's hard to say when a new species arises and therefor impossible to prove.

You put the cart before the horse. "Species" is a human word that is used in relation to things that are observed - go do the observing before letting language get in the way. Techne says there are 20 or so scientific definitions of the term "species" - no doubt there are many more in common language. Language is like clothing - often not fitting quite perfectly. Study the body, not the clothing.

For life there is just wet genetic goo - some combines, some doesn't: some combinations produce viable offspring, some don't. If you have European blood in you, you most likely have some Neanderthal goo in your genes. Tigers can mate with lions and make ligers, but no offspring IIRC. Like a mule. It has also been said that in the Australian Outback you can find shumans - produced by crossing a human male with a female sheep, but I wouldn't know.

 

[Elimentals]

For life there is just wet genetic goo - some combines, some doesn't: some combinations produce viable offspring, some don't. If you have European blood in you, you most likely have some Neanderthal goo in your genes. Tigers can mate with lions and make ligers, but no offspring IIRC. Like a mule. It has also been said that in the Australian Outback you can find shumans - produced by crossing a human male with a female sheep, but I wouldn't know.

Unless he/she is African

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html

 

[rwenzori]

Unless he/she is African

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

 

[Techne]

If you have European blood in you, you most likely have some Neanderthal goo in your genes.

Figuratively speaking of course...

 

[rwenzori]

Figuratively speaking of course...

"Goo" - Genetically Optimal Offspring.

I'll leave the technical terms to you.

 

[Techne]

"Goo" - Genetically Optimal Offspring.

I'll leave the technical terms to you.

I was referring to the "have some Neanderthal goo in your genes".

 

[rwenzori]

I was referring to the "have some Neanderthal goo in your genes".

No - see the article Elimentals referred to. Interbreeding of ( wait for it... ) SPECIES - "some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage".

I'm a Neanderthal man
You're a Neanderthal girl
Let's make Neanderthal love
In this Neanderthal world

 

[Techne]

No - see the article Elimentals referred to. Interbreeding of ( wait for it... ) SPECIES - "some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage".

I am human, you are human, we both have human genes (goo if you want).
A neanderthal had neanderthal genes/goo.
Our goo is accidentally (as opposed to essentially) derived from neanderthal goo.

Perhaps an analogy will help.
An electron has electron goo.
A positron has positron goo.
When they collide, they can form a Z boson.
A Z boson has Z boson goo.
Z boson goo is accidentally (as opposed to essentially) derived from electron and positron goo.

Hence, figuratively speaking, Z bosons have some electron and positron goo in them or humans have some neanderthal goo in them.

 

[rwenzori]

humans have some neanderthal goo in them.

That's what I was saying. But come on old chap, give us a song. I mean, I did, to lighten up the afternoon. Or a joke. Or a riddle-me-riddle-me-riddle-me-ree. but easy pleez.

 

[Techne]

That's what I was saying.

Figuratively speaking...

 

[rwenzori]

Figuratively speaking...

Only if human X chromosomes are figures. Which they might be of course - sort of "X" shaped figures - like Mac OS X, and X is a figure - it means 10 in Latin, so yes, figuratively. Can you figure that all out? Where my song?

 

[Techne]

Only if human X chromosomes are figures. Which they might be of course - sort of "X" shaped figures - like Mac OS X, and X is a figure - it means 10 in Latin, so yes, figuratively. Can you figure that all out? Where my song?

Or.... figuratively as opposed to literally...

 

[alloytoo]

I think you missed the [-]irony[/-] stupidy here. Gene flow was supposed to be evidence for evolution. It actually acts against speciation and the claim of common ancestors for species. It can actually therefor be used as an objection to evolution.

That makes (slightly more sense).

Evolution is fact.

Gene flow is an explanation of why certain populations may or may not speciate.

To wit, if barriers to reproduction exist, gene flow is inhibited and speciation may occur. If not, speciation is inhibited.

Gene flow <> evidence
Gene flow = explanation.