FA+
Shop
Contentions over evolution
8 years ago
General
When it comes to the contention of proving evolution often one gets a false dichotomy of some saying that evolution means “Life on earth is descended via blind random processes and not design”. Natural process are not random and do result in an incidental design. Proving that evolution is fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates or other religious and superstitious hearsay. So to say that evolution proves god couldn’t have done it and thus must meet those criteria is obviously wrong. Therefore when someone speaks about proving evolution or disproving god these concerns must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.
Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as “descent with inherent genetic modification”. Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among the reproductive population; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually leading to one or more descendant branches increasingly becoming distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Evolution is a theory, that is to say, one of the highest contentions of science that embodies and encompasses numerous degrees of Facts, Laws, and Predictions that are all falsifiable and substantially evident through methodological naturalism. Here are a few of the facts each one I can later give sufficient evidence to satisfactorily prove it under rigorous or strictest definition and by far been proven meeting the standards required of a scientific theory of peer review, critical analysis and law in court.
It is a fact that evolution happens, That is to say that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics and environmental dynamics
It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups
It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and practical application
It is a fact that beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups and that several biological markers do exist which traces these lineages backward over a myriad of generations.
• types of mutations
• missense, This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid
• nonsense, A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein.
• insertions, An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA
• deletions, A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA.
• Frameshift, This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene's reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid
• Duplications, A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times.
• Repeat expansions Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences.
• Beneficial mutations already found in humans: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, Increased bone density, Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Increase in HDL cholesterol
It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way, that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in the same way lions are a subset of cats.
It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced back to the most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as chronological and correct placement of successive stages through the geological column.
It is a fact that every animal on earth has obvious living relatives either living nearby or evident within the fossil record and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even to the strictest definition of that term.
It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution has been directly-observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in nature-controlled conditions, and that all of these instances have withstood scrutiny of critical analysis and peer review.
It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evident support or measurable validity, and that no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
Many may accept evolution but those who don’t are ever contentious with its evidence and drum against it as the production of life. They often do not realize that evolution itself is not an explanation of how life arose but rather how it diversified. When it comes to the origins of life the subject matter is referred to as Abiogenesis and there are many theories of how it got started but all that are involved are determined by the precursors of chemical replications that are the most likely candidates.
Abiogenesis: Proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855 and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing Spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life: The proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix. Thus Genetic and metabolic cells must have developed through an intricate sequence of an increasingly complex chemical construct, each having been naturally enhanced by a particular constituent and environmental conditions.
There have been a number of experiments proving that amino acids can be incidentally derived from inorganic chemicals according to the natural conditions of the prebiotic earth. We now know of conditions that will also generate polypeptide and ribonucleotides through a repeated sequence of inundation, dehydration, and irradiation.
Simple chemicals => Polymers => Replicating Polymers => Hypercycle Protobiont => Bacteria
Looking at the previous steps we see from experiments, starting from Urey Miller and have advanced further. Simple chemicals can and do add up to the matrix respondent for replicating molecules quite often and eventually lead to life given the right conditions. There is often the argument from creationists that evolutionists are arguing that life came from non-life. This stems from the idea of vitalism that living matter is somehow infused with a spirit or primordial essence. However, all scientific discourse has shown that this is simply not so; the only thing that is different from organic matter and inorganic matter is how it’s arranged which is often interchangeable simply by the fact that many animals consume and digest inorganic material.
Still, despite the abundant wealth of experimentation, fossils, and papers showing the practical applications there are many who deny the prospects of evolution or Abiogenesis. They do so wholeheartedly out of either ignorance to these facts or by subscribing to superstitious and/or religious dogma. There are even many who will go past the idea of evolution is wrong and will ultimately contend that Methodological Naturalism, aka science, itself; is flawed and will prevail that the will and structures of god cannot be known. Ultimately this is an argument from ignorance saying because we don’t know A then X must be true. This puts their god at an ever-shrinking area where science will inevitably close those gaps that they plead he must live within.
Such an attitude is could not only be considered insulting for those who find a pantheistic view of God but is ultimately weak and deleterious for developing any understanding of the cosmos at large. We can see how deleterious this is by those working against the idea of a big bang. Many creationists add a cosmic evolution along to their many contentions with science. They will hypocritically, or ignorantly, declare science has proven their religion by proving there was a first day of the cosmos while denying the big bang not realizing that the big bang was the evidence.
There are several aspects we hold as evidence for the big bang and the expansion of a singularity. For one, we see a large red shift in the oscillation of light throughout the entire universe. To put it mildly, the universe is expanding. Further evidence was discovered by the background radiation giving us a map of the singularity. This background radiation was asymmetrical which mirrored the distribution of how we saw the universe. Furthermore dark matter observed through the bending of light confirms to the standard model and this background map and though we are not completely certain of the more recent findings of gravity waves, what we have found confirms the mathematics of the big bang.
The Creationist still marches forward ever demanding that matter cannot come from non-matter or that we can never know what happened before the big bang. Matter and energy are interchangeable thus it is possible that they could be eternal. The Higgs boson as we’ve seen is the primarily what gives particles their mass and stands well with the mathematics of the standard model. We can also show that Cosmic inflation from a quantum singularity could be explained as 3Dimensional space/time emerging from a 4th spacial dimension which could have an entirely natural catalysis and still, wouldn't have something coming from anything but rather from a large plane far beyond any current concept. Even if there was nothing many aspects of quantum mechanics show that such a vacuum is unstable and through quantum tunneling never remains a constant
In the end most creationist disbelieve in a straw man ideal of evolution lumping many aspects of science from allele frequency, Abiogenesis, replicating chemical structures, the exchange of mater and energy, and the big bang. This seems to easily follow arguments much like this
One kind of animal cannot beget another kind of animal=> Life cannot come from non-life => matter cannot come from non-matter =>Something cannot come from nothing
I hope that it is obvious that each one of these arguments can be seen as either a false dichotomy or wholly wrong in their presumptions. We know from ring species that the presumption of a bounded kind is ultimately wrong. We can show vitalism was disproven and there is nothing spiritual or different between the chemistry of organic vs nonorganic. Physics and experimentation shows energy and matter are interchangeable and eternal e=mc^2. And finally, the idea of the universe coming from nothing is base on a false dichotomy and faulty notions of a vacuum and assuming nothing is some default null when quantum mechanics shows that a vacuum of nothing is unstable.
In all this we can see that those who try to contest with the facts of evolution go about it thinking if they can pull a straw out of the theories proposed the whole thing collapses. Science is a tentative discipline the only sacred truth is there are no sacred truths. However much we may love a theory if it is inconsistent with the facts we must discard it. Only accurate information has practical application. Evolution has withstood the greatest of scrutiny and remains viable through practical use that those who desire to remove it do so only at their own peril.
Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as “descent with inherent genetic modification”. Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among the reproductive population; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually leading to one or more descendant branches increasingly becoming distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Evolution is a theory, that is to say, one of the highest contentions of science that embodies and encompasses numerous degrees of Facts, Laws, and Predictions that are all falsifiable and substantially evident through methodological naturalism. Here are a few of the facts each one I can later give sufficient evidence to satisfactorily prove it under rigorous or strictest definition and by far been proven meeting the standards required of a scientific theory of peer review, critical analysis and law in court.
It is a fact that evolution happens, That is to say that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics and environmental dynamics
It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups
It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and practical application
It is a fact that beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups and that several biological markers do exist which traces these lineages backward over a myriad of generations.
• types of mutations
• missense, This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid
• nonsense, A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein.
• insertions, An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA
• deletions, A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA.
• Frameshift, This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene's reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid
• Duplications, A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times.
• Repeat expansions Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences.
• Beneficial mutations already found in humans: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, Increased bone density, Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Increase in HDL cholesterol
It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way, that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in the same way lions are a subset of cats.
It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced back to the most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as chronological and correct placement of successive stages through the geological column.
It is a fact that every animal on earth has obvious living relatives either living nearby or evident within the fossil record and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even to the strictest definition of that term.
It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution has been directly-observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in nature-controlled conditions, and that all of these instances have withstood scrutiny of critical analysis and peer review.
It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evident support or measurable validity, and that no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
Many may accept evolution but those who don’t are ever contentious with its evidence and drum against it as the production of life. They often do not realize that evolution itself is not an explanation of how life arose but rather how it diversified. When it comes to the origins of life the subject matter is referred to as Abiogenesis and there are many theories of how it got started but all that are involved are determined by the precursors of chemical replications that are the most likely candidates.
Abiogenesis: Proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855 and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing Spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life: The proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix. Thus Genetic and metabolic cells must have developed through an intricate sequence of an increasingly complex chemical construct, each having been naturally enhanced by a particular constituent and environmental conditions.
There have been a number of experiments proving that amino acids can be incidentally derived from inorganic chemicals according to the natural conditions of the prebiotic earth. We now know of conditions that will also generate polypeptide and ribonucleotides through a repeated sequence of inundation, dehydration, and irradiation.
Simple chemicals => Polymers => Replicating Polymers => Hypercycle Protobiont => Bacteria
Looking at the previous steps we see from experiments, starting from Urey Miller and have advanced further. Simple chemicals can and do add up to the matrix respondent for replicating molecules quite often and eventually lead to life given the right conditions. There is often the argument from creationists that evolutionists are arguing that life came from non-life. This stems from the idea of vitalism that living matter is somehow infused with a spirit or primordial essence. However, all scientific discourse has shown that this is simply not so; the only thing that is different from organic matter and inorganic matter is how it’s arranged which is often interchangeable simply by the fact that many animals consume and digest inorganic material.
Still, despite the abundant wealth of experimentation, fossils, and papers showing the practical applications there are many who deny the prospects of evolution or Abiogenesis. They do so wholeheartedly out of either ignorance to these facts or by subscribing to superstitious and/or religious dogma. There are even many who will go past the idea of evolution is wrong and will ultimately contend that Methodological Naturalism, aka science, itself; is flawed and will prevail that the will and structures of god cannot be known. Ultimately this is an argument from ignorance saying because we don’t know A then X must be true. This puts their god at an ever-shrinking area where science will inevitably close those gaps that they plead he must live within.
Such an attitude is could not only be considered insulting for those who find a pantheistic view of God but is ultimately weak and deleterious for developing any understanding of the cosmos at large. We can see how deleterious this is by those working against the idea of a big bang. Many creationists add a cosmic evolution along to their many contentions with science. They will hypocritically, or ignorantly, declare science has proven their religion by proving there was a first day of the cosmos while denying the big bang not realizing that the big bang was the evidence.
There are several aspects we hold as evidence for the big bang and the expansion of a singularity. For one, we see a large red shift in the oscillation of light throughout the entire universe. To put it mildly, the universe is expanding. Further evidence was discovered by the background radiation giving us a map of the singularity. This background radiation was asymmetrical which mirrored the distribution of how we saw the universe. Furthermore dark matter observed through the bending of light confirms to the standard model and this background map and though we are not completely certain of the more recent findings of gravity waves, what we have found confirms the mathematics of the big bang.
The Creationist still marches forward ever demanding that matter cannot come from non-matter or that we can never know what happened before the big bang. Matter and energy are interchangeable thus it is possible that they could be eternal. The Higgs boson as we’ve seen is the primarily what gives particles their mass and stands well with the mathematics of the standard model. We can also show that Cosmic inflation from a quantum singularity could be explained as 3Dimensional space/time emerging from a 4th spacial dimension which could have an entirely natural catalysis and still, wouldn't have something coming from anything but rather from a large plane far beyond any current concept. Even if there was nothing many aspects of quantum mechanics show that such a vacuum is unstable and through quantum tunneling never remains a constant
In the end most creationist disbelieve in a straw man ideal of evolution lumping many aspects of science from allele frequency, Abiogenesis, replicating chemical structures, the exchange of mater and energy, and the big bang. This seems to easily follow arguments much like this
One kind of animal cannot beget another kind of animal=> Life cannot come from non-life => matter cannot come from non-matter =>Something cannot come from nothing
I hope that it is obvious that each one of these arguments can be seen as either a false dichotomy or wholly wrong in their presumptions. We know from ring species that the presumption of a bounded kind is ultimately wrong. We can show vitalism was disproven and there is nothing spiritual or different between the chemistry of organic vs nonorganic. Physics and experimentation shows energy and matter are interchangeable and eternal e=mc^2. And finally, the idea of the universe coming from nothing is base on a false dichotomy and faulty notions of a vacuum and assuming nothing is some default null when quantum mechanics shows that a vacuum of nothing is unstable.
In all this we can see that those who try to contest with the facts of evolution go about it thinking if they can pull a straw out of the theories proposed the whole thing collapses. Science is a tentative discipline the only sacred truth is there are no sacred truths. However much we may love a theory if it is inconsistent with the facts we must discard it. Only accurate information has practical application. Evolution has withstood the greatest of scrutiny and remains viable through practical use that those who desire to remove it do so only at their own peril.
