Is Darwinian Evolution going extinct?

[fullmetaljesus]

If the whole evolution this was true, why do so many species not evolve the way monkeys became human, and if monkeys became human why did some not evolve?

Ah, the mysteries of life, the more man thinks he knows the less he actually does...

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

This

 

[mmpsteve]

Who says that they can't or won't ever? Do you know why mammals became the dominant species on the planet?

Going out on a limb here ... Bacon?

.

 

[Leadeye]

It's got to be hard to see things at this scale of time. I can see small changes over a period of time we are familiar with, but not a really long stretch. Trying to compress the scale you can look at things like bacteria that mutate to be come more resistant to drugs, but this is a lot of generations before we see the change. Changing that to animals that have life spans measured in years you get an idea of the time scale problem.

There's also the complexity of the organism relative to something single celled.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle....

It was a fascinating interview. Thanks for posting.

 

[KLB]

Dinosaurs supposedly died out when the sun was blotted out by a massive meteor hit causing a major period of lessened light and global cooling. Then why didn't they evolve nice warm hairy coats when they needed them?

I'm a firm believer in evolution as the primary driver for the variation of life on Earth, but in attempting to be rational, I have to acknowledge that they have a good point. The fact that I don't have a good answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Edit: They are using the same probability logic as is used with computer hashing and cryptocurrencies. There is nothing that says that it is impossible to guess someone's crypto private key and steal their funds (think of the private key as a viable species). The *only* thing stopping it is that you have to do the equivalent of finding 1000 particular grains of sand in the entire world by pure guesswork to find one of those private keys. So, hacking someone's cryptocurrency isn't impossible by this means, only highly, highly improbable. These scientists are saying that (1) the range of possible gene combinations is a similar huge universe of possibilities, (2) the vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral or negative for survival and (3) given the pace of random variations, it would take longer than the span of all Earthly life to move from one species to the genetic code for a second species.

Because evolution doesn't happen in a matter of years, nor does it always work. Otherwise we would not have lost the vast majority of species that ever lived on this planet.

 

[Route 45]

Ah, the mysteries of life, the more man thinks he knows the less he actually does...

You are so close to self-awareness.

So close...

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Well, I'm still picking my way through it. I'm at the point where we've determined that the odds of the biosphere self organizing are so small that there must necessarily be an intelligent designer behind it. The elephant in the room, however, is that something had to come first. Something had to self-organize to the level of being able to organize this information that encodes the instructions for life to not only exist, but self replicate. Crediting an intelligence simply abstracts the small odds back a step. Now, as small as the odds may be of it happening once, doesn't backing it up a step make those odds even smaller?

 

[alabasterjar]

I don't know if it's this basic or not, but the obvious answer seems to be need. If something lives near a large body of water, and it's land based source of food is taken away, forcing it to go into the water to find food, it would seem that eventually that creature will develop traits that would be useful in the water.

One of the fundamental problems with this is that the intermediate traits always results in a compromised individual. As an example, a land based animal that brings to develop gills to survive in the water would experience more limited lung function - likely making it more exposed to predators. Assuming this type of morphology was actually possible, the change would require many, many generations to progress, each requiring an improvement of the developing gills and reduction of functional lungs, resulting in a creature that was not able to function well, if at all, on land or in water.

In an interview in Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed", Dr. David Berlinski (interviewed in the o.p. YouTube link) stated that even a simple functional change like this is impossible.

Look at it another way: DNA is like computer code only significantly more complicated. If you were given open access to any computer program and started to make random changes, what is the likelyhood that you would improve the function of the program run by the underlying code?

 

[alabasterjar]

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

You say that with confidence. Show your work.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

One of the fundamental problems with this is that the intermediate traits always results in a compromised individual. As an example, a land based animal that brings to develop gills to survive in the water would experience more limited lung function - likely making it more exposed to predators. Assuming this type of amorphology was actually possible, the change would require many, many generations to progress, each requiring an improvement odd the developing gills and reduction of functional lungs, resulting in a creature that was not able to function well, of sry all, on land or in water.

In an interview with Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed", Sr. David Berlinski (interviewed in the o.p. YouTube link) started that even for a simple functional change like this is impossible.

Look at it another way: DNA is like computer code only significantly more complicated. If you were given open access to any computer program and started to make random changes, what is the likelygood that you would improve the function of the program run by the underlying code?

Whereas we are speaking in hypotheticals here I'd like to offer a different idea.

I find it would be more likely that the land animal would develop greater lung capacity over gills. Being able to hold it's breath longer. Thus increased lung size over many many many generations.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

You say that with confidence. Show your work.

Not my work. I'm iin IT not biology. But a simple Google search provides a plethora of resources. Here is one such example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

 

[alabasterjar]

Not my work. I'm iin IT not biology. But a simple Google search provides a plethora of resources. Here is one such example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

Interesting read, but not convincing in any way shape or form.

"The assumption of late hybridization was in particular based on the similarity of the X chromosome in humans and chimpanzees, suggesting a divergence as late as some 4 million years ago. This conclusion was rejected as unwarranted by Wakeley (2008), who suggested alternative explanations, including selection pressure on the X chromosome in the populations ancestral to the CHLCA." One of the many paragraphs peppered with language that is based on "could be's" and "might be's", but nothing even remotely providing any evidence. By evidence, I mean some record of a transitional event (i.e. transition from one species to another).

Did you watch the video that CP posted? If you did, I'd encourage you to watch it again, with the knowledge that only one of the three men interviewed has a worldview that includes a Creator. Two of the men are atheistic or agnostic, but acknowledge that Darwinian evolutionary theory can't deal with the issues brought about by modern science and what we now know about life.

 

[alabasterjar]

Whereas we are speaking in hypotheticals here I'd like to offer a different idea.

I find it would be more likely that the land animal would develop greater lung capacity over gills. Being able to hold it's breath longer. Thus increased lung size over many many many generations.

I agree. This is adaptation; modifying existing body platforms to environmental needs/pressures. This is not evolution; changing existing body platforms that result in a change in species.

 

[Jludo]

Well, I'm still picking my way through it. I'm at the point where we've determined that the odds of the biosphere self organizing are so small that there must necessarily be an intelligent designer behind it. The elephant in the room, however, is that something had to come first. Something had to self-organize to the level of being able to organize this information that encodes the instructions for life to not only exist, but self replicate. Crediting an intelligence simply abstracts the small odds back a step. Now, as small as the odds may be of it happening once, doesn't backing it up a step make those odds even smaller?

That's a very good point.

I do appreciate as rigorous and harsh criticism of Darwin's theories as we can muster, as that gets us closer to the truth. Unfortunately exposing our ignorance isn't itself evidence for intelligent design, or at least any sort of intelligent design the intelligent design proponents wants to see.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, I'm still picking my way through it. I'm at the point where we've determined that the odds of the biosphere self organizing are so small that there must necessarily be an intelligent designer behind it. The elephant in the room, however, is that something had to come first. Something had to self-organize to the level of being able to organize this information that encodes the instructions for life to not only exist, but self replicate. Crediting an intelligence simply abstracts the small odds back a step. Now, as small as the odds may be of it happening once, doesn't backing it up a step make those odds even smaller?

How true is this really? We're talking about one planet, in one galaxy that has over 100 Billion planets, in a universe that has 100 Billion galaxies. To extrapolate life universe-wide solely based on what we have observed on Earth isn't practical. If I gave you a single piece of a 5000 piece puzzle, I bet you couldn't tell me what the entire picture was. And I do believe in intelligent design.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

How true is this really? We're talking about one planet, in one galaxy that has over 100 Billion planets, in a universe that has 100 Billion galaxies. To extrapolate life universe-wide solely based on what we have observed on Earth isn't practical. If I gave you a single piece of a 5000 piece puzzle, I bet you couldn't tell me what the entire picture was. And I do believe in intelligent design.

Well either there is or there isn’t, right? Simple math and modern ginetics have brought us to the knowledge that evolution as a generator of different species just isn’t possible.

 

[Nevermore]

Well, I'm still picking my way through it. I'm at the point where we've determined that the odds of the biosphere self organizing are so small that there must necessarily be an intelligent designer behind it. The elephant in the room, however, is that something had to come first. Something had to self-organize to the level of being able to organize this information that encodes the instructions for life to not only exist, but self replicate. Crediting an intelligence simply abstracts the small odds back a step. Now, as small as the odds may be of it happening once, doesn't backing it up a step make those odds even smaller?

But necessity demands it. There has to be a first "thing" in any framework, whether Darwinian or otherwise and if design be considered the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe then there must also be a first Designer. I would argue that the endless train of "well if x created the earth, what created x?" is easily answered by the existence of a Being that has 2 primary characteristics:

1. Eternality. Not merely ancient existence (implying a day before it existed in reality) but an actual lack of beginning or end as a core facet of the Being's existence. Being beyond time, the necessity of the Being being itself created is no longer logically demanded.
2. Transcendence. The Being must not merely exist in the void of the empty universe, but must also possess the power, creativity, and desire to break the most fundamental laws of our natural universe. This being must be able to create and destroy matter, to make out of nothing etc.

Otherwise, one has to come up with a means by which the universe, which at some point in the distant past was presumably "filled" with absolutely nothing...spontaneously generated the first somethings that eventually become all that currently is. The problem of naturalism which is stuck completely in the box of the physical universe without reference to transcendent Divinity is that there logically isn't one. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, period...unless of course you peek outside of the Universe to a power beyond it.

 

[Jludo]

Well either there is or there isn’t, right? Simple math and modern ginetics have brought us to the knowledge that evolution as a generator of different species just isn’t possible.

I wish they'd have had someone well versed in biology/ genetics who differed in view for this interview. As someone might watch this and come away thinking what we haven't figured out about the origins of life is somehow evidence for the Christian God.

 

[ljk]

Haven't watched the video, but I will say this just for fun: natural selection isn't evolution. Never was.

it is the elimination of traits incompatible with survival due to the dying off of genetic lines with those traits, not the development of new traits that enhance survival.

[video=youtube;YwZ0ZUy7P3E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E[/video]