|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creationists (i.e. Ken Ham and and the fellon Kent Hovind) in their attempt to try to "prove" the Bible, are so adamant that they have shot themselves in the foot in the process by advocating some form of rapid evolution of species after their ark landed on Mt. Ararat 6000 years ago. It is worse than that. The date for the flood is generally accepted about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars. Some creationists (e.g., Lubenow and Woodmarappe) see Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis as racial variants of modern man-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. Babel is generally cited as several hundred years after the flood. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
quote: I think this is a bad example to demonstrate your point. If it's true that a vast majority of Americans pronounce it that way (that's how I say it too), then surely that's how it's pronounced in American English. How universal does a shift in pronounciation need to become before it's a linguistic shift and not just people being wrong? And it's not really relevant how the Chinese say it. The French don't pronounce any 's' in 'Paris' and there isn't a 'g' in the Czech for 'Prague' (sorry for the nitpick). --------------------------------------------------------------------- As for evidence of evolution in modern biology - there's plenty of it, and I'd imagine you'd already heard the most famous examples - so please explain why you find them insufficient. There's the geograpghicsl distribution of animals and plants - why do species on the Galapagos seem to most closely resemble species on the nearest South American mainland, as opposed to species living in the same sort of climate? Why is Australia full of marsupials absent in the rest of the eastern hemisphere, but didn't have any placentals until recently (except those that can fly), unless placentals evolved after Australia split from the other continents? Why do structures used for completely different purposes in different species appear to have the same basic structure. The leg of a cheetah, the arm of a monkey, the flipper of a dolphin and the wing of a bat are all made out of the same set of bones; the complicated machinery orchids have evolved for pollination, including insect mimics and the like, all seem to be modified petals and other parts that are shred with other plants - what sensible explanation for this is there other than common descent? Why do whales have vestigial leg bones, and why don't humans have backs that can handle upright living without widespread back complaints? Of course, you could explain all of these things with divine creation, but then you could explain anything with divine creation. Regardless of the actual nature of reailty, you could always retort that God just wanted it that way, which is why divine creation is such a unsatisfying answer when others exist. It's a 'brain-in-a-jar' argument. What would you consider evidence for evolution in biology? Edited by caffeine, : No reason given. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
wardog25 writes: Bluegenes and 1 or 2 others seem to be some of the few who grasped what I was trying to say. I've generally heard biology and paleontology listed as separate (not unrelated, just separate) areas of study, so I was treating them that way. Sorry if that was confusing to people. I figured out what you meant, but only by reading between the lines. Biology, as I pointed out, is the study of all life, and Paleontology, as the study of prehistoric life, is essentially a sub-category of biology. You're still not really making sense (and I'll explain why) with the following:
wardog writes: So as much as I appreciate all the extreme right-wing religious references, I do actually study the fossil record as well. I was simply trying to exclude it from this particular discussion to learn what exactly the CURRENT/PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE biological evidence is. (allow me to reiterate: this is NOT because the fossil record is irrelevant, but simply because evolutionists say that there is VISIBLE, OBSERVABLE, PRESENT DAY evidence for evolution that we can currently see demonstrated in biology and I want to know what it is. Yet when asked, evolutionists seem to only point out what I'm already aware of.) Do you seriously think that paleontologists use time machines in their studies? All of paleontology (and other historical science) is done on what can be observed in the present. My point about pro-viruses was actually, in a sense, paleontology. The scars of the viral attacks are observed in the present, just as fossils are, and from these observations, we can discover the past.
Let me try and boil this down to the simplest bottom line. And here it is: I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate. You can "watch and test" molecular evidence for common ancestry.
All dogs came from a common ancestor. That's true. Creationists have been saying that for centuries. All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution? Creationists have been saying that all primates came from a common ancestor for eons? We're primates, you know, and directly observable molecular and physiological evidence puts us much closer to the gorilla in my pictures above than the gorilla is to the new world monkeys pictured with it. Most creationists think that we are a separately created kind. Traditionally, they would put kind at the level of "species". More recently, many have pushed it back to the level of genus or family, but you're the first I've heard agree to putting it at the level of order (all primates). The same kind of molecular evidence that shows that the primates descended from a common ancestor works at the level of class and above.
wardog25 writes: So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order? Again, presumably you mean biological evidence excluding branches of biology dealing with fossils and rocks. The answer is yes. Where shall we start? Would you like to discuss the Cytochrome C protein, for example. You can find plenty of creationist misinformation about this on the Internet, but actually, it gives a pretty good guide to the relatedness between organisms both up to and above the level of order (and above class!). Ours is identical to a chimp's, different from a dog's, more different from a lizard's, and very different from that of yeast. But there's no functional reason for this. You could put ours in a tomato plant, or the yeast's in a dog, and it would work fine. The differences are just due to random mutations over time, so the further back the common ancestry is, the more difference there's likely to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Caffeine.
caffeine writes: I think this is a bad example to demonstrate your point. If it's true that a vast majority of Americans pronounce it that way (that's how I say it too), then surely that's how it's pronounced in American English. And, I suppose if you're name is "John," you magically become "Juan" when you step over the Mexican border, too. "Beijing" is a Chinese word, and "evolution" is a scientific word. Let the in-group decide what the rules are, not foreigners and laymen! -----
caffeine writes: As for evidence of evolution in modern biology - there's plenty of it, and I'd imagine you'd already heard the most famous examples - so please explain why you find them insufficient... (followed by a series of very good examples) I'm assuming all of this was aimed at Wardog. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5575 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
To answer this even remotely objectively we first need to know what the limits of 'kind' actually are. Can you define the term 'kind' and the objective biological limits that define one kind from another?
You may have to spell out what kind of evidence you are looking for. Please do that without using the word kind or, (even better) define the word kind in a consistent way and then go ahead and use it. We've been over this earlier in the thread. I said "kind" was somewhere around "family" with some exceptions. I think Ken Hamm says it is around "genus", and I believe a lot of people have it somewhere in between. Anyway, I was told I can't ask for evidence if I don't SPECIFICALLY define my terms. This is interesting to me, because many of the taxonomic ranks are not exact definitions, but are often defined by the animals in them. Sounds either like a double standard or an excuse to avoid trying to produce evidence that was asked for. (I mean, if you have evidence for macro-evolution beyond "family", just give it rather than argue about where exactly a "kind" is defined)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sounds either like a double standard or an excuse to avoid trying to produce evidence that was asked for. (I mean, if you have evidence for macro-evolution beyond "family", just give it rather than argue about where exactly a "kind" is defined)
Please describe the mechanism that allows micro-evolution up to a certain point and then puts up the stop sign saying, "No more!" In other words... How do it know? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5575 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
You sure don't mean to say that. you're confused.
You are right. I meant "higher" primates, but I guess that is a bad example, because I don't call "humans" primates. (well, they are by classification, but are not related. This is a long discussion I have no time for, but it looks like it comes up in later posts about genetic inheritance which I hope to some day have time to respond to.) I suppose some creationists would differ on whether apes and monkeys are of the same "kind". So I admit it was a poor example. The original point still stands, but I'm sure some people will be glad to attack this rabbit trail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5542 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
And, I suppose if you're name is "John," you magically become "Juan" when you step over the Mexican border, too. I think you are wrong about that. There are many cities around the world that do not carry their original pronounciation into english. I cannot see any reason why Beijin could not be one of them. Quick question: how do you pronounce 'Rio de Janeiro'?
"Beijing" is a Chinese word, and "evolution" is a scientific word. Let the in-group decide what the rules are, not foreigners and laymen!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Anyway, I was told I can't ask for evidence if I don't SPECIFICALLY define my terms. This is interesting to me, because many of the taxonomic ranks are not exact definitions, but are often defined by the animals in them. The difference here is that 'blurriness' of divisions in groupings is an inevitable and logical result of evolutionary theory while quite the opposite is true of kinds. Evolutionary biology is based on the idea that all species are derived from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes. Thus distinctions between different closely related groupings are going to be inherently blurry and often even quite arbitrary as there is no sudden transition that seperates one grouping from another. The concept of 'kinds' however should logically result in very distinct and definite seperation being possible. No?
Sounds either like a double standard or an excuse to avoid trying to produce evidence that was asked for. (I mean, if you have evidence for macro-evolution beyond "family", just give it rather than argue about where exactly a "kind" is defined) The fact is that you have already quite evidently made up your mind regardless of evidence....... However........ I suspect that there are others here capable of more technical answers in the field of genetics than I so I will restrict myself to a relatively simple (in fact intentionally simplistic) example that relies on one of the wider principles of the scientific method. Namely testable prediction. A theory of evolution and common ancestry based on natural selection, genetic inheritence and random genetic mutation intrinsically predicts that more closely related species will have more in common genetically than those that branched off at an earlier stage. Thus very specific predictions regarding the relationships between different species can be made and verified or refuted by means of genetic research. Thus our theory is testable and verifiable. For example: Based on embryology, vestigial limbs and the fossil record we would predict that a whale would be more genetically similar to a cow than it would be to a walrus despite many superficial morphological similarities between the walrus and the whale. What would a theory of 'kinds' predict regarding the genetic differences between whales, walruses and cows? On what basis would it make these predictions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes: Anyway, I was told I can't ask for evidence if I don't SPECIFICALLY define my terms. This is interesting to me, because many of the taxonomic ranks are not exact definitions, but are often defined by the animals in them. Well, you're right about that: taxonomic "ranks" are a misnomer. The trend to call every grouping a "clade" instead of assigning a rank, like "family," "subclass," or "infraorder," is becoming more and more popular. In fact, the "category" system developed by Linnaeus is more a type of baraminology (creationist "kinds") concept than a phylogenetics (evolutionary) concept, and it only remains because of convention and inertia, not because of scientific robustness. Evolution between families is identical in form and mechanism to evolution between species. Every new family began as a single new species at one point. The only difference between a “family” and a “genus” is the rough amount of time involved and the rough number of changes accumulating since the original new species emerged. So, if tigers and lions had evolved for another fifty million years before we started classifying stuff, their descendants might very well have been considered distinct families, even though we consider them members of the same genus today. In keeping with my theme, “accumulation” of mutations leads to new species, and “continuing accumulation” leads to new genera, families, and orders. Now, what is the difference between “accumulation” and “continuing accumulation”? Why is evidence of one not evidence of the other? I see no reason why the two should have to rely on different sets of evidence.I see no reason to entertain the notion that one can happen, but not the other. I see no reason to distinguish the two at all. -----
wardog25 writes: Sounds either like a double standard or an excuse to avoid trying to produce evidence that was asked for. (I mean, if you have evidence for macro-evolution beyond "family", just give it rather than argue about where exactly a "kind" is defined). Wardog, evidence has been provided for you. E.g., Caffeine, in Message 92:
caffeine writes: There's the geographical distribution of animals and plants - why do species on the Galapagos seem to most closely resemble species on the nearest South American mainland, as opposed to species living in the same sort of climate? Why is Australia full of marsupials absent in the rest of the eastern hemisphere, but didn't have any placentals until recently (except those that can fly), unless placentals evolved after Australia split from the other continents? Why do structures used for completely different purposes in different species appear to have the same basic structure. The leg of a cheetah, the arm of a monkey, the flipper of a dolphin and the wing of a bat are all made out of the same set of bones; the complicated machinery orchids have evolved for pollination, including insect mimics and the like, all seem to be modified petals and other parts that are shred with other plants - what sensible explanation for this is there other than common descent? Why do whales have vestigial leg bones, and why don't humans have backs that can handle upright living without widespread back complaints? And Bluegenes in Message 93:
bluegenes writes: Would you like to discuss the Cytochrome C protein, for example . . Ours is identical to a chimp's, different from a dog's, more different from a lizard's, and very different from that of yeast. But there's no functional reason for this. You could put ours in a tomato plant, or the yeast's in a dog, and it would work fine. The differences are just due to random mutations over time, so the further back the common ancestry is, the more difference there's likely to be. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Fallacycop.
So, perhaps this tangent should be winding itself down now; I'm regretting having pursued it at all. But, one last response, then I'm silent on the issue:
fallacycop writes: There are many cities around the world that do not carry their original pronounciation into english. This isn't because the word's pronunciation is different in English; it's because the English-speaking people don't know the rules of the language from which the city's name originates. This is, in essence, the same argument as "scientific terms don't carry their intended meaning to the public, so the public's view of, e.g., the term 'evolution' is correct." To me, correctness is universal, not amenable to the audience. There, I'll pursue this tangent no further. Edited by Mantis, : added "be" I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5542 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
To me, correctness is universal, not amenable to the audience.
Is it then incorrect to pronunce the 's' at the end of the word Paris when speak english? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5542 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I'm not sure about what you mean by 'higher primtes'. Assuming you mean apes, then you are telling me that creationists accept the biological evidence that chimps and gorillas have a common ancestor but deny that humans also share a common ancestor with them. How do you explain then that chimps are genetically more similar to humans then they are to gorillas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5575 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
Please describe the mechanism that allows micro-evolution up to a certain point and then puts up the stop sign saying, "No more!" In other words... How do it know? Let me provide a simplistic example. Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go. I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course. Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim? In my opinion, this is what evolutionists are doing. But the beginning that they have observable (microevolution) is extremely tiny compared to the evolution of all organisms from a single cell. Yes,I understand that evolutionists say because of OTHER evidence (i.e. fossil record, geology, etc), you can then ASSUME it happened. But here's the kicker: If I go nail down a paleontologist on the MANY areas of the fossil record that are lacking in transitional forms, do you know what answers I would get? The same ones you guys are giving me. "We can assume such-and-such, because of our knowledge of genetics." "We can assume such-and-such because of our knowledge of geology." They would say it more scientifically than that, but that is the bottom line. So everyone is building their house of cards on someone else's shaky foundation. And if you nail each area down to what EXACT evidence they have, all you get is a few shreds of evidence and a lot of assuming. So that is what I've been doing. I just want people to tell me what evidence they actually have without pointing to another area of study. The sum can only be found if you know the exact value of the parts. (sorry for the rabbit trail, but I felt it contributed to some things brought up in other posts as well)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Thanks for the response, but it entirely missed the question.
You admit to micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution. What is the mechanism that prevents a bunch of micros from adding up to a macro? How mechanism tells it when to stop, and what mechanism then causes it to stop lest those micros add up to a macro? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024