Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 28 of 493 (489881)
11-30-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Integral
11-30-2008 6:52 AM


Hi, Integral. Welcome to EvC!
Integral writes:
The only thing that i cannot quite get my head round is that fact that you are using these very small scale examples and multiply there impact over millions of years to explain the existence of the life on this planet...
There are a couple of points to be made here.
First, the explanation provided (evolutionary natural history, or the history of life on the earth as explained by evolution) jives well with the evidence that is seen, namely a succession of different animal and plant communities in different layers of the fossil record that line up in such a way as to suspect that they are the descendants of the communities that came before them. As has been pointed out by others already, the fossil record includes several breathtaking examples of transitional fossils, wherein gradual changes can be seen to occur, one or two at a time, between a series of fossil species.
Second, we have shown that small-scale changes are real, and that organisms that have undergone one small-scale change can later undergo more small-scale changes (that is, the changes accumulate over time). So, we have much evidence that shows that such changes can occur and can accumulate.
Third, we have no evidence whatsoever that suggests that these changes must stop accumulating at some point. If you think about it, accumulating and halting the accumulation are two entirely different phenomena that would be caused by two entirely different mechanisms. So far, we have evidence for a mechanism of accumulation, but no evidence for a mechanism to halt accumulation.
In the absence of a halting mechanism, what would give us any reason to think accumulation stops?
Integral writes:
And to adress the point that was made that evolution has so much more evidence, i was under the belief that there is really not that much evidence at all.
Take some time someday and thoroughly read a biology textbook, preferably an evolutionary biology textbook. Spend a few hours a day reading peer-reviewed literature, too: if you do that, you’ll eventually realize how much effort and revision has gone in to putting these ideas together. It isn’t just an idea that somebody pulled out of a hat in the middle of a groupthink session (despite what certain people would have you believe): it has been tested literally thousands of times over by thousands (maybe even millions) of independent researchers from everywhere around the world, in hundreds of different ecosystems and with thousands of different study organisms.
The point that I’m trying to make is that the pattern is very well documented. Even though there are millions of organisms about which we know next to nothing, there is no indication, as yet, that some mechanism other than descent with modification is required to explain the diversity of life. So we should just stick to what we already know until we find that what we know is no longer sufficient.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Integral, posted 11-30-2008 6:52 AM Integral has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 82 of 493 (492242)
12-29-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wardog25
12-29-2008 2:28 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
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.
So, as long as they acknowledge it, it's... not evidence? What?
-----
wardog25 writes:
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?
If different things share a common ancestor, then it's quite obvious that some sort of change has happened over time. Since "change over time" is the definition of the word "evolution," how could common ancestry not be evidence of evolution?
Remember, creationism need not be false for evolution to be true. If any hereditary change happens over time (even just at the species level), evolution has been proven true. Any difference in survival and reproduction associated with the changes proves evolution by natural selection. You are conflating two very different concepts---“evolution” and “natural history” (this is a pet topic of mine, so bear with me).
Evolution is a mechanism of change over time. Natural history is the explanation of the history of life. Natural history can be divided into several subtypes: what I call “evolutionary natural history” and “creationary natural history,” as well as any number of grades between. But, strict “evolutionary natural history,” wherein all life arose from pre-biotic chemicals with no intelligent intervention, need not be true for evolution to happen.
So, if God created one “cat” kind, and that kind evolved into tigers, lions, cheetahs, cougars and Smilodons, this would be evolution. Evolution vs Creation is not a strict dichotomy wherein one must be completely false and the other must be completely true. That creationists accept “microevolution” only means that creationists accept the Theory of Evolution, while rejecting parts of “evolutionary natural history.”
-----
wardog25 writes:
So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order?
What are you asking for, Wardog?
Do you want evidence of a new order having arisen in recent times? Surely you know it doesn't work that way.
Would phylogenies work? How about, if creationists accept that all primates are derived from a single common ancestor, and we can show that the same trend of genetic nestedness continues unabated right across the primate/non-primate line? Would that be good enough for you? Why not?
You want “biological” evidence, but you have already stipulated that ring species and bacterial resistance (which pretty much prove what you’re looking for) don’t count. It seems like you want evidence that fits a random suite of arbitrary conditions that you just pulled out of your head. What possible benefit could there be for such a discussion?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 2:28 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 493 (492309)
12-29-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


95% Percent of the Time.
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
Not acknowledge. Affirm.
You're right: I wrote the wrong word. I'll rephrase:
So, as long as they affirm it, it's... not evidence? What?
-----
wardog25 writes:
Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution...
...But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
This is bull crap and you know it.
I'd be interested to know how you think hereditary change over time within a population confirms creationism.
Clearly, it doesn't. It confirms evolution. No, check that: it is evolution.
Clearly, this evidence has place in the evolution vs creation debate.
-----
wardog25 writes:
Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it.
And, 95% of Americans think the "j" in "Beijing" is pronounced like a French "j." They're still wrong, too.
-----
wardog25 writes:
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind".
That's because they changed the definition of "kind" when they learned about ring species, not because baraminology is a robust scientific idea.
Most IDists accept that changes accumulate, because it has been proven that changes accumulate. But, they don't accept that changes can continue to accumulate beyond a certain, unspecified level (usual a different level for most "kinds," too: insects get lumped into a few "kinds" while mammals get split up into a whole bunch).
But, once you've proven that changes accumulate, why do you have to prove that they continue to accumulate?
What is the difference between "accumulate" and "continue to accumulate"?

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by caffeine, posted 12-30-2008 8:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 94 of 493 (492345)
12-30-2008 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by caffeine
12-30-2008 8:46 AM


Re: 95% Percent of the Time.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by caffeine, posted 12-30-2008 8:46 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by fallacycop, posted 12-30-2008 1:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 100 of 493 (492358)
12-30-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by wardog25
12-30-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 1:05 PM wardog25 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 101 of 493 (492359)
12-30-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by fallacycop
12-30-2008 1:58 PM


Re: 95% Percent of the Time.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by fallacycop, posted 12-30-2008 1:58 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by fallacycop, posted 12-30-2008 3:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 493 (492387)
12-30-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
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?
I see your point.
But, as we've been trying to explain, there are known mechanisms that limit the turtle's ability to traverse such a great distance (exhaustion, food limitation, lifespan, climatic changes between Florida and Beijing, lack of interest in making the voyage; etc.), while no such mechanisms are known for the accumulation of genetic changes over time. People have looked for them and failed to find them. They are not there.
Here’s a hypothetical example. Below is a diagram representing a handful of hypothetical species lined up in a dendrogram:
A   B  C   D  E F G
 \  /   \   \/  \/
  \/     \   \  /
   \      \   \/
    \      \  /
     \      \/
      \     /
       \   /
        \ /
This dendrogram has only a single basal node, indicating that all 7 species belong to a single "kind." This is obviously the purest form of "evolutionary natural history."
A creationist might say that the dendrogram is better represented like this:
A    B  C    D  E  F  G
 \  /    \    \/    \/
Where the first dendrogram has a single basal node, this one has 5 basal nodes, creating 5 “kinds”: (A), (B), (C), (D+E), and (F+G).
Or, like this:
A   B  C   D  E  F G
 \  /   \   \/   \/
  \/     \   \   /
which has 4 "kinds": (A+B), (C), (D+E), and (F+G).
The difference between F and G might be, for example 10%, and a similar difference might be predicted for D and E. But then, the node between F and G might differ from the node between D and E by 15%.
Now, the creationist must explain why accumulation of 10% difference between D and E is acceptable, while 15% between (D+E) and (F+G) is not. Furthermore, what if the difference between the nodes is only 10%? Why can one 10% change (between F and G) happen, but not another (the node between node D+E and node F+G)? There are cases where this phenomenon has been seen. (Here is a good thread from not too long ago about this concept).
And, the creationist must explain what happens when the threshold is met. If a certain “kind” can sustain 12% accumulation of mutations, what happens when 12% is reached (I’m just throwing out arbitrary numbers for ease of expression)? Does some mechanism kick in that prevents another mutation from happening beyond 12%? Or, do all organisms of that “kind” that mutate beyond 12% just die off or abort as fetusus or something? Why? And, more importantly, is there any evidence of this?
On the other hand, the evolutionist does not have to explain anything special. If one 10% change can happen, the evolutionist already has an explanation for how another 10% change can happen. And, so far, no evidence has yet disproven it, so it remains tentatively accepted unless somebody produces evidence against it.
-----
wardog25 writes:
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.
And, once again, you've apparently failed to notice that many different bits of evidence have been provided for you that meet the criteria you've set. Read the following posts again, just for starters:
Message 79
Message 92
Message 93
Edited by Mantis, : Fix URL problem. Thanks, RAZD

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 2:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 121 of 493 (492474)
12-31-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view.
I don’t want to be offensive and start a mud-slinging contest here, but I think, if you study a little bit more, you’ll find that it’s the creationists who really don’t fathom their own point of view.
And, it never ceases to amaze me how many clueless people say exactly what you just said. I’m a little surprised to hear it from you, because you certainly don’t strike me as one of them.
-----
wardog25 writes:
The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that).
First, I coined the term myself (along with it’s companion “creationary natural history” (which also included coining the term “creationary”)), and the US Patent Office pays me a dollar everytime somebody says it. So, keep going! (Obviously, I’m lying about the money; but, as far as I know, I did make up the terms).
Second, I disagree with you. The diversification of animals before and after the time often attributed to the Noachian flood did follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history. Now what do we do? Start a thread about it, I guess.
-----
wardog25 writes:
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
The fundamental concept of evolution is that offspring are different from their parents. The Theory of Evolution is primarily concerned with the fixation of new genes, but new combinations of already-existing genes can also be selected for or against by natural selection. And, creationists/IDists like to claim (as you did in Message 115) that this is the only way for evolution to happen. But, this is not true.
Red hair and light skin are mutations.
There was a time in the past when red hair did not exist in the human population.
There was a time in the past when light skin did not exist in the human population.
There was a time in the past when Slavic people didn’t exist.
There was a time in the past when epicanthal folds (which cause “slanted eyes”) didn’t exist.
There was even a time in the past when blonde hair did not exist in the human population.
And (at least in the case of red hair) scientists have found exactly what the mutation is (there are actually several different mutations that lead to the red-hair phenotype). Check out this section of the Wikipedia article on red hair and this segment of the Wikipedia article on the MC1R protein, which is the protein that red-haired mutants do not express properly. And, this short report (I hope you don’t need a subscription to view it, but I don’t think I did) reviews some work done on red hair phenotypes, and enumerates the exact mutations to the MC1R gene that cause red hair (there are four or five listed here, any one or two of which can apparently lead to red hair).
Furthermore, processes that produce those mutations have been seen to occur thousands of times in laboratory studies. I don’t know what the exact stimulus was in these cases, but mutations are known to be caused by UV exposure, free radicals, simple unforced errors of DNA-coding machinery, and other stuff, any of which can happen for no particular reason at all.
So, we’ve shown what the difference between red hair and blonde hair is, and we’ve shown that that difference can occur by mutation. And, on top of that, we’ve watched as dozens, maybe even hundreds, of new, beneficial mutations have appeared in laboratory-reared colonies of bacteria. And yet, you somehow still made this argument in Message 115:
wardog25 writes:
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.
I would like to point out the neither “reliability” nor “healthiness” is required of mutation. Mutation is simply a random generator that produces hundreds of random, small changes each generation, some subset of which get passed on. If every generation in your pedigree accumulated and passed on just one mutation (I think the actual number is likely much more than that), there would be over 240 base pairs in you that were not in Noah (assuming 6000 years ago and 2-year generations). But, that’s assuming we are asexual, such that there is only one line of people. In reality, each human generation consists of the conjunction of two lines of people.
So, you get one that’s new to you, one from each parent, one from each grandparent, one from each great-grandparent, etc. 15 in just four generations. Your spouse will contribute another 15, and your child will produce a new one of their own, so there’s 31 in 6 generations.
You can see how this might get messy?
And, it’s easily an understatement. I’m sure you’ll pass on more than just 1 new mutation to your children, because mutations happen more frequently than that.
Furthermore, mutation isn’t the only kind of novel change that happens in a genome. There are mechanisms whereby chromosomes “intentionally” introduce variation by reshuffling their contents among themselves. Plus, certain types of viruses frequently introduce hordes of their own sequences into their hosts’ genomes. These will all be passed on, and may someday experience enough mutations to accidentally create something functional.
-----
There, I think I've said enough now. I'm exhausted.
-----
Aside to RAZD: Thank goodness Google provides “closest match” searches, or I never would have found out that “non compos mentis” is an insult. You punk!
I decided to go with an entomology theme, just so people would associate me with my profession more easily. You can still call me Bluejay, though: that’s my name, after all.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 6:36 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 278 by wardog25, posted 01-07-2009 11:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 167 of 493 (492762)
01-02-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 3:25 AM


What you can't understand about evolution
Hi, Seekingfirstthekingdom. Welcome to EvC!
I'm a biologist (a current PhD student, actually) and I speak Mandarian Chinese and can use classical Latin competently in addition to my native English. Am I qualified to speak with you?
SFTK writes:
So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?
You've got that wrong.
Please explain to me the exact, “real easy” method that we would use to identify our first common ancestor. Science is fucking hard, dude: you don’t just read it in a book, like you do with religion. Just because evolution hasn’t constructed a detailed mythos and pantheon doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have meaningful things to say. We're behind the game because we're putting more effort into it!
Someday, maybe some brilliant scientist will be able to answer your question. But, inability to answer all questions right now is not an indication of impotence. Science can only exist where there are still questions to be answered, and, as you’ve correctly pointed out, there will still be science to do for thousands of years to come.
Remember, with evolution, we’re working backwards, starting with stuff we have available to us today and trying to find out what happened to get that stuff where it is now. If you think it’s possible for us to get it perfect, than you’ve got entirely too high an opinion of us. While I’m flattered, I’d prefer you remain realistic.
The use of the Theory of Evolution to describe the past is called “natural history.” “Natural history” relies on ToE, not vice-versa. ToE is just “change between generations,” not “all things arising from a single common ancestor over billions of years” (that’s natural history, which can be proven wrong without effectingToE in the slightest). You are free to disagree with evolutionary natural history, if you want, but don’t do so because it has failed to provide you some specific thing that you want. Rather, evaluate its utility in terms of what it does provide you. There are thousands, probably even millions, of papers written about evolution and related topics: a wealth of information for you to peruse on your own. I think you’ll find that the pieces of the puzzle we’ve uncovered so far have really painted a robust picture, even though there are still many, many pieces missing.
-----
Furthermore, as EvC forum member Lyx2no said very well here:
lyx2no writes:
Today, I picked up a cabbage in the produce department of my local supermarket and put it into a plastic bag. Next, I brought it over to the scale to weigh it out for a price sticker. It weighed out at 2.47 lb. at $1.29 per lb. for a total cost of $3.19. I placed the price sticker on the bag I had put the cabbage into and carried it up to the . Wait . let me start over. I forgot to tell you how I got into the supermarket.
Just in case that was too oblique for you, it means that you don’t have to start at the very beginning of time to tell a meaningful story. That would get really tiresome in everyday conversations, yeah?
-----
By the way, you know what happens when you try to cram words into a pre-decided acronym? You make a mistake that makes you look irreconcilably stupid, and reveal to everyone that you care more about slandering your opponent than making a good argument. Yeast are eukaryotes, which are orders of magnitude more complex than bacteria (and even have symbiotic bacteria living within their cells!), and certainly are not direct ancestors of humans, either.
Edited by Mantis, : No reason given.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:25 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 5:24 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 171 of 493 (492783)
01-02-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 5:24 PM


Re: What you can't understand about evolution
Hi, Seefirthedom.
Seefirthedom writes:
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.You dont have to test either.
You're going to make me cry.
How do you come to these completely innane conclusions?
You asked one question, and, because we admittedly don't have an answer for it, you conclude that we don't have any evidence at all for anything that we say and that we don't feel we have to run tests?
I have a counter-challenge for you:
Can you tell me, specifically, when God made fungus and bacteria?
If you can't answer this question with real evidence, it will prove that the entire creationist point of view is without evidence and completely invalid.
Does this help you understand why everyone's pissed off at you?

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 5:24 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 193 of 493 (492829)
01-03-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-03-2009 3:04 AM


Re: and finally for now
Hi, Seefirthedom.
Seefirthedom writes:
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.
Capacity to evolve has nothing to do with an organism's "abilities." Evolution is something that the environment causes, and that the individual organism has no control over. Changes in the genome happen because of random events in the environment. Organisms flourish or perish based on whether their particular set of characteristics is compatible with the environment about them, not whether they have "evolutionary super powers."
Furthermore, evolution does not happen to a single organism, either: it happens within and between populations. An individual organism will not evolve at all: it's genome will remain the same throughout its lifetime. The genome only changes between generations.
For a simple, one-celled organism, a DNA molecule is replicated during reproduction (this is still true of later organisms, but it's a bit more complicated, so let's just stick to this simple scenario for now). DNA replication is not a perfect process: accidents happen that may insert, delete or modify the sequence of molecules that make up the DNA. Thus, the new copy of the DNA will turn out to be different from the original copy. That's what we call evolution: not some ability that a organism has, and not something that any organism has any direct control over, but just something that inadvertantly introduces a spontaneous change that affects the offspring.
When the spontaneous changes impact the organism's fitness (it's ability to cope with its environment), natural selection happens. Things with lower fitness die off or are otherwise less successful than things with greater fitness, so that, within a certain amount of time, the fit predominate and the unfit are eradicated entirely.
Again, the organism has no direct control over this, nor does the organism have some kind of "power" that allows this process to happen.
-----
Seefirthedom writes:
I can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.
Actually, I don't think the discovery of this organism will have much practical value at all, seeing as it is mostly likely extinct.
And, I have no idea why you think "seeding the deserts," "multiplying endangered animals" and "solving food shortages" are in any way related to finding the original organism on the planet. Really, all we'd likely get from it in a practical sense is a measure of clarification to the Tree of Life. That's why there's not all that much money in phylogeny and evolutionary natural history: it's mostly an academic pursuit in a world run by businessmen.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-03-2009 3:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 212 of 493 (492971)
01-04-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 8:24 PM


Hi, Seefirthedom.
SFTK writes:
Somebody writes:
Evolution does not require a single common ancestor.
Strange.I have the ancestors tale sitting right in front of me and the words to describe our initial ancestor is a single celled protozoa.His words in the inside cover talk of a final pilgrimage is taken together by all living things back to the origin of life itself.Thats not a common ancestor or him alluding to a common ancestor?Ok.
This is a good example of what AdminNosy was talking about.
I'm going to try my best to explain this (again). Forgive me if I fail to make it clear (again). But, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please carefully read and digest what I'm about to write, because I'm pretty sure this will be the third time I have written it now, and it apparently still has not sunk in yet.
Science is not a single, universal theory. There are many, many theories, and each individual theory is about something different. The Theory of Evolution, in its basic form, is only the scientific principle of descent with modification (i.e., the principle "offspring are different from their parents"). You can use this theory to trace all life back to a single ancestor, but this is just an add-on: it is not a fundamental part of the theory. If life instead proves to be traceable to six original ancestors, and not to a single ancestor, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) can still be real.
Have you got it yet?
Let me beat this mortally-wounded horse one more time just for the sake of thoroughness:
God could design 100 completely different organisms and put them on a planet, and they could still evolve. Likewise, life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.
The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor. But, we may uncover something that overturns this. In that case, we would not throw up our hands and say, "evolution is false." Rather, we will say, "life on earth evolved from multiple initial organisms."
Do you see how the number of initial "kinds" does not effect whether evolution happens?
-----
SFTK writes:
Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.
But, it isn't real to me. Not yet, anyway. Nobody I know has any idea what the organism was, beyond the common-sense notion that it was a simple, single-celled organism. There are a lot of data that lead us to theorize that this organism exists and that there are a number of characteristics that it likely had, but, the question of its exact identity is still up in the air.
We're not perfect, Seefer: please don't expect us to be. Please allow us to be fallible humans, and please treat our decades and decades of hard, meticulous (and incomplete) work with a least a modicum of respect. Please?
-----
SFTK writes:
Offering another point of view.I can handle you calling me arrogant just as long as you can handle me pointing a few things out to you guys.I got the feeling you cant.Im done replying to you, its off topic cupcake.
Um, Seefer, people with "Admin" in their name are the site's moderators (i.e., bosses). Admins do not participate in debates: if you get a message from one, it's because he is telling you what the rules are. That is, he's warning you. It makes sense to allow them to post that kind of stuff. You're not supposed to respond to them, though: there's a thread for discussion problems (right here) that I think is the place they prefer you to respond to their messages and actions.
-----
And, finally, a personal request: would it be possible for you to push the long, skinny key at the bottom of your keyboard after you type a period? Your posts are not easy to read.
Also, you're responding to yourself in a lot of these. There's a "reply" button at the bottom of every message: push the one at the bottom of the message you're responding to.
Edited by Mantis, : Clarifications
Edited by Mantis, : No reason given.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 8:24 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 215 of 493 (492974)
01-04-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


Hi, Seefer.
Mantis, message #212, writes:
I'm going to try my best to explain this (again). Forgive me if I fail to make it clear (again).
Apparently, I failed.
Please reread Message 212 carefully.
Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?
If not, will you at least explain why you will not acknowledge this?
Edited by Mantis, : I wrote "Bluejay," which isn't my screen name anymore (I didn't even spell it write, anyway).

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:02 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 236 of 493 (493046)
01-05-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Peg
01-05-2009 2:00 AM


Hypothetical Writing 101
Hi, Peg.
I wish there were a way to adequately express my intellectual fatigue without it coming off as frustration. Please read this post in a tired, somber voice so you get the appropriate emotional content.
Thank you.
-----
Peg writes:
firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?
It's funny that you would ask me this when the score so far is 7-0. If there's a point you're trying to make, you'd probably be better off trying to make it to someone else, yeah?
I don't really care what you call it. To me, it might as well be a fact. We've seen it happen in laboratories. That makes it a fact.
But, since most people agree that the implications are much more expansive than bacteria getting new "super-powers," and since I prefer consistency to technicality, and since I like to emphasize the nature of the scientific method, I prefer to stick to the term "theory."
It's not a derogatory term in scientific circles, after all.
-----
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.
...the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?
Do you know how to read hypothetical statements, Peg? Here's the full quote, if anybody's interested:
Bluejay, message #212, writes:
God could design 100 completely different organisms and put them on a planet, and they could still evolve. Likewise, life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.
Did you notice how I juxtaposed a hypothetical creationist scenario with a hypothetical naturalistic scenario (these are color-coded for your convenience)? Notice also the tentative language cues (these are bolded: you are aware that "could" is the conditional mood for "can," and not just the past tense, right?).
I did all of that on purpose. The point of that paragraph was not to interject an argument for abiogenesis into the debate, but, rather, to show that evolution and common descent are not the same thing, and that evolution could theoretically happen under a number of scenarios that do not involve a single common ancestor (please note the conditional mood of "could" in this sentence). Also note that the purpose of the paragraph was explicitly stated in the last sentence (that's the one in white letters above, in case you missed it).
For the love of God, Peg, please keep context in mind when you make an argument. If you don't know how, please consider taking a technical writing course: it will do you worlds of good in such areas as "staying on-topic" and "interpreting what evolutionists are saying to you."
(did you remember to do the somber voice?)
Edited by Mantis, : Imperfect subjunctive tense.
Edited by Mantis, : "please note the conditional mood of 'could' in this sentence"

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Peg has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 238 of 493 (493051)
01-05-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:02 AM


Hi, Seefer.
I know you've been suspended, but I find that rather unfortunate, because it seems like you and I are finally understanding each other. I'd like to add a couple comments to what has been said by others in the hopes that we can continue a productive dialogue.
Seefer writes:
Bluejay writes:
Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?
I acknowledge it. In fact you might have noticed i firmly believe its impossible .
This is promising.
Evolution = change from generation to generation
Common Descent = all organisms today are evolutionary descendants of a single common ancestor
All right, so, let's return to your initial questions:
Seefer, post #129, writes:
1. Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?
(some formatting added by Mantis)
You can see now how this question only applies to the Theory of Common Descent (CD), and not to the Theory of Evolution?
CD predicts that there is a single, common ancestor; but we don’t have nearly enough data available to us yet to make any good conclusions about the exact character of the common ancestor.
Will you acknowledge that there is a difference between (a) predicting that there is a common ancestor based on available information, and (b) knowing precisely what the common ancestor was?
-----
Seefer, Post #129, cont’d, writes:
Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils (naming them would be nice) it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
(some formatting added by Mantis)
This question is probably even less possible to answer than the first question.
But, in Wheel of Fortune, do you need to have all the letters in place before you can figure out what the phrase is?
If not, why do you believe that we need to know all the pieces of this scientific puzzle to figure out what the big picture is?
-----
Seefer writes:
I understand that life could of arisen from differing organisms. Thats another topic and when you think about it requires some even more science suspending events to have happened.
I’d love to discuss this with you (on a new thread), if you’re interested. But, for now, given the moderators’ moods, maybe we should work out this debate before we try to start a new thread.
-----
Seefer writes:
Thank you once again for staying on topic.
I should perhaps also point out that the questions that you raised aren’t technically the topic of this thread, so it might be wise if you were to avoid policing “on-topic” issues in this case.
-----
Seefer writes:
This debate has participants that are so firmly entrenched in their particular set of beliefs that nothing short of God whupping atheists upside their heads or absolutely irrefutable evidence that there aint a God would change our varying views.
Although this also isn’t the topic of the thread, I feel it prudent to point out that this debate is not about religion vs atheism, either. You may or may not have discovered yet that I am Christian myself. The important part about this debate is to leave your own beliefs out of it, such that, where there is no evidence, you do not default to a certain position, but allow the evidence that is present to serve as a basis for “predicting” the correct answer to an unknown question.
Most of us fail at it (sometimes quite spectacularly), but, I have noticed that my evolutionist colleagues do a much better job at trying than my fellow Christians. As scientists, we stumble and bumble along, trying to find meaningful answers to a myriad of questions without resorting to impulsive or uncritical belief systems, but we're not any more perfect than anyone else, and, human nature is to be impulsive and uncritical

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:02 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024