Let us reason together.

greyline,Where is the evidence of man "evolving" from something that is not human?[This message has been edited by drummachine, 03-20-2003]

Andya Primanda,1)Where is your evidence of a hunter-gatherer human living 20,000 years ago and how did you get that date?2)What evidence do you have of the ape-man?

Okay, drum. To expand a bit on what Taz and Schraf et al have explained about evolution, I thought I'd repost something I put on evcforum a while back.First off, there are some very basic statements that, for evolution to be true, must be true. All provide potential pathways for falsification. All lend themselves to development of testable hypotheses. All have (scientifically) predictive value:1. If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth.2. As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny.3. Organisms show variation in characteristics or traits that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits.4. Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce.5. Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation.6. To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce.Next, you need to understand (and remember) that natural selection leading to evolution is simply the differential reproduction of genotypes. There are two basic assumptions for natural selection to work:1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo.Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.Does this help your understanding?(edited to delete graphic that didn't load for some reason)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-21-2003]

A small piece of it is on this page, starting about half way down. File Not Found (404) | American Association for the Advancement of Science[This message has been edited by Karl, 03-21-2003]

quote:

---

What do you want? I have already explained my belief about evolution. Please just simply post your questions that you think I am not answering. Do you want me to explain something like natural selection? Have I not explained evolution? Have I missed something? Please be descriptive. What do you want me to explain???

---

For crying out loud, how much frigging clearer can I be? Are you not reading my posts?I did not ask you what YOUR beliefs about evolution are.I asked you to provide, in your own words, what SCIENTISTS say evolution is, and how it works.PUT ASIDE you own beliefs for now.STOP PREACHING AND TELLING ME HOW WRONG EVOLUTION IS.Pretend you are an evolutionist and tell me what scientists say evolution is and how it works.

quote:

---

What about what the Admin said. Dont give links. Plain text. Schrafinator, will you please explain that page since I guest I dont understand?

---

There is nothing wrong with providing links, only bare links that do not address the specifics of the discussion.I and others have already explained a great deal to you in this thread, so I am not going to spoon feed you yet again. It's time you do some work for yourself here. What don't you understand, from which messages?Please also understand that I do not appreciate the fact that you ignore most of the direct questions and comments I have stated in my replies to you.I have repeatedly asked you to answer specific questions, yet you ignore them.What am I to think about this? How much interest am I to think you have in this sidcussion if you ignore most of what I write?

quote:

---

Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:

​

1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.

---

In other words (Although, I know you evos just hate these self-evident terms):1. Microevolution
2. MacroevolutionFirst, it is entirely debatable what exactly constitutes a new species.Second, macroevolution has never been observed. The extrapolation of alleged microevolution is merely assumed (not predicted). Fact is, nobody can "predict" the next stage of evolution with regards to Quetzel's #2 above (#1 predictions specific as to future new species are equally non-existant). Never seen an evolutionist even try. This would appear to make the ToE unfalsifiable. Accordingly, ToE is a useless theory which carries zero worth for the present and future. Most alarming, however, is that, unlike all the rest of real science, #2 cannot even be demonstrated in the present.Making inferences from the alleged data contained in the earth's crust are not equivelant to making meaningful predictions about the future. Predicting precisely what new taxa will evolve in the future from the descendants of humans (or any other organism alleged to have a common ancestor with a trilobyte) would be more in line with what constitutes a real prediction (imperative to real science) with regards to ToE.I won't hold my breath.But the story telling is entertaining...

If this is meant to be your explanation of what scientists say evolution is and how it works, it isn't adequate.First of all, I asked you for your own words. This is clearly a cut-n-paste from some creationists site.Second of all, it is a broad, emotional argument against secular humanism and does not address the specifics of evolution accurately. It is much too simplistic, makes several unsupported claims, and erects several strawmen.Sorry, you get a zero on this assignment.

I just would like to mention that most of this basic information is in the link "evolution for beginners" which I posted a long while back for Drummachine.

quote:

---

Second, macroevolution has never been observed. The extrapolation of alleged microevolution is merely assumed (not predicted).

---

Electrons have never been observed, either. Does this mean that they do not exist?

quote:

---

Making inferences from the alleged data contained in the earth's crust are not equivelant to making meaningful predictions about the future. Predicting precisely what new taxa will evolve in the future from the descendants of humans (or any other organism alleged to have a common ancestor with a trilobyte) would be more in line with what constitutes a real prediction (imperative to real science) with regards to ToE.

---

Meteorology can't tell us if it's going to be sunny or rainy a year from today, so are you saying then that meteorology isn't a science?You are ignoring (or don't know about) "retrodictions". These are predictions, based upon evolutionary theory, of what we will find in the fossil record if the theory is accurate.So far, evolutionary theory has held up pretty well with all of the new discoveries.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-21-2003]

Hey Zephan, before bothering to respond to the above, I'd appreciate your attention to your non-response on the Margulis thread. Thanks.

No doubt - I credited you in the opening paragraph of that post. However, I thought since he apparently couldn't be bothered to click on the link, I'd let him have a little synopsis in black and white here (or white and blue, I guess) where it'd be a bit harder to ignore. Now he truthfully can't say no one's given him an understandable explanation.

Clearly nuclear physics is also unfalsifiable because it can't tell us when a given nucleus will decay.I'm not even going to bother posting a list of possible observations that would falsify the ToE because it's been so well done and well ignored by the creationist side before.

quote:

---

Electrons have never been observed, either. Does this mean that they do not exist?

---

Objection noted...What do you think?And why is it that there is no ToE (theory of electrons)? Because.......Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate the properties of electrons in real time. The fact that we can predict the future behavior manifested by electrons on a rather consistent basis may have even contributed to the developement of the electron microscope (ya think?), which of course, like all other advancements in science, evolution had nothing to do with at all.Same thing with nuclear physics. Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate and predict (in real time) the behavior manifested by atoms under certain conditions. Perhaps you've heard of the superconducter? And surely Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't been forgotten?So, to put ToE on par with the electronic microscope, the superconducter, and the atom bomb is quite the non-sequitur, non?Unless the point was to prove the irrelevancy of ToE to real science...In summary, then, things like gravity, electrons, and the properties of atoms can be demonstrated in real time WHEREAS ToE cannot. Turn a fruitfly into a bee or grasshopper and ToE may be able to place itself on par with the other discoveries of science able to be demonstrated and observed in real time.

Lets start with this question if you dont mind?Where is your plain evidence of a transitional form?

In Olduvai Gorge.