Evolution - A serious question.

[billyshelby]

It's way too technical for me and my uber-high school education, but thanks to google, I am sort-of keeping up. (but not really)

It's way too technical for almost anyone. I like the anecdotal stuff since the science is over my head. The Hollywood story about Darwin is that he was nearly scooped. He had his theory after the Beagle voyage but spent like 15 years studying Mollusks. It was only when some other guy was about to take credit for his idea that he came forward. Brilliant guy, but human like the rest of us.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I absolutely encourage you to keep on laughing. It's much easier than the alternative.

Well, that's pretty damn harsh right there. If I could +8 you again, I would.

What's so harsh about it? It seems pretty breezy, chillin on the beach weaksause to me. Get a clue bub. There is no alternative to laughter.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I like the way this thread turned out. The pseudo intellectuals got weeded out fast, the militantly blinded endure unbelievable shelling to put their points up on a tee, and the 3 people who actually know anything keep wacking those points out of the park. Carry on.

It's way too technical for me and my uber-high school education, but thanks to google, I am sort-of keeping up. (but not really)

What he's saying is he likes how this thread has evolved.
The Cro-Magnon man is gone, but the Ape's are still here and are fighting with the closest thing to Homo Sapiens we have in this thread, who by the way are using the Ape grunts as batting practice balls.

The funny thing is, it will take God to tell us who is in which category.

 

[PearlWatson]

when it is pointed out that there is no Hopeless Monster in evolution by different posters in different ways,

No, you all claim it was a gradual process but I point out that there is no evidence of a gradual process.
Even the "ancestral population" of the supposed ape-like ancestor is still a "concept" because it doesn't show up in the fossil record.

David Raup (geologist): The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.​

 

[One Brow]

No, you all claim it was a gradual process but I point out that there is no evidence of a gradual process.

You point it out incorrectly. We have osberved new secies being formed, it is always a gradual process.
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

If it is a gradual process today, why would it have been different in the past?

Even the "ancestral population" of the supposed ape-like ancestor is still a "concept" because it doesn't show up in the fossil record.

We actually don't know. Autralopithecines may or may not be human ancestors, same for habilus and erectus. So we may indeed have human acestors. What we do have is a plethora of fossils illustrating the transitions from proto-ape to human in varying ways.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

David Raup (geologist):

https://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. ... Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.

 

[The-Joker]

No, you all claim it was a gradual process but I point out that there is no evidence of a gradual process.
Even the "ancestral population" of the supposed ape-like ancestor is still a "concept" because it doesn't show up in the fossil record.

David Raup (geologist): The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.​

As you super-Christians like to say... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[PearlWatson]

We have osberved new secies being formed
We actually don't know. Autralopithecines may or may not be human ancestors, same for habilus and erectus. So we may indeed have human acestors. What we do have is a plethora of fossils illustrating the transitions from proto-ape to human in varying ways.

We've seen mice turn into other types of mice.
We see wildflowers become slightly different types of wildflowers.
We can see humans turn into different colors of humans.
Woopdeedoo.
What you can't show me is the gradual progression from a single celled organism to a mouse, or the gradual progression of any of that mouses physical attributes.

What we have with your "proto-ape" is your assurances that this "proto-ape" evolved into a human (through random mutation and natural selection). We have no idea whatsoever if we even descended from the "proto-ape." Fossils don't reveal parent-child relationships. Just because Janet Reno looks like Elton John doesn't mean that is proof that Reno gave birth to John.

This excerpt from your Raup quote is pretty funny.

Raup: This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question.

So this record of change shows that change has occured! Awesome! (Actually the record shows vast diversity of different kinds of plants and animals, it can't be established that they changed from something into something else). I do love Darwin's storys about how a fish might have become a bird by jumping out of the water into the air, or how a bear became a whale by falling into the ocean.

Hope and Change! Liberals love the word "change" but they never can explain the details of that "change."

 

[PearlWatson]

As you super-Christians like to say... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence means you can't support your theory...making it on par with Christianity and other religions.

 

[One Brow]

We've seen mice turn into other types of mice.
We see wildflowers become slightly different types of wildflowers.
We can see humans turn into different colors of humans.
Woopdeedoo.

Right, gradual changes, just like you asked for.

What you can't show me is the gradual progression from a single celled organism to a mouse, or the gradual progression of any of that mouses physical attributes.

Why would you see a mouse come from a single-celled organism? There are organisms that are single-celled in some condiions and form mutiple-cell colonies in other conditions, but they don't ever form mice. That makes no sense.

What we have with your "proto-ape" is your assurances that this "proto-ape" evolved into a human (through random mutation and natural selection).

Animals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

We have no idea whatsoever if we even descended from the "proto-ape."

Actually, we havevery strong evidence that we do.

Fossils don't reveal parent-child relationships.

Fossils are not the only type of evidence.

This excerpt from your Raup quote is pretty funny.

Raup: This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question.

I'm not surprised you found it funny instead of informative, or that you only quoted part of it.

So this record of change shows that change has occured! Awesome! (Actually the record shows vast diversity of different kinds of plants and animals, it can't be established that they changed from something into something else).

Why not?

I do love Darwin's storys about how a fish might have become a bird by jumping out of the water into the air, or how a bear became a whale by falling into the ocean.

I don't recall any sotry from Darwin like that. I think you are confusing folk tales with Darwin. That does seem to be your level of sophistication on this topic.

Hope and Change! Liberals love the word "change" but they never can explain the details of that "change."

This is a discussion of science, not politics.

 

[PearlWatson]

I do love Darwin's stories about how a fish might have become a bird by jumping out of the water into the air, or how a bear became a whale by falling into the ocean.

I don't recall any sotry from Darwin like that. I think you are confusing folk tales with Darwin. That does seem to be your level of sophistication on this topic.

Fish to Bird: "Seeing that a few members of such water-breathing classes as the Crustacea and Mollusca are adapted to live on the land; and seeing that we have flying birds . . . it is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals" (The Origin of Species, p. 168).

Bear to Whale: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin. (Gould 1995)

 

[PearlWatson]

Right, gradual changes, just like you asked for.
Why would you see a mouse come from a single-celled organism? There are organisms that are single-celled in some condiions and form mutiple-cell colonies in other conditions, but they don't ever form mice. That makes no sense.
Animals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

What the hell does that mean?

Where did the mice come from if it didn't gradually change from something else by random mutations and natural selection all the way back to the first single celled organism?

 

[One Brow]

What the hell does that mean?

Evolution is a process among populations of animales, not animals.

Where did the mice come from if it didn't gradually change from something else by random mutations and natural selection all the way back to the first single celled organism?

Almost nothing evolves solely from random mutation and natural selection. Outside of that, mice did evolve gradually from an ancestral population on single celled creatures, just as the gradual examples of speciation you've acknowledged already.

 

[One Brow]

Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin. (Gould 1995)

So, you confused speculation with statements of theory? You are not disproving my appraisal of your level of sophistication.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution is a process among populations of animales, not animals.
Almost nothing evolves solely from random mutation and natural selection. Outside of that, mice did evolve gradually from an ancestral population on single celled creatures, just as the gradual examples of speciation you've acknowledged already.

That ain't really helpful to say the exact thing over again. All the attributes of a mouse have to be manifest in one mouse (not spread out in the mouse-like population) for that mouse to pass those traits on.

In your example of mice becoming different type of mice you started out with all the attributes of the mouse in the first pair from Europe. How the hell did those mice get all those attributes to begin with?

You don't have any evidence for mice evolving from a single celled organism population. So that is just absurd speculation.

 

[PearlWatson]

So, you confused speculation with statements of theory? You are not disproving my appraisal of your level of sophistication.

I stated they were his stories, and yes they were his explanations of how natural selection supposedly worked.

 

[TroutBum]

That ain't really helpful to say the exact thing over again.

Oh, now that's some choice **** right there.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You don't have any evidence for mice evolving from a single celled organism population. So that is just absurd speculation.

It's not absurd speculation. It's predictive.

Evolution (change in gene frequencies in a population over time) is a fact. Speciation is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact. Mutations are fact. Mutations occurring in creation of and combining of gametes is a fact. Given all these facts, and using common traits and thus common ancestry, science can predict a result (for the future) or occurrence (for the past). There has never been any scientific evidence to refute the predictive nature of the Theory of Evolution, only the specific timelines for when they occur.

Using the Theory of Evolution, one would state that humans are more related to mice than spiders. Or put another way, humans have a closer ancestor to mice than spiders. This is because humans have more common traits to mice than spiders. Four appendages to eight. Mammary glands to none, etc. Genetics prove that humans are more closely related to mice than spiders. There's no evidence to the contrary that humans are more related to mice than spiders.

We know without uncertainty what happens in the small scale. It's used to predict the large scale, and has yet to be shown to be incorrect.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's not absurd speculation. It's predictive.

Evolution (change in gene frequencies in a population over time) is a fact. Speciation is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact. Mutations are fact. Mutations occurring in creation of and combining of gametes is a fact. Given all these facts, and using common traits and thus common ancestry, science can predict a result (for the future) or occurrence (for the past). There has never been any scientific evidence to refute the predictive nature of the Theory of Evolution, only the specific timelines for when they occur.

Using the Theory of Evolution, one would state that humans are more related to mice than spiders. Or put another way, humans have a closer ancestor to mice than spiders. This is because humans have more common traits to mice than spiders. Four appendages to eight. Mammary glands to none, etc. Genetics prove that humans are more closely related to mice than spiders. There's no evidence to the contrary that humans are more related to mice than spiders.

We know without uncertainty what happens in the small scale. It's used to predict the large scale, and has yet to be shown to be incorrect.

You never met my wife's step-mother (I refuse to call her "mother-in-law").

 

[The-Joker]

Absence of evidence means you can't support your theory...making it on par with Christianity and other religions.

Other than things like facts, scientists, making sense, high paying university degrees, billions of research dollars, the entire medical field... that separate Evolution from religion.

Other than that evolution and religion are the same thing.

 

[PearlWatson]

Other than things like facts, scientists, making sense, high paying university degrees, billions of research dollars, the entire medical field... that separate Evolution from religion.

Other than that evolution and religion are the same thing.

Why the hell are we wasting billions of research dollars on a pseudoscience that is trying to prove we all came from "ancestral populations" of ape-like thingies?
Shouldn't we spend that money on actual science that is useful.