Evolution discussion

[Darkwing Duck]

https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4427142/medieval-humans-adapted-to-resist-leprosy-study

Someone in the comments thread questioned the possible variables that weren't mentioned. Plus, there usually isn't a major change in resistances unless there are many deaths in that population. Possible that many contracted leprosy before reproducing, and the stigma quickly kept them from reproducing, so those with more resistances bred, so maybe that's the cause of the drastic shift.

 

[carolinajazz]

Actually, I've seen similar wording regularly in scientific papers. Scientists have no problem with speculations labeled as speculations. However, speculations and educated guesses are not theories.

There are various definitions of "theories" as well! The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. Although you, and other "evolutionists" like to think your "theory" has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact....that is simply NOT the case! You and others declare that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun.....that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. And debates rages about theories of evolution, but do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

The picture of a creature fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted to their environment. Populations that produce offspring which are undeveloped, unformed, or maladapted don't leave enough progeny to have a significant chance of being fossilized. Evolution predicts that the typical creature in any particular population will be fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted.

Evolution "predicts?" Just like they predicted that the fossil record would eventually prove by means of "intermediate stages" that these various species "evolved" from one another? Yet there are NONE! The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations is a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24,*25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution!"

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected. So, on the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best!

 

[carolinajazz]

1) Yes, there are several protobirds that have been discovered.
2) Even a small ability to glide, or leap high, can be a survival advantage (e.g., flying squirrels). The ability to fly didn't need to spring into being overnight.

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor! Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds! Yes, they are unique, they are different....but they're not birds! And what's the survival "advantage" of the flying squirrel....when the gray squirrels still exist by the billions, out numbering the flying squirrels by a factor of 10? Please tell me your not pinning your hopes of the truthfulness of "evolution" or that birds came from reptiles by the "flying squirrel"? Oh, wait! The flying squirrel is not a reptile, it's a mammal! (Actually a tree rat!)

 

[MVP]

. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found.

You are like broken record. How many times we need to repeat that numerous transitional species have been discovered in fossil records and even live on earth right now. You are just to ignorant to see it. Stop playing this card as it is wrong.

 

[MVP]

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor! Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds!

What is a penguin? Ostrich? Kiwi?

 

[One Brow]

There are various definitions of "theories" as well!

Of course, but when discussing science, we should use the definition specific to science.

Although you, and other "evolutionists" like to think your "theory" has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact....that is simply NOT the case! You and others declare that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity.

Aspects of evolution are fact. The development of bacteria that eat various synthetic materials is a fact. The there was a common ancestral population for all apes is a fact. These facts are based in careful observation, experimentation, and testing, just like the motion of a body in a gravitational field is a fact.

But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun.....that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally.

Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians. It's been demonstrated experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, hydrogen and oxygen make water, gravity exists, and we share a common ancestry with every other animal, using the exact same experimental processes.

And debates rages about theories of evolution, but do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No.

Debates continue about some of the details of evolution, the earth's movement around the sun, the exact way in which hydrogen and oxygen interact in making water, and gravity. There is no serious scientific doubt on the general theory of any of these four.

How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

If you desire to be reasonable, you must affirm all four.

Evolution "predicts?" Just like they predicted that the fossil record would eventually prove by means of "intermediate stages" that these various species "evolved" from one another?

Fossils don't testify, do mathematics, nor drink alcohol, so they have nothing to do with proof. However, evolutionary theory does predict that we will see fossils of various sorts, and has been successful in these predictions. For example, evolution predicted that we would find Tiktaalik rosea, or something very much like it, in that general area years before it was discovered. Not because MET was predicting something that would be half of one thing and half of another, but because based on the ancestors and descendants of the populations in the region, along with the prevailing conditions, they would have been selected for.

Yet there are NONE! The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations is a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

Why? How else should they appear?

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another.

True of MET, as well.

It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24,*25)

Since, as far as you know, a cat and a mushroom are of the same kind, this is no limitation on MET.

Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record.

Again, this is also a prediction of MET. If you want to prove creationism is superior to met, you need to start with things creationism predicts differently than MET. However, all the evidence in those cases seems to side with MET.

All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

Again, a prediction of MET.

Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution!"

Misquoting Darwin does you no credit.

No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found.

Since you don't know what a transitional link is, you really can't say this.

 

[One Brow]

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor!

Birds have legs, and so did proto-birds. When they didn't fly, the landed on their feet.

Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds!

Exactly my point. You don't need to be fully capable of flight for wings to be helpful.

And what's the survival "advantage" of the flying squirrel....when the gray squirrels still exist by the billions, out numbering the flying squirrels by a factor of 10?

They have not died off. That's survival.

Please tell me your not pinning your hopes of the truthfulness of "evolution" or that birds came from reptiles by the "flying squirrel"?

No, I'm just using it to illustrate that you don't need to fly for wings to be useful.

 

[One Brow]

You are like broken record. How many times we need to repeat that numerous transitional species have been discovered in fossil records and even live on earth right now. You are just to ignorant to see it. Stop playing this card as it is wrong.

You seem to be repeating the notion that there are some unique species that have the particular status of transitional. Every current species alive today, that doesn't die off, is transitional. No species has a special place in that regard.

 

[MVP]

You seem to be repeating the notion that there are some unique species that have the particular status of transitional. Every current species alive today, that doesn't die off, is transitional. No species has a special place in that regard.

I am pointing to the species which has adaptations other animals withing same class do not have and evolved to live and survive outside of their "species" comfort zone. For example fish with lungs, lobe-finned fish, reptiles who do not lay eggs and give birth to live offspring, etc, etc.
That what CJ and PW is pointing as missing link and it is anoying that they completely ignore it.

 

[One Brow]

That what CJ and PW is pointing as missing link and it is anoying that they completely ignore it.

I wish I had confidence that they had any sort of understanding of what a "missing link" was that was specific enough to confirm or refute.

 

[MVP]

I wish I had confidence that they had any sort of understanding of what a "missing link" was that was specific enough to confirm or refute.

And thats why I try to chew and diggest it for them to make it easy to absorb. Yet it is still a "God's will" and "thats whats written in Bible - then it must be true".

 

[franklin]

I found proof God exists here:

https://proofthatgodexists.org/

Try it, you can't argue with it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Birds have legs, and so did proto-birds. When they didn't fly, the landed on their feet.



Exactly my point. You don't need to be fully capable of flight for wings to be helpful.



They have not died off. That's survival.



No, I'm just using it to illustrate that you don't need to fly for wings to be useful.

Why do you continue to debate with this anti-diluvial moron? What can you possibly hope to gain?

CJ doesn't know science and isn't interested in knowing about it. His only interest is arguing for non-scientific views derived via non-scientific means in the service of ideology.

 

[PearlWatson]

I'm sure you think this will happen any day now.

....no, but I'm sure many evolutionists think that given "enough time" it's entirely possible!

Nah, they'll just say that mutation is an "atavistic" duck head; proof that horses came from ducks.

 

[babe]

I found proof God exists here:

https://proofthatgodexists.org/

Try it, you can't argue with it.

this was fun. Try clicking on the button "I don't care" and you go to the Disney website. Too fun.

 

[babe]

Why do you continue to debate with this anti-diluvial moron? What can you possibly hope to gain?

CJ doesn't know science and isn't interested in knowing about it. His only interest is arguing for non-scientific views derived via non-scientific means in the service of ideology.

It's not about what OB can gain. It's about teaching, or trying to. It's a love for discussion. . . .

 

[babe]

Are you serious? Now you are questioning continental drift?

The difference between a political hack with a statist "scientific" belief system who is disturbed by questioning folks, and actual scientists with reasons for their beliefs based on some body of evidence supporting a hypothesis or principle or "law" of science, is that real scientists like to question "settled" beliefs, and consider it a healthy attitude for inquiring peers/people in general.

A lot of scientists have questioned plate tectonics/continental drift, enough so that a recent study arguably supporting the theory gave the researchers "goosebumps", which I guess translates into a grand sense of fulfillment for their research work.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/03/the-impact-of-plate-tectonics/

 

[PearlWatson]

PW: Whoooooo?
OB: Birds.​

You didn't get the joke?
*********

PW: I wouldn't call 20% all.
OB: I don't think 20% of fossilized species are extant, either.​

Approximately 80% of all known species, including fossilized species, are extant.
*********

OB: Smallpox was wiped out because it couldn't adapt. 99% of all species went extinct even before there was pollution.​

Yeah, it couldn't adapt to intelligently designed vaccines.

You pulled 99% out of your ape-like ***, but if it was true you would again undermine the environmental movement.
*********

PW: The real problem is that scientists can't question the crazy *** answers Darwiniacs insist upon.
OB: The real problem there is that the scientists you are talking about don't have good arguments or reliable evidence to question the answers of MET.​

Remember how you said Colton ignored the science when it clashed with his faith. That is what you METers do when science smacks you in the face.
*************

PW:

OB: A chart is a simplification of a complex process. It doesn't present the whole story. The full linage of any ancient species with modern descendants would have hundreds of branches, most of which terminate.​

Your chart represents middle of the story guesswork.

Fossils don't reveal parent child relationships, so you have no idea where that ant-eater like fossil fits in.

Of course Darwiniacs don't have a chart to show their whole crazy *** story, because the evidence doesn't jive with their crazy *** story.
The story begins with a common ancestor...an asexual organism...but you started in the middle of the story with a 4 legged mammal...and left off the whole first "half" of the story. That's what I call cheating. You can't be considered in serious scientific contention if you can't begin your theory at the starting gate rather than placing your theory in the middle of the track and insist that everyone acknowledge your "scientific" win.

Even when you start in the middle with your whole "punctuated equilibrium" chart story, it is so crazy *** you might as well share church buildings with the "creationists:"
Your parents are slugs. Suddenly but totally at random. You evolve into a gecko. Your brother evolves into a shark. Your sister evolves into a polar bear. The family down the street have children that evolve into a hippo, whale, and dolphin. Then everyone remains virtually unchanged for 150 million years. Except you get your occassional "atavistic" ant-eater leg mutations to remind the whales where they really came from.
*******

PW: So the hippo was just one of the retarded babies of the pakicetus and the indolyus that managed to survive? The other retarded baby went on to make the dolphin and the whale somehow.
OB: Obviously not, since hippo ancestors survived.​

Retarded babies = animals with weird *** random mutations they are trying out to see if they are "fit" enough to survive
********

PW: Okay, let me explain this a different way.
Your comparison isn't meaningful. You can't compare "natural" (undirected) selection to "you pick out the ones that best fit your criteria" (directed) selection.
Evolutionary Design=Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design = Directed Selection
OB: The issue is that you are confusing "directed" with "intelligent". Natural selection is not random selection, it's selection directed by the environment. There is some probability involved, because many traits only increase/decrease your fitness relatively, as opposed to absolutely.​

The real issue is that "natural selection" is a misnomer. Only intelligence has the ability to make a selection.

The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities.
The word "intelligent" derives from two Latin words, the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb lego, meaning to choose or select. Thus according to its etymology, intelligence consists in choosing between. It follows that the etymology of the word "intelligent" parallels the formal analysis of intelligent causation just given. "Intelligent design" is therefore a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred precisely because an intelligent cause has done what only an intelligent cause can do-make a choice.

Intelligence is a directional force like gravity.
You already know this: "ID is not just a claim of intelligence, but one of intelligent direction." ~One Brow

If you consider human interference "natural selection" then we have a whale-like problem because Dembski considers human interference to be "intelligent design."

If we continue this discussion we have to differentiate between terms.

You can't have it both ways. Either "natural" represents directed forces, including humans, or "natural" represents undirected/elemental forces.
**********

PW: Oh right. Fish have two eyes. But the first known creature to have eyes had 5 eyes. Why did 3 eyes disappear once it mutated its way into the fish? I would guess 5 eyes would make any fish more fit.
OB: Eyes have developed differently in different lineages. The earliest seem to have been individual cells that could sense "bright" and "dark". So, I'm not sure to what you refer.​

I'm refering to the earliest creature actually found to have eyes...opabinia...it had 5 eyes.

"The earliest seem to have been..." Now that's a "sciency" sounding statement.

Tell me about the development of the eyes in the fish lineage. Did the first mutation start with one eye, 2, 3, or 5? Where on the body did it first mutate from? Was it as miraculous as the fish who "randomly" mutated 2 useful arms with hand-like things out of the front of its body so it could crawl out and mate with land mammals who happened to be open for a sexual romp with a mutant fish baby?
*********

PW: The amount of information may increase but the amount of new information doesn't. There are more pages in the 2 copy book but you can't learn anything more from reading the second copy of the story than you did from reading the first copy of the story.
Remember we are talking about the ability of undirected contingencies (chance) to create new information.
OB: Again, you are claiming that 0110011001100110 has the same amount of information as 0110. Below, you say this is not true.​

You have a repeating pattern. The only thing you have is a copy of the original information. You don't get new information. If we apply this to biology you get an identical twin with the same attributes. You don't get new useful attributes from an asexual organism.
**********

OB: I fully acknowledge that the division algorithm is a designed process. However, my point was that you can't claim that something is not produced by a process simply because it is not produced in any particular step. This is just as true of useful information as it is of division.
PW: I don't believe I ever made that claim, so your point is moot.
OB: Dembski made that claim, you quoted it. He said that since no individual step of the chance -> selection -> chance cycle created CSI, the overall process could not, either.​

Okay, I see what you are getting at now.

You can't understand that simple concept?

Random mutation (chance) is the only possible place you can get new information in those 2 steps.
Selection is just that...a selection. You either have something to select or you don't.
*********

PW: We were talking about "Whenever chance and necessity work together..." they can't create new useful information.
OB: Yes, then. The notion that, because something is not created by an individual step, that means it can't be created by a process, is wrong.​

See above explanation.
*********

OB: How do you distinguish "new information" from "information you did not have previously, but have now"?​

Copy=you already had that information to begin with.
*******

OB: Languages often get more complex as they evolve.
PW: Human's made an alphabet (symbols of sounds) and created words (more complex sounds) and then strung those words together to make sentences and so forth. Then over time the language changed a little bit here and there but it was still recognized as language...and was useful for the transfer of information between humans.
OB: Language, and writing, preceded the alphabet. Outside of that, your point is in complete agreement with the notion of languages evolving.​

Okay, I'm going to redesign my original point.

No matter how you slice it language was intelligently designed and the "change over time" was directed by intelligence (humans). Whether you use pictures, characters, or dots to represent words or concepts in your written language it was all intelligently designed for communication.
*******

PW: This is why you can't apply "micro-evolution" to Darwin's common ancestry theory, because it is just change in creatures that already exist. It doesn't account for how those creatures came into existence.
OB: They come into existence by being born/hatched/etc. from their parent(s).​

"The common ancestor" was asexual and single celled and simply made copies of itself.
An asexual organism ain't going to randomly mutate 200 separate parts to make a flagellum. The only way you get a 200 part flagellum or all the pieces and differentiation necessary for sexual reproduction is through intelligent design.
******

PW: I'm saying depending on the environment the usefulness of the appendix changes. This is what us God-believers call adaptability.
OB: Which changes it's vestigial nature how?
​

Vestigial means less useful over time...sometimes the appedix is more useful in certain environments...and time has no bearing on it's usefulness.
*******

PW: But if it supports your ape-like ancestor assumptive starting point it also supports the Bible's Adam starting point. So you unwittingly support the "creationists" you despise.
OB: Can any evidence, ever, not be consistent with creationism? Because if creationism agrees with everything, it can be confirmed by nothing.​

Exactly. Replace "creationism" with "darwinism" and you'll understand why I call you all Darwiniacs. You preach a nondisprovable psuedoscience.

 

[PearlWatson]

OB: It served, and still serves to some degree, the same purpose as Mt. Rushmore.
PW: Yes, it served as something to look at with our real eyes. Too bad that point was just as useless as the mountain eyes.
OB: So, we agree that being used for a purpose is not a sign of design? Excellent.​

LOL! If you want to take that as a victory, it would be an empty one.

Useful as in functional (like a machine) rather than "useful" as in looks pretty (like art).
We were trying to clarify complex specified information (CSI). If we understand specified as "useful pattern" and we pair that with complex we have a Complex Useful Pattern.
**********

PW: It ain't a diversion. Mt. Rushmore has always been a representation of the biological systems we are really talking about. The eyes on Mount Rushmore lack one important feature that biological eyes have. Usefulness.
OB: Both monuments had eyes. Since we know one was not designed, the presence of eyes does not indicate design.​

But the presence of useful eyes does.

Also the "eyes" of the one "monument" was merely a result of our beautifully designed brains using our beautifully designed eyes to seek facial patterns in the world around us.

 

[One Brow]

I found proof God exists here:

https://proofthatgodexists.org/

Try it, you can't argue with it.

How about that the very notion of "absolute truth" is a formal construction, that is, a concept to be invoked as opposed to something with an existence or non-existence of its own.