A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. It's a question of not being able to be so exact about it that you can identify a particular individual as the first.

See also: ring species. Perhaps you think you can go around the ring and (apart from the overlap point) designate each individual into one species or the other?

I think that he is just using a delaying tactic that will transform into a non sequitur:

"Well if you don't know when the first kangaroo came about how are you going to say that an ape turned into a man?"

Otherwise why pursue such a pointless sidetrack

 

[F1fan]

And there could be many firsts. I think the example is the Peppered Moth. If I remember right there was a type of moth that was white and they sometimes had white and grey offspring. Given this was during a time when there was more soot in the air the white moths were easier to see and were killed by predators. this meant the few grey moths had an advantage and more of them reproduced, and they became the majority of the moths. So whatever genes those grey moths had became more prevalent, and those genes affected how the rest behaved and reproduced. At some point these moths were an established pool with distinct attributes that meant they could be classified as their own species.

Does this make sense? How your "first" might just be a number of anomalies that had an advantage that later meant more and more of these freaks reproduced a pool of organisms like them, and different from what the population they came from was like.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No matter how many times people claim this sort of thing, it simply isn't true. There is no sensible definition of 'kangaroo' (or any other species) that would enable us to designate a first one.

If somebody was daft enough to arbitrarily make up a definition of 'kangaroo' that was exact enough to identify a first individual (in principle, at least), then it would just get silly. The first kangaroo would have been born from an 'almost but not quite kangaroo' (ABNQK) and said first kangaroo's offspring may well also be ABNQKs or kangaroos, or some combination, and for a long time you'd get both kangaroos and ABNQKs interbreeding and giving birth to combinations until the population had drifted into all kangaroos, except it probably never would be 100% - if you were being that stupidly exact about it, some of today's population of "kangaroos" may well not meet such an absurd standard. What's more all the ABNQKs would probably fail to meet the exact definition of kangaroo in different ways - so it's not like you'd only be dealing with two kinds of animal at that level of detail.

Evolution is gradual and happens to populations.

If evolution happens to populations then perhaps it would be more accurate to say there was a first population of kangaroos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If evolution happens to populations then perhaps it would be more accurate to say there was a first population of kangaroos.

It would be more accurate to say that there was a population that became what we call kangaroos today.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No, you are bringing up a difference without a distinction. You are acting as if the name were the animal. Life does not work that way.

On day X there was no animal alive anywhere that any scientist would call a kangaroo. On day Y there was an animal that one scientist would call a kangaroo. That was the first animal that anyone would describe as a kangaroo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On day X there was no animal alive anywhere that any scientist would call a kangaroo. On day Y there was an animal that one scientist would call a kangaroo. That was the first animal that anyone would describe as a kangaroo.

Why? You need to provide a concrete reason why one would be called "the first kangaroo". Scientists know that this is impossible. Do not conflate a name with a population.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Nonsense. It's a question of not being able to be so exact about it that you can identify a particular individual as the first.

See also: ring species. Perhaps you think you can go around the ring and (apart from the overlap point) designate each individual into one species or the other?

And what you refuse to see is that you do not have to point to or name or say exactly when or where. At some point there was no animal alive that could possibly be called a kangaroo. At a later time there were animals that could be described as kangaroos. I do not need any more details than that. Some where between none and many there was a first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what you refuse to see is that you do not have to point to or name or say exactly when or where. At some point there was no animal alive that could possibly be called a kangaroo. At a later time there were animals that could be described as kangaroos. I do not need any more details than that. Some where between none and many there was a first.

Why do you think that there had to be a "first"? If you want to make that claim you take on the burden of defining a first and then defending that belief. It cannot be done.

Now with very simple life there may be a possibility. Since in those cases a single mutation can make a big difference. With complex life that is just not the case.

In fact if you see a collection of specific traits as being the animal that was the first kangaroo even then your claim would fail.

For any specific set of genes there was one individual that had those traits Unfortunately it is all but guaranteed that no one offspring had all of those same traits. In other words you would have a kangaroo being the parent of a non-kangaroo.

The only accurate way to state it is that there is a population that became kangaroos.

 

[ratiocinator]

And what you refuse to see is that you do not have to point to or name or say exactly when or where. At some point there was no animal alive that could possibly be called a kangaroo. At a later time there were animals that could be described as kangaroos. I do not need any more details than that. Some where between none and many there was a first.

Except "could be called a kangaroo" is necessarily vague. It isn't something that is exact enough to identify a first. You're trying to draw an exact line on, what for all practical purposes is, a continuum. It would necessarily be entirely arbitrary and a matter of opinion.

And you ignored the question about ring species, where the whole point is laid out geographically and shows that there is no clear dividing line except where the ends overlap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why? You need to provide a concrete reason why one would be called "the first kangaroo". Scientists know that this is impossible. Do not conflate a name with a population.

Maybe I was not being precise enough. Surely you will agree that at some point in time there was no "Macropus Giganteus". And at some other time there was something that was "Macropus Giganteus". I do not want you to tell me where or when or how it happened. But there was an animal that could have been analyzed scientifically and found to be "Macropus Giganteus". That is all I am saying. Something existed that did not exist before. Isn't that what evolution is all about? New animals came into being that did not exist before. Everyone is saying I am wrong but I am saying evolution happened. "Macropus Giganteus did not exist and then it did. So where am I wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I was not being precise enough. Surely you will agree that at some point in time there was no "Macropus Giganteus". And at some other time there was something that was "Macropus Giganteus". I do not want you to tell me where or when or how it happened. But there was an animal that could have been analyzed scientifically and found to be "Macropus Giganteus". That is all I am saying. Something existed that did not exist before. Isn't that what evolution is all about? New animals came into being that did not exist before. Everyone is saying I am wrong but I am saying evolution happened. "Macropus Giganteus did not exist and then it did. So where am I wrong?

You are still making the same mistake. You are treating a name as if it were a thing. If you want to know when the first "Macropus Giganteus" existed that would be when the term was first applied to it. I gave you what should have been a simple challenge if you had a reasonable demand. What specific traits make a kangaroo a kangaroo? Or what makes an Eastern Gray Kangaroo and Eastern Gray Kangaroo? You will not be able to answer this and neither can scientists. That is because the name is not the beast. It only is a rough description of the beast.

 

[ratiocinator]

And what you refuse to see is that you do not have to point to or name or say exactly when or where. At some point there was no animal alive that could possibly be called a kangaroo. At a later time there were animals that could be described as kangaroos. I do not need any more details than that. Some where between none and many there was a first.

You seem to be struggling with the whole concept of gradual change. A person who is 90 years old is definitely elderly, when they were 30 years old they definitely weren't. Therefore, according your 'logic', there must have been one second in one minute of one hour of one day at which said person became elderly. Sure, you can just pick one arbitrarily but it makes no difference to the fact that the person was, for all practical purposes, the same before and after.

[edited for typos]

 

[Heyo]

You are familiar with the definition of the word "or", right?

Maybe I was not being precise enough. Surely you will agree that at some point in time there was no "Macropus Giganteus". And at some other time there was something that was "Macropus Giganteus". I do not want you to tell me where or when or how it happened. But there was an animal that could have been analyzed scientifically and found to be "Macropus Giganteus". That is all I am saying. Something existed that did not exist before. Isn't that what evolution is all about? New animals came into being that did not exist before. Everyone is saying I am wrong but I am saying evolution happened. "Macropus Giganteus did not exist and then it did. So where am I wrong?

You aren't exactly wrong, it's just that it doesn't make sense to think of species as a distinct thing. It is more a gradient. A population is 49.9 % kangaroo or 50.1. A human is defined as a hairless, tailless ape. What about children born with a tail? Not human?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think they are called THEORIES because they are explanations of observed processes but cannot be called facts. Many theories have changed over time as new evidence was found. Science is not even sure if light is a particle or a wave because it acts like both. Theories are not facts.

And you continue to miss my point. Science does NOT say evolution "could have" occured the way they describe it. Science says it is a FACT. How about you? Do you say evolution is a FACT? Or do you say it "could have" occured a certain way? It is a THEORT and MAY be true but it is not an exact fact. As new evidence is found, the theory may change. But facts do not change. If that is too hard to see then maybe it is time for more Sesame Street.

Evolution is a fact. There is a demonstrable change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That is a fact.

The theory of evolution explains that fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I may learn a little about science but I am not sure you can learn about logic. It is logically impossible for there to be a second or third of something if there was no first. If you insist that there was no first kangaroo then logic says there are no kangaroos today. They must all still be transitional species on the way to becoming kangaroos. Take a break from science and read a book on logic.

Of course you can learn about logic. I took courses in university. There are actual rules and everything.
You should give it a try.

There is no "first" anything in evolution. Evolution deals with populations, not individuals. You do no understand evolution and require more study on the subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So would you say there never was a first automobile? They were all transitional models? If there was a second car there had to be a first. People are so busy trying ro defend their scientific views that they cannot see how foolish it is to say there never was a first kangarone day there was no animal that could be called a kabgaroo and the next day there was one. So simple.

This analogy doesn't work because automobiles are not biological organisms that can reproduce.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Only the first half. Out popped the first animal that could be called a kangaroo. I do not care what happened after that. At some point there was something that COULD be called a kangaroo. And it was the first. That is all. My complete view of evolution has nothing to do with it.

And of course, as you've been told repeatedly by many posters, your view of evolution is NOT how it works.

So obviously the reason you don't believe it is because you don't understand it. You could, if you tried and ignored everything people told you, but it hardly seems to be something you'd care to do.

I think that's too bad, frankly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every species cannot be a transitional species.

Actually, you are quite wrong about that, too. All species -- with the single exception of the species about to go extinct -- are transitional. Every species alive today will, in several million years, have descendents that do not resemble them at all (and some that do!), unless it goes extinct.

And this is true, actually, for every individual member of every species -- so long as those members procreate. Crusty old bachelors like me will leave no progeny, so much of my genome will not see the future, though other members of my family will pass along some of it, my unique genome ends with me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And everyone continues to miss the point. Do you agree that at some point in history there were no kangaroos? And do you agree that at some later point in history there were kangaroos? Doesn't that mean that somewhere in between those two points there was an animal born that was a kangaroo? I assume that its parents were "near kangaroos" but I do not care. One day an animal was born that was a kangaroo and it was the first. One day there were no automobiles and another day there was one. One day there were no steam engines and another day there were. Everything had to have a first. That is all I am saying but everyone is so busy defending there ideas about evolution that they arue with someone who agrees evolution happened but simply says there was a first of any species.

Being wrong several times doesn't lead to being right. Not even if you continue being wrong an infinite number of times will you be right. You really need to admit that you are making an incorrect argument, and you are making it because you do not understand the subject.