Ask me about Evolution

[savagewind]

No It's apple to oranges because how comparing two completely different things. It's like comparing a fish and monkeys ability to climb trees. The notion that since discoveries can be made by un-linked things means that species don't have to be linked through common descent falls on two different premises. I can see the point you are trying to make its what you're comparing that needs to be reworked.

It can be dismissed with the argument they are different things. You can rightly say apples to oranges because descent describes something physical and multiple discoveries describes something spiritual. But you cannot rightly say they are "completely different" because both scenarios give us a view of similarities.

My point is not to disprove common descent by bringing out the same rule cannot apply to discoveries. But because it cannot apply to multiple discoveries (according to the class who uses it to prove common descent) I think it is not scientific to use similarities as undeniable proof of common descent.

So the key words in my argument are similarities and proof.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is apples to apples and this is why I think so. (I might be wrong unlike you, I must be on another branch of that tree).

You see evidence of similarities in species. Actually it all began because of the reverse which is differences in species. So now you see similarities in species and claim PROOF! that somewhere in the past those two species definitely had a common ancestor. Keep imagining back far enough and you get to proof of common descent.

Now you are being made aware of similarities in discoveries. (theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace). And you begin to imagine Darwin is some kind of hero and poor Wallace is not anything. But they both shed light on the phenomenon. In that way they share similarities. You say their similarities are not connected. That's right! When I first heard about the phenomenon of multiple discoveries I wondered if brains are connected some how. If they were, there would be a connection to explain multiple discoveries.

Do you want to say multiple discoveries are not real?

I'm
Saying the premise for multiple discovery and common descent that you are usinf aren't the same thing. Also both wallace and darwin were influenced by each other and their contemporaries.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It can be dismissed with the argument they are different things. You can rightly say apples to oranges because descent describes something physical and multiple discoveries describes something spiritual. But you cannot rightly say they are "completely different" because both scenarios give us a view of similarities.

My point is not to disprove common descent by bringing out the same rule cannot apply to discoveries. But because it cannot apply to multiple discoveries (according to the class who uses it to prove common descent) I think it is not scientific to use similarities as undeniable proof of common descent.

So the key words in my argument are similarities and proof.

You can when the similarities are based on phenotype and genotype and DNA base pairs, gene structure, allele frequencies and of course traits that are shared. it was differences that people always assumed, it wasnt until critical thinking and research came into play did sifferencea become leas obcious and similarities more so. Common descent doesn't rest on just one premise. Many pieces fit together to bring along that conclusion with supporting evidence.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But I can see why it's difficult to understand evolution. You're latching onto one particular premise. These theories that make up evolution dont exist in a vacuum. They all are integrated together. That's what people mean by a mountain of evidence, it's not one giant block of evidence but multiple blocks that compliment and interact with each other. The discovery of DNA could have destroyed the theory of evolution yet it didn't. The advances in paleontology, in geography should have chipped away at the theory...but they didn't. I understand that people don't like change we want to believe that what was in the past will work now because it gives you comfort. Yet it seems that no matter what we do these discoveries still keep popping up, these advancements keep happening.

You don't need to believe the Theory of Evolution, but it doesn't stop it from happening.

 

[FearGod]

The way we take care of our young is partially due to our maternal chromosome.

[Also note many animals do not hatch/take care of their young.]

This is usually developed by natural selection and competition.
For example, mongoose love eggs. A hen would quickly learn that leaving her nest would leave it open to predators. The hen hides the egg by sitting on it. Over hundreds possibly thousands of years the genes mutate making the shell less resistant to environmental changes including the need of incubation.

Are you sure 100% that this what had happened thousands of years ago or just a guess-work.

whether random mutations & Natural selection or a designer,you can't prove any, but since there is intellegince in the designed universe then we can't neglect a designer to be behind it.

We can agree if we are talking about applied science similar to the figure shown,
all of us will agree that once the switch is on then the light will be on,no place for discussion here.

Compare the old TVs with nowaday,the same idea and basic components (resistors,capacitors,diodes..etc) but in better size and shape plus better features.
The designer before and now is one.

 

[sonofdad]

It can be dismissed with the argument they are different things. You can rightly say apples to oranges because descent describes something physical and multiple discoveries describes something spiritual. But you cannot rightly say they are "completely different" because both scenarios give us a view of similarities.

My point is not to disprove common descent by bringing out the same rule cannot apply to discoveries. But because it cannot apply to multiple discoveries (according to the class who uses it to prove common descent) I think it is not scientific to use similarities as undeniable proof of common descent.

So the key words in my argument are similarities and proof.

Do you accept that we can use DNA similarities to determine how closely related two humans are?

 

[Falvlun]

That is not what it's about. It is about the similarities of discovery. It has nothing to do with sex. You use one RULE for explaining similarities in species but throw away the same rule (similarities in two things PROVES common descent) in regards to similarities involving inspiration. It is indeed apples to oranges if it was about sex vs thought. But it isn't. It's about similarities in offspring and similarities in illumination. Seeing the bullies of evolutions keep saying read it....and don't argue about what you don't know... and all kinds of other insults (like perverse) maybe they shouldn't talk about multiple discoveries.



Why not look up "common pattern"?

The difference, savagewind, is that we know that similarities in DNA denote common descent because that is how sexual (and asexual) reproduction works.

Scientists didn't just say "Oh, the two are similar therefore, they must be related!". No. They saw how DNA is passed down from parent to offspring. They worked out how it occurs. In this way, they are able to deduce that similar DNA is the result of ancestral relationship. And like I said, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but the scientific knowledge of reproduction.

Has a similar mechanism been found in the development of inspiration?

If not, then, your comparison is invalid, and an exceedingly strange one at that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It can be dismissed with the argument they are different things. You can rightly say apples to oranges because descent describes something physical and multiple discoveries describes something spiritual. But you cannot rightly say they are "completely different" because both scenarios give us a view of similarities.

My point is not to disprove common descent by bringing out the same rule cannot apply to discoveries. But because it cannot apply to multiple discoveries (according to the class who uses it to prove common descent) I think it is not scientific to use similarities as undeniable proof of common descent.

So the key words in my argument are similarities and proof.

There's no way you can be for real.

 

[Alceste]

That common decent is shown to be true because of similarities in the structure of the DNA can it be said similarities are the sources of the evolution of species?

In other words, to prove evolution is undeniably true one just needs to look honestly at the similarities in the species. True?

No, there is a tonne of other evidence. DNA is a pretty recent discovery. Darwin didn't know about it, although he predicted something of that nature. He was basing his theory on morphological similarities and the geographic proximity of similar species and for a long time that's what all biologists did. DNA is powerful supporting evidence for what we already knew to be true.

Proof is for gin and rain gear. Scientists work with evidence. All our evidence, bar none, leads to the logical conclusion that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor.

This the point I needed to be addressed. Thank you.
Nothing that contains DNA is independent (or free from influenced) of the first living DNA which is called common descent. Is common descent a necessary phenomenon to believe if one believes in the model?

Yes, common descent is pretty fundamental to the theory. It's not that life couldn't have arisen in a number of places - nothing in evolution would deny that possibility - we just happen to know that it didn't, thanks to the evidence. Or, if it did, one ancestral species out-competed all the others, and they are the shared ancestor we have with every living thing on earth.

Well, no, but it sure is funny. A boats leads to a trip of discovery. Very good!

What I mean is similarities in species might be coincidence just like the discoveries in science are. But you say NO! The similarities in species prove they are linked. The similarities in the scientific mind does not prove the minds are linked, do they?

The discoveries were not coincidence. They followed logically from our collective state of understanding up to that point.

Something is off? You are right! Sometimes the thing that is off is called cognitive dissonance.

No, you're basically saying that if two men suddenly discover the sky is blue, they can't be brothers. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that since changes in organisms will eventually interact and their traits will be subject to the process of natural selection, the mechanism by which those changes originally occurred are accorded to natural selection?

I'm saying there are never traits that are not subject to the process of Natural Selection.

But the changes which I suggested were not a byproduct of this process.

They're not a byproduct of natural selection, no.

Sure the changes would ultimately be incorporated into the natural selection process but the changes did not result from natural selection.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

Mutations are a slightly different story since mutations are part of natural selection in that they are inherent to reproduction. But mutations are mostly random and therefore also not a byproduct of natural selection.

After the mutations happen(for whatever reason), Natural Selection THEN comes in to play.... always.

 

[Alceste]

I just don't see a hierarchy here and believe you are pulling it out of a hat. Some threads ago I had the unfortunate experience of trying to rationalize with people who insisted gravity was the most powerful thing. Nothing is so black and white. No evolutionary process is higher or lower, rather they all interact. Darwinian evolution is not a complete view or understanding. If it makes you feel better to incorporate other evolutionary mechanisms into Neo Darwinism that's okay, but make sure to acknowledge the other factors as well. Natural selection is not the force behind it all.

He said himself it's not the driving force. It's the reckoning, where the merit of any adaptation or mutation is deemed fit, unfit or irrelevant. All your examples occur prior to the reckoning. They're not competing with natural selection. They are contestants and natural selection is the judge.

 

[savagewind]

The difference, savagewind, is that we know that similarities in DNA denote common descent because that is how sexual (and asexual) reproduction works.

Scientists didn't just say "Oh, the two are similar therefore, they must be related!". No. They saw how DNA is passed down from parent to offspring. They worked out how it occurs. In this way, they are able to deduce that similar DNA is the result of ancestral relationship. And like I said, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but the scientific knowledge of reproduction.

Has a similar mechanism been found in the development of inspiration?

If not, then, your comparison is invalid, and an exceedingly strange one at that.

Similarities can ONLY mean they are related, according to all of you. There is such a thing as similarities NOT being related.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Similarities can ONLY mean they are related, according to all of you. There is such a thing as similarities NOT being related.

Similarities indicate a relation. Especially when those similarities are genetic; unless you want to claim that all the different species on the planet happened to have similarities in the genetic code for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Man of Faith]

Similarities indicate a relation. Especially when those similarities are genetic; unless you want to claim that all the different species on the planet happened to have similarities in the genetic code for no reason whatsoever.

What about because of similar design to live in a similar world?

 

[sonofdad]

What about because of similar design to live in a similar world?

You could say that, but then you're ignoring everything we know about reproduction and genetic inheritance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What about because of similar design to live in a similar world?

Difference is that DNA replicates through reproduction. We know of no instances whatsoever where DNA has been specifically "created" or "designed", nor can we identify "designed" DNA compared with the DNA that occurs naturally. That is also not a sufficient explanation, as DNA could have been entirely different and it still wouldn't rule out the possibility of it being designed, so it is an unfalsifiable conclusion based on zero scientific evidence. The only reasonable conclusion, taking account of all of the available evidence, is that similarities in DNA are due to shared genetic lineage.

 

[Alceste]

Similarities can ONLY mean they are related, according to all of you. There is such a thing as similarities NOT being related.

No, similarities SUGGEST they are all related, along with a lot of other evidence. Taken together, ALL the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. You can not be aware of the evidence and still reject common ancestry. DNA is only one of many different threads of evidence that all lead to the logical conclusion that all life on earth is related. Before we had DNA evidence, we had a much foggier idea of whether all life arose from a common ancestor or whether it may have arisen in various places spontaneously, but we still had evidence that evolution is true, and that species branch off from common ancestors, generally speaking. Because MtDNA (mitochondrial DNA, or DNA passed down from the mother that mutates very slowly) has identical gene sequences in every living thing on earth, we have powerful evidence we've all got the same great-great-great-great-grandma if you go back far enough.

You are, of course, free to ignore the evidence or claim it's evidence of something else, but almost nobody is going to take your arguments seriously unless they have some kind of religious agenda and want to believe in something other than what the evidence clearly tells us.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are, of course, free to ignore the evidence or claim it's evidence of something else, but almost nobody is going to take your arguments seriously unless they have some kind of religious agenda and want to believe in something other than what the evidence clearly tells us.

Yeah, but what about the mathematical formulas that big time scientists came up with which concluded that probability proves that evolution is 100% impossible? You just going to ignore that? Huh, huh?

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, but what about the mathematical formulas that big time scientists came up with which concluded that probability proves that evolution is 100% impossible? You just going to ignore that? Huh, huh?

Oh, you.

 

[Falvlun]

Similarities can ONLY mean they are related, according to all of you. There is such a thing as similarities NOT being related.

Let me be clear: Nobody made any such blanket statement, ever.

One more time: the only reason why similarities in DNA mean that various organisms are related is because of how reproduction works.

Similarity is not the cause of the relationship, but the effect of how reproduction works.

What about this don't you understand?