Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, I would like to take this moment to congratulate Sayak83 on their incredible degree of knowledge and patience in this thread and their ability to answer creationist questions and challenges with level-headedness and objectivity, despite plenty of arguments erupting around him and lots of efforts (reflecting on myself here) to turn this thread into yet another simple evolution vs. creationism scrum, virtually identical to all the others.

This thread has been excellently informative and a breath of fresh air, I hope, for both sides, thanks to Sayak's efforts, and if you try to focus only only his posts and the responses he gets (and ignore the arguments arising around them), Sayak's been just bloody brilliant throughout.

Well done sir!

 

[Audie]

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

Now you're just outright lying. Nothing appears "suddenly" in the fossil record - we consistently find physiological ancestors and descendant to the fossils we find.

Well, "lying" may be a bit extreme. Regurging what one has been
told by creosites, or, the facile understanding of the ill- read, it
is not really deliberate lying.

Negligence or the like is of course deliberate, so there may be a fine line.

"Fully formed". I thought we tried to explain that, but, to no avail.
It just pops up again, whackamole-style.

The "sudden" appearance thing.

Of course it is not so, but then if it is essential for someone
to believe it is so, I guess they will keep saying it and believing
it.

Self-deception is so easy. You'd think a person might take
on a bigger challenge some time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You can't POSSIBLY be referring to the tree that is now a web and which web is constantly debated?

For eukaryotes it is still a tree.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27])."
How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

Fossil species should be fully formed if evolution is true, so not sure what you are getting at with that one.

I am also wondering how you determine if a fossil species "suddenly appears". How do you do that?

 

[Audie]

Fossil species should be fully formed if evolution is true, so not sure what you are getting at with that one.

I am also wondering how you determine if a fossil species "suddenly appears". How do you do that?

T hat fully formed thing is not a fully formed thought.

I have asked for an explanation from more than one
person, but it never goes anywhere. They cannot
describe what they are imagining.

As for the sudden appearance, they are confusing
what one has so far found with what is actually there.

Paris did not "suddenly appear" except to my eyes,
when I went there.

We have many species represented by no more than
a single specimen, maybe only one bone.

It does not mean it had no bros and sis, mom or dad
and was the only one that ever existed.

By the creologic, the species suddenly appeared, and
as suddenly disappeared. Only one individual ever
existed and by some fluke, we found it!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As for the sudden appearance, they are confusing
what one has so far found with what is actually there.

If creationists looked at a film of someone running they would claim that a runner suddenly moves from one position to the next 24 times a second.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

There is no "argument" here. Your side lost over one hundred years ago. All there is now is correction of errors. For example you used the rather inane phrase "fully formed". How would you expect an animal to appear? The fact is if you used a proper phrase your error would be obvious. The fossil record is almost all transitional fossils these days. Education is your friend. As I pointed out you should be trying to learn rather than trying to refute a concept that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

T hat fully formed thing is not a fully formed thought.

I have asked for an explanation from more than one
person, but it never goes anywhere. They cannot
describe what they are imagining.

As for the sudden appearance, they are confusing
what one has so far found with what is actually there.

Paris did not "suddenly appear" except to my eyes,
when I went there.

We have many species represented by no more than
a single specimen, maybe only one bone.

It does not mean it had no bros and sis, mom or dad
and was the only one that ever existed.

By the creologic, the species suddenly appeared, and
as suddenly disappeared. Only one individual ever
existed and by some fluke, we found it!

They are merely copying the ignorant phrases that they hear from other creationists. The problem is that they have a very very weird strawman version of evolution and this somehow is evidence against it. When one can't defeat the real thing one makes things up. He may not realize that he is passing on the lies and ignorance of others, but by now he should. Even if there is no intent to deceive by repeating the lies of others one tends to look like a liar oneself. The only protection that creationists have on internet forum is willful ignorance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

I still don't know what you're talking about, exactly. Every species, every individual creature is always fully formed. This idea you seem to have where creatures are being born half-formed, and/or with "half-formed" limbs or wings and whatnot is a misconception of evolution on your part. Several posters, including myself have provided examples of what a transitional species may look like, according to evolution. But you'll notice that the mudskipper, for example, is a fully formed creature. It doesn't have a "half-formed" tail, rather it has a rear fin that it uses to both swim, and that it can also use to move about on land, when it's not in the water. That's what evolution gives us, rather than "half-formed" legs or whatever. That's the best "half-formed" limb you're going to get.

 

[Audie]

If creationists looked at a film of someone running they would claim that a runner suddenly moves from one position to the next 24 times a second.

I dont care much personally, for saying what "they" would do
in some hypothetical.
But I sure see why you said it.

Still, they do have a bit of a point. Like, you find a Stegosaurus skeleton.
Or several. But, where is t he semisteg? Smaller, less developed armour and spikes, etc. Did anyone find any of the ancestors?

Now, I do not have any doubt that ToE is a good framework for describing
the origin of species and all that. Certainly there is no alternative that
begins to encompass the data.

But still, it is odd, and I dont know how to explain how things do so often
sort of "appear". I have some ideas, but they are just ideas, I cannot say
there is data. Maybe there is, but I dont know it.

 

[Audie]

They are merely copying the ignorant phrases that they hear from other creationists. The problem is that they have a very very weird strawman version of evolution and this somehow is evidence against it. When one can't defeat the real thing one makes things up. He may not realize that he is passing on the lies and ignorance of others, but by now he should. Even if there is no intent to deceive by repeating the lies of others one tends to look like a liar oneself. The only protection that creationists have on internet forum is willful ignorance.

yep

 

[Audie]

I still don't know what you're talking about, exactly. Every species, every individual creature is always fully formed. This idea you seem to have where creatures are being born half-formed, and/or with "half-formed" limbs or wings and whatnot is a misconception of evolution on your part. Several posters, including myself have provided examples of what a transitional species may look like, according to evolution. But you'll notice that the mudskipper, for example, is a fully formed creature. It doesn't have a "half-formed" tail, rather it has a rear fin that it uses to both swim, and that it can also use to move about on land, when it's not in the water. That's what evolution gives us, rather than "half-formed" legs or whatever. That's the best "half-formed" limb you're going to get.

Maybe half formed would be like a digestive system open at only one end?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Still, they do have a bit of a point. Like, you find a Stegosaurus skeleton.
Or several. But, where is t he semisteg? Smaller, less developed armour and spikes, etc. Did anyone find any of the ancestors?

Let's say we do find a less derived semisteg. Now we have a gap between the semisteg and the stegosaur. They would claim that this gap disproves evolution. Let's say that we find a fossil that fits in the gap between the semisteg and the stegosaur. NOW WE HAVE TWO GAPS!!!! OH MY!!!

According to creationist logic, the more transitional fossils we have the more gaps we have, so each transitional fossil disproves evolution in their eyes.

But still, it is odd, and I dont know how to explain how things do so often
sort of "appear". I have some ideas, but they are just ideas, I cannot say
there is data. Maybe there is, but I dont know it.

They appear as we remove the dirt around them.

We have to remember that each fossil is a snapshot of a single species at a single point in time and space. It is foolish to think that we have even close to every fossil species that exists, and it is even more foolish to think that every single morphological change is represented by a fossil that exists right now.

If you are interested, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in "The Origin of Species" on why the fossils we have don't give us a blow by blow picture of every single lineage that has ever existed.

"For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."--Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Maybe half formed would be like a digestive system open at only one end?

That's what jellyfish and starfish have.

 

[Audie]

Let's say we do find a less derived semisteg. Now we have a gap between the semisteg and the stegosaur. They would claim that this gap disproves evolution. Let's say that we find a fossil that fits in the gap between the semisteg and the stegosaur. NOW WE HAVE TWO GAPS!!!! OH MY!!!

According to creationist logic, the more transitional fossils we have the more gaps we have, so each transitional fossil disproves evolution in their eyes.



They appear as we remove the dirt around them.

We have to remember that each fossil is a snapshot of a single species at a single point in time and space. It is foolish to think that we have even close to every fossil species that exists, and it is even more foolish to think that every single morphological change is represented by a fossil that exists right now.

If you are interested, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in "The Origin of Species" on why the fossils we have don't give us a blow by blow picture of every single lineage that has ever existed.

"For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."--Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yup, all very familiar, incl. the thing about now there are two gaps.

As an undergrad, I visited with a group from the U, a fossil quarry in
Western Nebraska, "Agate Fossil Beds National Monument"

We didnt go to another site, as it was private property,but we heard of an odd
antelope with a forked horn on its nose, from 20 or 30 million years ago,
that is known from just one nearby hillside.

Who knows what came before or after. There is, as the prof pointed out,
no Manhattan project, massive funds to go look. And you can only look
where you are allowed to go, AND, where here is bare ground /rock.

Even in that semi desert, it is mostly all grass. No xray vision to see
the wonders hidden there.

In the badlands north of there, you see lots of turtles weathering out .

Mostly you see where they are scattered down a hillside. There is a brief time
when it goes from hidden to destroyed.

But you know all this. Maybe a lurkerite does not.

 

[james blunt]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

A rock is made of atoms as is the Earth and all substance that is the binary of a proton and electron.

Why does the Earth or other substances contain no DNA ?

Such complex information that is a lot more complex than simple atom mechanics.

 

[sayak83]

A rock is made of atoms as is the Earth and all substance that is the binary of a proton and electron.

Why does the Earth or other substances contain no DNA ?

Such complex information that is a lot more complex than simple atom mechanics.

DNA is a product of evolution. Earth is not.

 

[james blunt]

DNA is a product of evolution. Earth is not.

If DNA does not exist of this Earth to start evolution, then where does evolution come from?

 

[sayak83]

If DNA does not exist of this Earth to start evolution, then where does evolution come from?

There are far simple nucleotides, bases and peptides that when trapped in a fat globule, undergoes auto catalytic organic reactions. These reacting cells grow and dissociate over tine. This process, known as chemical evolution, leads to full fledged cells with DNA.

 

[james blunt]

There are far simple nucleotides, bases and peptides that when trapped in a fat globule, undergoes auto catalytic organic reactions. These reacting cells grow and dissociate over tine. This process, known as chemical evolution, leads to full fledged cells with DNA.

From what I understand , for all life there is a single ''common'' cell. All life begins/evolved from this cell ? Would that be accurate

Are you saying this cell formed from a chemical reaction ?