Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Subduction Zone]

You have a close mind imposing your idea's upon me with out understanding me at all. I am not angry, I have taken Biology and advanced biology in High school and completed college courses in Biology. I have read many Books on evolution and do not believe in creationism. I am sad of what evolution has become which is basically a statement. Evolution is the process of all life not God. That is what evolutionary theory has been reduce to by people like you because you refuse to admit to the actual facts.

High school courses on biology are never "advanced". And there are all sorts of levels of classes at colleges.

The theory of evolution and its application simply tells us how life developed. It says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of gods. No one has claimed that it is God. Why the false implication?

And if you doubt that humans are descended from other apes then you are a creationist. Or where do you think that people came from? If you want to have reasonable doubt you need a reasonable alternative and a valid explanation. You know that you do not have these.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What else were we expecting? Perhaps a logical argument.

So far what I have seen is this:

A bird flew to an island and had babies with another bird.

Therefore, it's not COMPLETELY impossible that an amoeba COULD become a dinosaur given billions of years.

Therefore, it's CERTAIN that this is what actually happened.

Then you stare at me blankly when I suggest that your argument is a piece of crap. Then you sent me to links trying to explain how you know that the birds actually did have sex.

If you weren't so serious and so militant, it could be comical.

Do you understand the notion of a conclusion being the result of lots of facts accumulating over time, or do you operate under the misapprehension that every fact that supports evolutionary theory exists in a void and is independently used as "proof" of the theory, rather than all as small parts of a much larger, richer tapestry of evidence that all collectively points in the same direction?

I assume you're familiar with the idea that one fact indicating a conclusion isn't necessarily conclusive. But what if you have thousands upon thousands of facts, including exhaustive research, analysis, prediction and experimentation, and every single bit of it indicated the same conclusion?

When you realize why this is an important distinction, perhaps you will stop engaging in this straw man that any ONE fact presented is used as "proof", rather than individual pieces of evidence in a vast library that, collectively indicate a single conclusion.

 

[bobhikes]

High school courses on biology are never "advanced". And there are all sorts of levels of classes at colleges.

The theory of evolution and its application simply tells us how life developed. It says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of gods. No one has claimed that it is God. Why the false implication?

And if you doubt that humans are descended from other apes then you are a creationist. Or where do you think that people came from? If you want to have reasonable doubt you need a reasonable alternative and a valid explanation. You know that you do not have these.

Closed minded definition of creationist everyone against my belief.

I'm 53 and enjoyed evolution theory until I start dealing with people on the RF

In high school I was top of the class and had Advanced Biology which was college accredited.
In it I learned that inter-species relations where not considered evolution. At the time evolution was random mutations that survived multiple generations because they where beneficial.
According to the books at the time inter-species relations always produced non-reproductive offspring and only happened when man artificially combined species.
After not liking engineering and getting a job in a laboratory environment. The company offered to pay for my schooling in the biological field.
In college I learned evolution went through some changes. The one surprise, I learned that inter-species relations where now part of evolution as some times they were reproductive and they were found in nature.
I like knowing the negatives and there was one book that listed competitive theories to evolution that weren't creationist. The one I liked was bacterial evolution, whereas, bacteria effect the DNA of a species and cause changes. This biologist was considered an outlier and not accepted as yet.
Now I come to the RF and I point out the few things I was taught that were alternatives to evolution and surprise to me evolution now contains bacteria evolution and that same biologist is now a champion of evolution.

Right now scientists are manipulating DNA to create different species, it is said in the near future you are going to be able to design your child. So I expect the next evolution theory statement to include mad scientists because they can't be creating anything it has to be natural evolution. The only thing not included will then be God.

 

[sayak83]

Closed minded definition of creationist everyone against my belief.

I'm 53 and enjoyed evolution theory until I start dealing with people on the RF

In high school I was top of the class and had Advanced Biology which was college accredited.
In it I learned that inter-species relations where not considered evolution. At the time evolution was random mutations that survived multiple generations because they where beneficial.
According to the books at the time inter-species relations always produced non-reproductive offspring and only happened when man artificially combined species.
After not liking engineering and getting a job in a laboratory environment. The company offered to pay for my schooling in the biological field.
In college I learned evolution went through some changes. The one surprise, I learned that inter-species relations where now part of evolution as some times they were reproductive and they were found in nature.
I like knowing the negatives and there was one book that listed competitive theories to evolution that weren't creationist. The one I liked was bacterial evolution, whereas, bacteria effect the DNA of a species and cause changes. This biologist was considered an outlier and not accepted as yet.
Now I come to the RF and I point out the few things I was taught that were alternatives to evolution and surprise to me evolution now contains bacteria evolution and that same biologist is now a champion of evolution.

Right now scientists are manipulating DNA to create different species, it is said in the near future you are going to be able to design your child. So I expect the next evolution theory statement to include mad scientists because they can't be creating anything it has to be natural evolution. The only thing not included will then be God.

Evolutionary science has immensely expanded in scope and reach in the last 40 years since you were in school, as is the wont of all successful scientific disciplines. Why is that a problem?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Easy answer: They lied:

A favorite creationist tactic is to focus only on the first fossil found of a new species and ignore the fact that a more complete skeleton can be reconstructed by finding others of the same species. Much more of Ambulocetus has been found than creation.com is willing to admit. But then this is one of the sites that require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.

Since I find that they don't lie, you can assure me:

1. I'm looking at one specimen, not parts from several brought together

2. I'm not looking at a forensic reconstruction (where missing bones are added as faux bones)

 

[bobhikes]

Evolutionary science has immensely expanded in scope and reach in the last 40 years since you were in school, as is the wont of all successful scientific disciplines. Why is that a problem?

It not a problem that it keeps expanding, it just doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method. It has been reduced to a God itself. Evolution is the God of life. No matter how life has formed or developed, even if man manipulates DNA or it is found on other planets it will be evolution. If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

 

[sayak83]

Since I find that they don't lie, you can assure me:

1. I'm looking at one specimen, not parts from several brought together

2. I'm not looking at a forensic reconstruction (where missing bones are added as faux bones)

Why can't several partial skeletons of the same species be used to construct the complete skeleton. In all science as in detective work, multiple independent strands of data are compiled together to jointly gain a more complete picture. Is this science special somehow?

 

[sayak83]

It not a problem that it keeps expanding, it just doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method. It has been reduced to a God itself. Evolution is the God of life. No matter how life has formed or developed, even if man manipulates DNA or it is found on other planets it will be evolution. If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

I have shown you field studies that explicitly demonstrate that it stands up to scientific method. What was lacking in these examples? Your questions were answered, were they not?

 

[Audie]

It not a problem that it keeps expanding, it just doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method. It has been reduced to a God itself. Evolution is the God of life. No matter how life has formed or developed, even if man manipulates DNA or it is found on other planets it will be evolution. If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

Not that you could identify any way that ToE does not "stand up to the scientific method". And never mind that you could hardly find a scientist in any field who does not accept it as valid. You know it aint science, they must be dumb.

Your Nobel will be announced, when?

Never mind that geology and physics provide the dating and sequence for
the fossil record. They must not be science either. All the hard sciences are tainted with the vice of helping evoluitonism. Is it not so?

As for "God"? Evolution is "god"? Not to the countless Christians and people of other faiths who understand and accept evolution. Chemistry and physics are not "god" either. But why not? Biology /genetics / chemistry are all tied together.

And physics gave us the (gasp, horror) Big Bang!!

And of course evolution is not "god" to an atheist. "God"?
Substitute some aspect of science for something they dont believe in?
Nonsense!

If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because

Because that was t he traditional way for the goddists to deal with
people who dared to disagree with their beliefs?

Or funny because it is just nonsense. People are free to disagree. You
may not have been torched yet. Nor has anyone else. Not for disagreeing with any aspect of science.

with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

I would say the word "evolution" probably is meaningless when you say it,
as the only thing you present as knowing is that you do not like it.

 

[Audie]

Why can't several partial skeletons of the same species be used to construct the complete skeleton. In all science as in detective work, multiple independent strands of data are compiled together to jointly gain a more complete picture. Is this science special somehow?

This is all about attitude, the attitude being that them evos are cons,
and nothing they do can be trusted. I mean, look at Piltdown!
That proves all paleo work is fraudulent.

Oh yeah, and Nebraska Man!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Closed minded definition of creationist everyone against my belief.

Hardly. Tell me where you believe that man came from instead of waving your hands in the air with your hatred of science and I can explain further. But you have indicated that you are a creationist more than once here.

I'm 53 and enjoyed evolution theory until I start dealing with people on the RF

In high school I was top of the class and had Advanced Biology which was college accredited.
In it I learned that inter-species relations where not considered evolution. At the time evolution was random mutations that survived multiple generations because they where beneficial.
According to the books at the time inter-species relations always produced non-reproductive offspring and only happened when man artificially combined species.
After not liking engineering and getting a job in a laboratory environment. The company offered to pay for my schooling in the biological field.
In college I learned evolution went through some changes. The one surprise, I learned that inter-species relations where now part of evolution as some times they were reproductive and they were found in nature.

It appears that your education in high school was rather lacking. Or else your understanding of it was. I have seen poor strawman arguments coming from you about evolution that makes these claims rather dubious.

I like knowing the negatives and there was one book that listed competitive theories to evolution that weren't creationist. The one I liked was bacterial evolution, whereas, bacteria effect the DNA of a species and cause changes. This biologist was considered an outlier and not accepted as yet.
Now I come to the RF and I point out the few things I was taught that were alternatives to evolution and surprise to me evolution now contains bacteria evolution and that same biologist is now a champion of evolution.

Once again you very well may have misunderstood the topic. It now appears that you are talking about horizontal gene transfer. Yes, genes may come from an outside source. In single celled life it is rather common and makes the base of life extremely complicated.

Right now scientists are manipulating DNA to create different species, it is said in the near future you are going to be able to design your child. So I expect the next evolution theory statement to include mad scientists because they can't be creating anything it has to be natural evolution. The only thing not included will then be God.

Another false claim against others. Are you merely angry because no one takes you seriously. How could a student that supposedly understood science suddenly develop an immunity to reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It not a problem that it keeps expanding, it just doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method. It has been reduced to a God itself. Evolution is the God of life. No matter how life has formed or developed, even if man manipulates DNA or it is found on other planets it will be evolution. If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

Why do you keep repeating this obviously false statement? You either do not understand the scientific method or you are lying. Why don't you try to explain what you think the scientific method is and how it is not used by evolutionary scientists and I and others will be able to help explain where you went wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since I find that they don't lie, you can assure me:

1. I'm looking at one specimen, not parts from several brought together

2. I'm not looking at a forensic reconstruction (where missing bones are added as faux bones)

What are you talking about? They do lie. That one picture and article proved that they lie.

You need to ask honest questions if you want answers. You were complaining about the lack of forensic science and used a lying source to support your claim. That claim tried to claim that very little of ambulocetus was found. That was a lie.

But since you appear to be very confused (I am hoping that you are not lying) I will answer your questions.

!. Yes, that is the result of bones from several specimens. So what? Why would that matter at all?

2. Sorry, this question makes no sense. That is a "forensic reconstruction" of the bones of the species. Overlapping bones allow these reconstructions to be made, it is exactly what a forensic scientist does.

 

[Audie]

Hardly. Tell me where you believe that man came from instead of waving your hands in the air with your hatred of science and I can explain further. But you have indicated that you are a creationist more than once here.



It appears that your education in high school was rather lacking. Or else your understanding of it was. I have seen poor strawman arguments coming from you about evolution that makes these claims rather dubious.



Once again you very well may have misunderstood the topic. It now appears that you are talking about horizontal gene transfer. Yes, genes may come from an outside source. In single celled life it is rather common and makes the base of life extremely complicated.



Another false claim against others. Are you merely angry because no one takes you seriously. How could a student that supposedly understood science suddenly develop an immunity to reason?

Same way that some preacher who is up there telling about how
"I was the worst of sinners,till I found GAWD." does it. It is just for effect, and likely it fools the gullible.

Lo and full many a creationist here bolsters his claim to a true understanding
by saying "oh I was an evo, yes, a staunch evo, and a atheist, but then I
saw the Light."

You know? Of course, some of us are not so easy t o fool, when we see
them trotting out the same old moldy pratts, and showing they know
science like I know particle physics if it's explained in German.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same way that some preacher who is up there telling about how
"I was the worst of sinners,till I found GAWD." does it. It is just for effect, and likely it fools the gullible.

Lo and full many a creationist here bolsters his claim to a true understanding
by saying "oh I was an evo, yes, a staunch evo, and a atheist, but then I
saw the Light."

You know? Of course, some of us are not so easy t o fool, when we see
them trotting out the same old moldy pratts, and showing they know
science like I know particle physics if it's explained in German.

You are probably right. Far too many complete and utter errors have been made by someone that supposedly understood the sciences, but religious beliefs can do strange things to one's thinking processes. Take the example of Dr. Jason Lyle. a YEC astrophysicist with an actual PhD in the science from a real university, not a Bible college or diploma mill. His lectures led a YouTube physicist to make a series of videos refuting his claims:

Religious beliefs can cause one to lose one's ability to be both reasonable and honest.

 

[bobhikes]

Why do you keep repeating this obviously false statement? You either do not understand the scientific method or you are lying. Why don't you try to explain what you think the scientific method is and how it is not used by evolutionary scientists and I and others will be able to help explain where you went wrong.

I searched it and there is no definition for Evolutionary Scientist or Evolutionary Biologist, perhaps you meant Evolutionary Biology which is a study.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I searched it and there is no definition for Evolutionary Scientist or Evolutionary Biologist, perhaps you meant Evolutionary Biology which is a study.

LOL!! That was the height of ignorance.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

If we could get back to subject after the fun interlude I’d like to ask a question.

It appears to me we see two camps. Those who believe evolution is the best theory we have. A theory that can be deduced from mountains of evidence. A theory that is far reaching and based upon which we can do many practical things.

And those who want to discredit evolution. Some even going as far as suspecting conspiracy theories.

But I have met many people who believe that both a creator and evolution can coexist. (l should say I’m not of an Abrahamic faith so do not want to get caught up in that).

So, my question is: Why is disproving evolution without offering any alternative so important?

I thank the contributors on this thread who back evolution. I have learnt a great deal. But from the evolution critics, unless I have missed something, I see nothing. Surely there are some theories?

 

[Jose Fly]

It not a problem that it keeps expanding, it just doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method. It has been reduced to a God itself. Evolution is the God of life. No matter how life has formed or developed, even if man manipulates DNA or it is found on other planets it will be evolution. If you disagree you are a heretic to be burned at the stake. Which is rather funny because with all the variables included now evolution is meaningless other than to say see god didn't do it.

Your inflammatory rhetoric aside, there's a simple reason for why scientists attribute everything in biology to evolutionary mechanisms. In all the time we've studied life, with all the populations of organisms we've ever studied whether in the lab or in the wild, one thing is true.....every single trait, ability, species, and genetic sequence we've seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms, regardless of the setting, the type of organism, or any other variable.

So when scientists look into the past and see that over the course of the history of life on earth various traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences have come and gone, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that they did so via evolutionary mechanisms. It's no different than how when geologists see certain ash layers in ancient strata, they conclude that they're the result of past volcanic eruptions. Why? Because that's what we see generate those layers today.

Now, if you or anyone else wants to argue that everything was completely different in the past, and traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences arose via some other mechanism(s), then you need to explain why it all seemed to change over to evolutionary mechanisms once we started looking. Anything short of that and you're just some crank on the internet throwing meaningless virtual rocks.

 

[Jose Fly]

If we could get back to subject after the fun interlude I’d like to ask a question.

It appears to me we see two camps. Those who believe evolution is the best theory we have. A theory that can be deduced from mountains of evidence. A theory that is far reaching and based upon which we can do many practical things.

And those who want to discredit evolution. Some even going as far as suspecting conspiracy theories.

But I have met many people who believe that both a creator and evolution can coexist. (l should say I’m not of an Abrahamic faith so do not want to get caught up in that).

So, my question is: Why is disproving evolution without offering any alternative so important?

For a portion of conservative religious people, the scientific version of the history of the earth and its life is a direct threat to their faith. On this and other forums, I've seen many directly state so, along the lines of "if the Genesis creation account isn't true, then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was meaningless". Others have specifically cited the social and emotional consequences they'd be forced to endure should they move over to the "evolution side".

The primary reason these conversations rarely accomplish anything is that both sides are talking past each other while operating from completely different frames of reference. The science side deals in data, evidence, and objective analyses, whereas the creationist side deals in scripture, tradition, and emotional well-being. The problem is, usually when someone from the science side attempts to interact with a creationist on their terms, the creationist feels even more threatened and runs away.

In the end that's what this really boils down to.....the creationists derive a great deal of their emotional comfort, self identity, and social status from their religion; evolution threatens all of those. That's why you see them have such strong emotional reactions when this comes up.

I thank the contributors on this thread who back evolution. I have learnt a great deal. But from the evolutionary critics, unless I have missed something, I see nothing. Surely there are some theories?

That would be a reasonable expectation if the "critics" were approaching this from a genuinely scientific angle. But in reality what they're engaging in is simple denialism, no different than flat-earthers or holocaust denialists. So pretty much everything they post is little more than "Nuh uh".