Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[sayak83]

This is just one example of an evolutionary sequence postulated with a great deal of imagination. .

What you are providing is an artists conceptual imagery that does not represent any factual evidence to back it up. Some people still believe we "evolved" from monkeys and yet there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, where they just left out of the lop or what?

There is no skeletal evidence showing this supposed transition or evolution; none, nada, zip.

What we do have in common with every living thing on this planet, including the birds, fish, insects and microbes is DNA.

If we single out that portion of the DNA chain that is common to all the above we will find our true origin.

In my view, anyway
.

Please see below the description of the large numbers of actual skeletons of transitional whales found by scientists that provide direct evidence for the evolution of whales from land mammals.
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

 

[robocop (actually)]

OK I want to try.

Aren't there a lot more factors that go into creating the first cell than previously realized, throwing the chance of abiogenesis into question?

Why do so many living things share things that could have just as well switched? For instance, mammals seem to all have five fingers, including a bat, but is a bat really best with 5 fingers?

 

[sayak83]

OK I want to try.

Aren't there a lot more factors that go into creating the first cell than previously realized, throwing the chance of abiogenesis into question?

Why do so many living things share things that could have just as well switched? For instance, mammals seem to all have five fingers, including a bat, but is a bat really best with 5 fingers?

But horses or whales no longer have 5 fingers. So the contention that all mammals have 5 fingers is wrong. Increasing number digits appear to be more problematic as the gene that does so is also used in many other places, and this causes unintended consequences. It's a good example of a developmental constraint that is caused by non-evolutionary principles. More here,
Why do most species have five digits on their hands and feet?
A lot of advances have been made in abiogenesis research, but this thread is not a place for this.

 

[Zosimus]

Here is the official designation that identifies polar bear as a species.
ITIS Standard Report Page: Ursus maritimus

According to which of the species concepts. Surely not based on the recognition concept. Surely not based on the biological concept. It must be based on the phenetic concept. I guess one out of three isn't bad.

 

[robocop (actually)]

But horses or whales no longer have 5 fingers. So the contention that all mammals have 5 fingers is wrong. Increasing number digits appear to be more problematic as the gene that does so is also used in many other places, and this causes unintended consequences. It's a good example of a developmental constraint that is caused by non-evolutionary principles. More here,
Why do most species have five digits on their hands and feet?
A lot of advances have been made in abiogenesis research, but this thread is not a place for this.

OK I skimmed the article that was good but I'm not entirely sure this answers the question. It seems over such a long time and over so many species the number could be reduced more often. Horses have heavy bodies. But there are so many other species that it just seems if you can change from say something to a bat in the process since everything else could change you'd have that opportunity to change digit number. Why is there a difference where digit changing is dangerous and changing to a wing isn't?

If you want me to go back and read the article fully... OK I will just read it fully now.

I posted two posts down.

 

[Zosimus]

Actually it is evidence for evolution. You have demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. Please no strawman arguments.

Oh, I know exactly how science is done. That's why I call it a crock of shoot.
Don't forget that more than 80 percent of published scientific research findings are false.

Amazingly ignorantly wrong.

I'll take that as an admission that you have no rebuttal.

You need to learn how science is done. There is no "proof" in the sciences of anything, including gravity in the sense that you are trying to use the word "proof". Science is evidence base and concepts are only "provisionally true". If a theory or hypothesis can explain all evidence, is testable and has been tested successfully then it is provisionally accepted as correct until something better comes along. There are mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is none for creationism.

Now who's making the straw man argument, eh? I have criticized the poor logical foundation of your arguments. You are the only one who has mentioned creationism.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry, but science works. Your ability to communicate here is an example of that. You are now being a hypocrite by using the science that you do not believe in.

Just because you are ignorant of how science is done does not make it a joke. You are probably only angry because your myth has been debunked.

Your mind is not scientific. You do not understand the scientific method nor do you seem to wish to learn. Since you cannot accept evolution instead you might try to learn why we know that creationism is false.

This is a stupid argument that presupposes the truth of its conclusion.

It is not different from someone saying, "Oh yeah? If you don't believe in Zeus, God of lightning, then why do you use electricity?"

 

[robocop (actually)]

OK so if you change digits it is usually started through a process that is dangerous right?

Yeah, but aren't there less common mutations that would result in digit-number-changing since it could help the process so much?

 

[Zosimus]

So. You are a professor and you are checking the essay assignment of two students Sam and Julia.
You find that word for word, the two essays are 95% identical and have the same rough order of identical sentences with only a few additions or deletions here and there. Moreover even the same typos and mistakes are made in both.

Sam's essay is 12 paragraphs long, but Julia's is 13 paragraph long. However you find on checking that Julia's 12th and 13th paras are near identical to the first and second half of Sam's 12th paragraph.

Given all this are you not justified in concluding that one of them copied their work from the other?

Wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight.

We are talking about two essays, each of which has been produced by an intelligent actor. In fact, one might say that they have been intelligently designed. Then, we determine that they are extremely similar.

Excuse my bluntness, but what the heck does this have to do with neo-Darwinism?

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Oh, NOW I get it. Thank you so much for explaining it to me!

One logical fallacy proves nothing. But a large number of logical fallacies proves neo-Darwinism.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[sayak83]

OK so if you change digits it is usually started through a process that is dangerous right?

Yeah, but aren't there less common mutations that would result in digit-number-changing since it could help the process so much?

There apparently is not. Not every constraint in how gene networks function are not known. Note that 6 toed cats exist and are quite widespread. So maybe a 6 toed species is emerging?
Polydactyl Cats

 

[sayak83]

Wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight.

We are talking about two essays, each of which has been produced by an intelligent actor. In fact, one might say that they have been intelligently designed. Then, we determine that they are extremely similar.

Excuse my bluntness, but what the heck does this have to do with neo-Darwinism?

Comparing the letters in the paper to the letters of DNA. Even if the two "essays" were a random sequence of 0 and 1 (that often comes out of a printer), the above conclusion will hold.

 

[robocop (actually)]

There apparently is not. Not every constraint in how gene networks function are not known. Note that 6 toed cats exist and are quite widespread. So maybe a 6 toed species is emerging?
Polydactyl Cats

OK, so not every physical mutation corresponds to a gene mutation! If that's what you're saying, that makes sense. I am not sure we know this scientifically, but I see it as a point not to doubt about.

 

[sayak83]

According to which of the species concepts. Surely not based on the recognition concept. Surely not based on the biological concept. It must be based on the phenetic concept. I guess one out of three isn't bad.

Any one of the three, if satisfied, is sufficient to designate a species. That has been the case since the beginning. More than 20% of known species are known to hybridize with another in the wild, and the fraction is greater if artificial means are added (as in zoos).

See details below,
Hybridization, Introgression, and the Nature of Species Boundaries | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

Species can be defined as populations that are diagnosably distinct, reproductively isolated, cohesive, or exclusive groups of organisms. Boundaries between species in sympatry are maintained by intrinsic barriers to gene exchange; these boundaries may not be uniform in space, in time, or across the genome. Here, we explore the nature of the species boundary, defined as the phenotypes/genes/genome regions that remain differentiated in the face of potential hybridization and introgression. We emphasize that species boundaries are semipermeable, with permeability (gene exchange) being a function of genome region. The early evidence for semipermeable species boundaries came from data on differential introgression in hybrid zones. This “genic view” of species was common in the hybrid zone literature even when few molecular markers were available to characterize genome-wide patterns of variation. Now, molecular tools allow detailed characterization of differentiation between diverging lineages and patterns of variation across natural hybrid zones, but the questions being asked by evolutionary biologists have remained much the same. Recent data (from DNA sequences and genotypes) reinforce earlier conclusions about the semipermeable nature of most species boundaries. However, debate persists over the nature and extent of genome divergence that accompanies speciation.


Species boundaries are like national boundaries. There are significant restrictions of movement across borders, leading to differentiation between nations... but movement still occurs in moderate and quantifiable amounts through hybridization. Only species separated by long evolutionary distance (America and Asia before ships) have no exchange of genes by hybridization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know exactly how science is done. That's why I call it a crock of shoot.
Don't forget that more than 80 percent of published scientific research findings are false.

Seriously you don't. If you did you would not keep making the errors that you make.

I'll take that as an admission that you have no rebuttal.

No rebuttal was needed. If you want it rebutted post your claim again all by itself. You continually use strawman arguments. You made a false claim about scientists that you could not support.

Now who's making the straw man argument, eh? I have criticized the poor logical foundation of your arguments. You are the only one who has mentioned creationism.

You are. But at least not in this post. Your arguments were refuted since they all relied on strawman arguments. There was no poor logical foundation. By the way, your demands for "proof" only confirm my earlier claim that you do not know how science is done. And there is no need to mention creationism. You have made your belief in myth abundantly clear.


If you want to learn how science is done I will gladly help you. If you want to learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly help you. If you want to learn about logic, I will even help you there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a stupid argument that presupposes the truth of its conclusion.

It is not different from someone saying, "Oh yeah? If you don't believe in Zeus, God of lightning, then why do you use electricity?"

Wrong again. The "truth" of evolution has already been demonstrated. Your inability to understand the sciences cannot negate that claim. The honest tactic to take would have been to admit that you did not understand the argument.

Please note, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. You keep asking for "proof" without knowing what "proof" is. You are fixated on a logical proof and those do not exist in the sciences. Scientists know that they cannot prove anything absolution. The standard of "proof" that science works on is more on the lines of "legal proof". In a jury trial the claims must be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and evolution has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. You can only oppose it with arguments from ignorance, strawman arguments, and arguments from incredulity. You have not been able to find any evidence that supports your beliefs.

That is why I so often offer to help creationists understand the concept of scientific evidence. Sadly most are too afraid to learn.

 

[Stewart Hough]

Do you think that the fossil transitional forms depicted in the whale evolution are less than expected? Why?

Not sure if the diagram is supposed to be comprehensive, but it decidedly cannot be. The morphological variations are extensive between each supposed transitional form and extend over the entire skeletal structure. The accompanied changes that point to a fully functional organism include teeth, hair, skeletal structure, motor proportions and extensive internal metabolic and reproductive differences. There is obviously no way one of the imaged organisms can ever become the next in the progression without hundreds or thousands of gradual, supposedly minor transitions, but where are they why have they never been found.

The granularity of this kind of quantized representation of transitional forms absolutely mandates intra-species in order to be considered seriously.It is intellectually insulting to think that these are supposed to fill the lot of transitional forms from a land animal to a whale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure if the diagram is supposed to be comprehensive, but it decidedly cannot be. The morphological variations are extensive between each supposed transitional form and extend over the entire skeletal structure. The accompanied changes that point to a fully functional organism include teeth, hair, skeletal structure, motor proportions and extensive internal metabolic and reproductive differences. There is obviously no way one of the imaged organisms can ever become the next in the progression without hundreds or thousands of gradual, supposedly minor transitions, but where are they why have they never been found.

The granularity of this kind of quantized representation of transitional forms absolutely mandates intra-species in order to be considered seriously.It is intellectually insulting to think that these are supposed to fill the lot of transitional forms from a land animal to a whale.

Fossilization is a very rare event. Most species are not preserved through fossilization, but when the conditions are right for preservation we tend to find multiple examples of that particular species. For example chimpanzees tend to live in rain forests. Rain forests are notoriously bad at preserving bones. It is too wet and they decay before they can be buried and preserved. That was not the case with our fairly recent ancestors. Either they left the forests or the forests "left them". At any rate our ancestors moved out into the dry savanna and we can find multiple fossils of Australopithecus afaransis, of Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus sediba, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus and other species. Fossilization was still very rare for those species, but they tended to be widespread and lived long enough so that we do have good representatives of them.

The whale fossils that you are discussing all fall within the evolutionary paradigm. They fit the order one would expect if the whale evolved. There is no alternative scientific explanation out there. When one begins to have thousands upon thousands of examples that all fit into the evolutionary paradigm and there is no other explanation the answer becomes obvious.

 

[sayak83]

Not sure if the diagram is supposed to be comprehensive, but it decidedly cannot be. The morphological variations are extensive between each supposed transitional form and extend over the entire skeletal structure. The accompanied changes that point to a fully functional organism include teeth, hair, skeletal structure, motor proportions and extensive internal metabolic and reproductive differences. There is obviously no way one of the imaged organisms can ever become the next in the progression without hundreds or thousands of gradual, supposedly minor transitions, but where are they why have they never been found.

The granularity of this kind of quantized representation of transitional forms absolutely mandates intra-species in order to be considered seriously.It is intellectually insulting to think that these are supposed to fill the lot of transitional forms from a land animal to a whale.

You do understand that fossilization is a very rare event? Given the number of fossil skeletons that have been unearthed, the number of intermediate forms have the expected evolutionary separation between them in terms of physical features.

Suppose evolution occurs at mean a rate R per 100 years. Then fossils separated by half a million years for a given lineage line would have evolutionary distance of 10, 000R. Usually half a million years distance separate fossils discovered in a given lineage. Thus we expect macroevolutionary distance of the order of 10,000R between fossils in the same line compared with the evolution that is actually observed in field studies ranging over 10-50 years.

R will vary between species and between environments. These can be quantified as well and have been.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

I have tried to look at this from a detective’s mindset and an open mind. I conclude that one of the statements below must be accepted by all, unless I have missed an alternative - always possible .

1. Evolution is a sound theory that lives up to scientific scrutiny.

2. That there is an alternative theory (to evolution) which supports the available evidense.

3. That the fossils that have been found, if evolution or an alternative are rejected, show that the number of different distinct and created lifeforms that have existed is far higher than we imagined.

4. That the fossil evidense was intentionally created. Thus, the fossils never were life forms.

However, I remain unclear where those who argue against evolution sit. Can anyone shine a light?