Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Flat Earthers are very often very literal reading Christians. They are only one small step away from being YEC's. And YEC's are only one small step away from being OEC's. They all have to deny reality to a certain degree.

you mean like saying something is a "fact" when there is no observable transformation from 'Lucy' to the continued genetic transformation via generations to -- homo sapiens-- except by comparing bones as if that's the answer to -- evolution as "fact"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still don't believe Lucy was on the way to being (ok, evolving into eventually) a homo sapien. I realize it doesn't matter what I believe. But although Lucy's skull may resemble a human skull (maybe?), I am not going to say "yes, this means evolution." Because -- (1) yes, there is no proof, and (2) there is no actual evidence of this skull grew (evolved) to become a larger brain holder and homoi sapien. One might say there is, but I don't think so. Based on -- evidence. So I think this whole argument will be settled in the future. At least I hope so.

She wasn't. Her descendants became humans, but there was no "on the way". Humanity was not a goal. Humanity was a result.

And there is actual evidence. But there is no point in supplying you with evidence because not only do you not understand the concept, you are afraid to learn.

Do you not understand that it is highly hypocritical to demand evidence when you refuse to learn what is and what is not "actual evidence"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Flat Earthers are very often very literal reading Christians. They are only one small step away from being YEC's. And YEC's are only one small step away from being OEC's. They all have to deny reality to a certain degree.

I always thought hellfire was another crazed teaching. That is before I explored it in the Bible. but OK, once again, have a good evening.
Oh, not to be misunderstood by you -- I never believed hellfire and I still don't. Because a good examination of the Bible does not bear out the general concept of what some religions teach about hell-fire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you mean like saying something is a "fact" when there is no observable transformation from 'Lucy' to the continued genetic transformation via generations to -- homo sapiens-- except by comparing bones as if that's the answer to -- evolution as "fact"?

But we do observe the changes. If you want me to show you the evidence you first need to show that you understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always thought hellfire was another crazed teaching. That is before I explored it in the Bible. but OK, once again, have a good evening.
Oh, not to be misunderstood by you -- I never believed hellfire and I still don't. Because a good examination of the Bible does not bear out the general concept of what some religions teach about hell-fire.

Talk to other Christians. Some of them believe in hellfire, some do not. There is no ne single right and official "Christianity". Most Christians worldwide accept the theory of evolution. That does not mean necessarily that it is right, but it should show you that it is not an anti-Christian thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

Talk to other Christians. Some of them believe in hellfire, some do not. There is no ne single right and official "Christianity". Most Christians worldwide accept the theory of evolution. That does not mean necessarily that it is right, but it should show you that it is not an anti-Christian thought.

Really? We do disagree. If I thought you were right, for instance, I'd join you in your opinions.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we do observe the changes. If you want me to show you the evidence you first need to show that you understand the concept.

I've shown you many times. So anyway, don't worry about showing or not showing me the "evidence" leading to your acceptance of the theory of -- natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? We do disagree. If I thought you were right, for instance, I'd join you in your opinions.

What do you mean? Do you think that there are not Christians that deny hellfire? Ask some of the other Christians on the forum. Do you think that other Christians do not accept the theory of evolution? Why would you smear your fellow Christians in such a way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've shown you many times. So anyway, don't worry about showing or not showing me the "evidence" leading to your acceptance of the theory of -- natural selection.

Yes, you have shown me many times that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

But if you think that you understand the concept of evidence tell me what qualifies as evidence in the sciences and why? If you get it right I promise to provide you with evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

I still don't believe Lucy was on the way to being (ok, evolving into eventually) a homo sapien. I realize it doesn't matter what I believe. But although Lucy's skull may resemble a human skull (maybe?), I am not going to say "yes, this means evolution." Because -- (1) yes, there is no proof, and (2) there is no actual evidence of this skull grew (evolved) to become a larger brain holder and homoi sapien. One might say there is, but I don't think so. Based on -- evidence. So I think this whole argument will be settled in the future. At least I hope so.

If you think about it, it should be obvious that the ancestry of modern humans extends back to the time (the Pliocene epoch) when Lucy and her kind were alive. In other words, we must have ancestors who were alive at the same time as Lucy. However, palaeontologists have not found fossils of Homo sapiens in rocks of the Pliocene epoch. Therefore, our Pliocene ancestors were not Homo sapiens, and so must have belonged to one or more different species. The Pliocene fossils that most closely resemble Homo sapiens are those of the different species of Australopithecus, therefore it is reasonable to infer that our ancestors were australopithecines.

Also, since there are no living australopithecines, they must either have become extinct or have evolved into other species of primates through a process of descent with modification. Since the living species of primate that most closely resembles the australopithecines is Homo sapiens, it is a plausible deduction that we are the modified descendants of australopithecines.

 

[Astrophile]

Maybe I'm wrong, but don't cichlids remain like fish or a variety of cichlids? I never even heard the expression until I checked the link. So it seems that there is rather a debate of sorts among scientists that don't all agree with the theories of what and how it happened.

Yes, of course, but when our human ancestors evolved from Miocene and Pliocene apes, they remained primates and a variety of apes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If in, say. Australia all mammals (including people) were eliminated, and then rats (say
from the slums of Shanghai) were introduced-

If one were to check back in one million, 10,
20 etc ...
Would there still be rats?
Would descendents of the original group
all be rats?

That's an interesting question. Not one that I am an expert at to easily come to an answer with a highly adaptable, cosmopolitan genus of rodent. In talking about the future of a continental fauna following the fortunes of the conditions outlined above, my answer would be an educated hypothesis, since such an opportunity has not been actually attempted, nor possible at the time scale suggested. But that hypothesis is based on established evidence and not for a desire to see a specific outcome that is often the case in arguments for creationism.

For those that demand creationism and use biased arguments founded on flawed logic and information, take note. The first thing I did in formulating my answer was to look to what we know from SCIENTISTS that study things like rats, speciation, Australia, animal ecology, extinction and related subjects. I didn't go to AIG, Wowie! Creationism dotcom, Pseudoscience and Denialism for Beginners dotcom or any other biased source whose goal is to get you to think like them through intellectual dishonesty rather than provide valid information for viewers to draw their own rational conclusions. I didn't stare out my window and watch squirrels and imagine my facts into existence.

I'm trying to keep this as short as possible so as not to swamp others with repetition of a needless, pretentious and overwhelming volume of information provided solely to obfuscate, confuse and mislead.

Here are some links from Wikipedia that provide a good summary of rat history, taxonomy and biology as well as condensing down other information much better than I could in the space and time required for an answer.

Rodent - Wikipedia
Rat - Wikipedia

Tanezumi rat - Wikipedia

This links to a paper discussing invasive species in China that is of use in understanding the subject.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...82a/Invasive-species-in-China-an-overview.pdf

As a group, rats are a highly adaptable mammals capable of existing in numerous niches. That they are is evident in the radiation of species throughout the globe. Particularly, the group of species that have reached pest status through their adaptive capacity. The species mentioned are omnivores and can survive on almost anything they can find to eat. Rat species already exist in Australia and have for about a million years according to the fossil evidence.

According to the literature, rats from Shanghai would most likely be Rattus tanezumi or R. norvegicus. Both are highly adaptable, wide-ranging species. There is a bounty of information on these species and their habits from decades and centuries of observation.

The criteria provided form the basis of an adaptive radiation of a species into numerous empty niches. That species would be isolated on an island continent under high selective pressure from the existing population of reptiles that include 140 species of snakes, many of which are venomous.

Australia - Wikipedia
Adaptive radiation - Wikipedia
Snakes of Australia - Wikipedia

Based on all of this, I would not expect the introduced rat population to have remained a single, static species. It would be the seed population for numerous speciation events to fill the available niches left with the removal of all mammals. Even after a million years, the original species is not likely to have found so stable a niche as to achieve species-level stasis. The Coelacanth of today is a member of a group with high morphological conservation due to the stability of the environment in which it is found, but that doesn't make it the same species as those of millions of years ago. Even in stasis, evolution continues on a smaller scale.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia

There are known examples of such radiation occurring from a small population of starter species to over 700 descendant species. The cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria in Africa is one example where even higher taxa have evolved.

Cichlid - Wikipedia
Speciation - Wikipedia

Some of the resultant species would likely be species of rats (though not necessarily or likely the original rat species) that fill those available niches that support rats. But the selection of predation, inter- and intraspecific competition and the changes in the Australian environment over as much as 20 million years, would lead to entirely new species of mammals and higher groups that do not exist today. Rats would still be rats if they exist there at all, but that simple dismissal would have been left well behind for the same reasons it is meaningless today.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

you mean like saying something is a "fact" when there is no observable transformation from 'Lucy' to the continued genetic transformation via generations to -- homo sapiens-- except by comparing bones as if that's the answer to -- evolution as "fact"?

The phenomena of evolution are facts. When viewing the fossil record from a distance, change over time is observed going from no fossils to fossils of simple microorganisms, to multi-cellular organisms to eukaryotic organisms to the more complex life of today. Gaps in that are no more important to rational conclusion, than gaps in your own family history deny your existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've shown you many times. So anyway, don't worry about showing or not showing me the "evidence" leading to your acceptance of the theory of -- natural selection.

I think it is fair to say that no amount of evidence would persuade you from what you have come to believe is a truth without any evidence. Your faith group says deny this and you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, you have shown me many times that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

But if you think that you understand the concept of evidence tell me what qualifies as evidence in the sciences and why? If you get it right I promise to provide you with evidence.

It is an interesting mix of acceptance of evidence for things that don't directly impact belief coupled with denial of it for those things that have the same foundation, but interfere with how that belief is perceived.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe I'm wrong, but don't cichlids remain like fish or a variety of cichlids? I never even heard the expression until I checked the link. So it seems that there is rather a debate of sorts among scientists that don't all agree with the theories of what and how it happened.

There isn't any debate that evolution takes place except from those that deny the evidence and want their preconceived and unsupported beliefs substituted in for reasoned conclusions based on evidence.

Cichlids are a taxonomic family of fish, but dismissal using the meaningless claim that they are still fish does not refute that they are the products of evolution when all the evidence says that they are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I still don't believe Lucy was on the way to being (ok, evolving into eventually) a homo sapien. I realize it doesn't matter what I believe. But although Lucy's skull may resemble a human skull (maybe?), I am not going to say "yes, this means evolution." Because -- (1) yes, there is no proof, and (2) there is no actual evidence of this skull grew (evolved) to become a larger brain holder and homoi sapien. One might say there is, but I don't think so. Based on -- evidence. So I think this whole argument will be settled in the future. At least I hope so.

Do you expect that you would resemble all your lineal ancestors? Eye color, hair color and density, height, fat storage, build, metabolism, disease resistance or susceptibility, etc. It is the shared characters that would link you to those ancestors. That you are not a perfect match to your great, great, great grandmother is expected, but you can certainly share traits from her that show the relationship.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never heard of "flat earthers" until I got involved in these conversations with people years ago. I was astounded at the (lack of) reasoning behind it. But -- oh well, that's the way it goes.

That is an interesting dichotomy that you represent here.

 

[cladking]

There isn't any debate that evolution takes place except from those that deny the evidence...

No, no "Evolution".

The evidence says species change. It does not say why, when, or how and most importantly it does not even address the question of the nature of "life" or what the commonalities are of "species" and "life". "Evolution" is an interpretation of a great amount of disparate and unconnected data to explain what can not be seen or studied at this time.

 

[Audie]

That's an interesting question. Not one that I am an expert at to easily come to an answer with a highly adaptable, cosmopolitan genus of rodent. In talking about the future of a continental fauna following the fortunes of the conditions outlined above, my answer would be an educated hypothesis, since such an opportunity has not been actually attempted, nor possible at the time scale suggested. But that hypothesis is based on established evidence and not for a desire to see a specific outcome that is often the case in arguments for creationism.

For those that demand creationism and use biased arguments founded on flawed logic and information, take note. The first thing I did in formulating my answer was to look to what we know from SCIENTISTS that study things like rats, speciation, Australia, animal ecology, extinction and related subjects. I didn't go to AIG, Wowie! Creationism dotcom, Pseudoscience and Denialism for Beginners dotcom or any other biased source whose goal is to get you to think like them through intellectual dishonesty rather than provide valid information for viewers to draw their own rational conclusions. I didn't stare out my window and watch squirrels and imagine my facts into existence.

I'm trying to keep this as short as possible so as not to swamp others with repetition of a needless, pretentious and overwhelming volume of information provided solely to obfuscate, confuse and mislead.

Here are some links from Wikipedia that provide a good summary of rat history, taxonomy and biology as well as condensing down other information much better than I could in the space and time required for an answer.

Rodent - Wikipedia
Rat - Wikipedia

Tanezumi rat - Wikipedia

This links to a paper discussing invasive species in China that is of use in understanding the subject.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...82a/Invasive-species-in-China-an-overview.pdf

As a group, rats are a highly adaptable mammals capable of existing in numerous niches. That they are is evident in the radiation of species throughout the globe. Particularly, the group of species that have reached pest status through their adaptive capacity. The species mentioned are omnivores and can survive on almost anything they can find to eat. Rat species already exist in Australia and have for about a million years according to the fossil evidence.

According to the literature, rats from Shanghai would most likely be Rattus tanezumi or R. norvegicus. Both are highly adaptable, wide-ranging species. There is a bounty of information on these species and their habits from decades and centuries of observation.

The criteria provided form the basis of an adaptive radiation of a species into numerous empty niches. That species would be isolated on an island continent under high selective pressure from the existing population of reptiles that include 140 species of snakes, many of which are venomous.

Australia - Wikipedia
Adaptive radiation - Wikipedia
Snakes of Australia - Wikipedia

Based on all of this, I would not expect the introduced rat population to have remained a single, static species. It would be the seed population for numerous speciation events to fill the available niches left with the removal of all mammals. Even after a million years, the original species is not likely to have found so stable a niche as to achieve species-level stasis. The Coelacanth of today is a member of a group with high morphological conservation due to the stability of the environment in which it is found, but that doesn't make it the same species as those of millions of years ago. Even in stasis, evolution continues on a smaller scale.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia

There are known examples of such radiation occurring from a small population of starter species to over 700 descendant species. The cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria in Africa is one example where even higher taxa have evolved.

Cichlid - Wikipedia
Speciation - Wikipedia

Some of the resultant species would likely be species of rats (though not necessarily or likely the original rat species) that fill those available niches that support rats. But the selection of predation, inter- and intraspecific competition and the changes in the Australian environment over as much as 20 million years, would lead to entirely new species of mammals and higher groups that do not exist today. Rats would still be rats if they exist there at all, but that simple dismissal would have been left well behind for the same reasons it is meaningless today.

The point about rats is that they are of genrralistt design, so suitable as a base for adaptive radiation.