Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

dad has been debating this long enough so that he knows there is plenty of evidence out there against him. His only "defense" is to at least pretend that he does not understand what is and what is not evidence.

I find the posts amusing, but one can only listen to a broken record so long before it bores.

You have more patience than I do. It would be novel to see you get even a hint at a valid response. Given the fecundity of nonesense, even a hint from that direction might be too startling for my aging heart.

 

[dad]

It is dishonest to improperly edit a quote. For the 11th time, when you learn what is and what is not evidence.

Are you ready to learn?

It id great to get to the heart of the matter. Since it seems to me that about 95% of all posts by you are spam, it is appropriate to ask for a link to any point that I find buried in there somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It id great to get to the heart of the matter. Since it seems to me that about 95% of all posts by you are spam, it is appropriate to ask for a link to any point that I find buried in there somewhere.

You are mistaken. 95% of your posts are spam and therefore only merit spam responses. If you could get over your fear we might get somewhere. And you lost the ability to demand evidence when you denied it one time too many. You did not refute anything. And there as no excuse for editing that post. You did so because it correctly explained why you do not get links.

So, can you get over your fear?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are mistaken. 95% of your posts are spam and therefore only merit spam responses. If you could get over your fear we might get somewhere. And you lost the ability to demand evidence when you denied it one time too many. You did not refute anything.

So, can you get over your fear?

I hate to disagree, but the record needs to be set straight. It 100% of those posts.

 

[gnostic]

Fine-Tuned for what?


Cockroaches have lived for over 300,000,000 years; humans have been around for 100,000.

Why did the Intelligent Designer Fine Tune the Earth for cockroaches?

With over 10 million species of insects estimated to exist and countless individuals among those species, insects, as a group, would appear to be the target group for fine tuning. Of course, they didn't reckon on us.

I don't think the cockroaches counted on our boots squashing them, or the invention of the fly swatters.

Take that, you beastie! *STOMP* *SQUISH*

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think the cockroaches counted on our boots squashing them, or the invention of the fly swatters.

Take that, you beastie! *STOMP* *SQUISH*

They definitely didn't count on the evolution of an intelligent tool user that would try to out reproduce them either.

Stomp that habitat. Splash! It's a Starbucks now.

 

[leroy]

Feathers are very specific structures. Echo-location is a general talent. You have been shown that bat echolocation is different than that of cetaceans.

However it is still a fact that bats and dolphins evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently, this is true for atleast 200 genes related to echolocation.

So why cant mammals evolve some bird - like traits (same genes) independently?

 

[leroy]

Evolution predicts that such species existed, but it can't predict which species will fossilize.
Fossils aren't ordered like you order a steak at the restaurant.

Tiktaalik is just one example of a "fishapod" from around 375 million years ago.
There will have been such species older as well as younger.

Consider it like this: americans come from europeans. Yet today, 400 years after europeans colonized america, there are still europeans.

In the tetrapod story, americans are tetrapods. Europeans are tiktaalik.

You seem to still be having trouble with understanding the difference between "transitional" and "ancestral".

Sure but if you claim that americans (tetrapods) came from Europeans (tiktaalik) at the very least you are expected to show that europeans predate americans.

Or to put it this way, if we ever find an american fossil that predates even the oldest european fossil, your hypothesis that americans came from europeans, would be strongly refuted.


Side note...
+ who told you that Americans came from Europeans? The most accepted theory is that americans came from "Asians" who migrated to America trough the Bering strait.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure but if you claim that americans (tetrapods) came from Europeans (tiktaalik) at the very least you are expected to show that europeans predate americans.

The point here, is that the "europeans" have been found. Current europeans aren't the ancestors of americans. Just like tiktaalik isn't the ancestor of its contemporary tetrapods.

The point here, is that up until the discovery of tiktaalik, the "european" population was unknown and undiscovered.
We had no examples of "fishapods". By prediction, such an example was found.

That is the significance of tiktaalik.
The age makes sense and it complete corresponds to what was expected to be found.

Or to put it this way, if we ever find an american fossil that predates even the oldest european fossil, your hypothesis that americans came from europeans, would be strongly refuted.

No. It would only mean that you haven't found a fossil. The fossil might not even exist, which doesn't mean that the population didn't exist. It would merely mean that it left no fossils - like the VAST VAST VAST majority of species for that matter - most species never fossilized. Fossilization is very rare thing.

Now, if you would find "american" / tetrapods in completely the wrong age, now THEN you'ld have something.
Like finding a rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian layers. But we don't find such things.

Side note...
+ who told you that Americans came from Europeans? The most accepted theory is that americans came from "Asians" who migrated to America trough the Bering strait.

Myea... the present citizens of the US ancestors pretty much killed all those folk when they migrated there from europe.

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster,

Again: no.
The only case of parallel evolution is a change in a single gene, prestin, involved in hearing high pitches sounds in all mammals.

To pretend that this single gene accounts for the full echolocation mechanism, is just wrong.

.

It is not a single gene, we are talking about 200 genes related to echolocation.
I dont know if these 200 genes accout for all the echolocation mechanism or not (probably not)......... But The fact is that both dolphins and bats evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently multiple times.

So if bats and dolphins could evolve the same traits (same genetic material) independently why can mammals and birds do the same? Why cant mammals evolve feathers independently?

 

[leroy]

The point here, is that the "europeans" have been found. Current europeans aren't the ancestors of americans. Just like tiktaalik isn't the ancestor of its contemporary tetrapods.

The point here, is that up until the discovery of tiktaalik, the "european" population was unknown and undiscovered.
We had no examples of "fishapods". By prediction, such an example was found.

That is the significance of tiktaalik.
The age makes sense and it complete corresponds to what was expected to be found.



No. It would only mean that you haven't found a fossil. The fossil might not even exist, which doesn't mean that the population didn't exist. It would merely mean that it left no fossils - like the VAST VAST VAST majority of species for that matter - most species never fossilized. Fossilization is very rare thing.

Now, if you would find "american" / tetrapods in completely the wrong age, now THEN you'ld have something.
Like finding a rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian layers. But we don't find such things.



Myea... the present citizens of the US ancestors pretty much killed all those folk when they migrated there from europe.

And what would be a completely wrong age for tiktaalik?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not a single gene, we are talking about 200 genes related to echolocation.

Which isn't the same accross species.

I dont know if these 200 genes accout for all the echolocation mechanism or not (probably not)......... But The fact is that both dolphins and bats evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently multiple times.

citation?

So if bats and dolphins could evolve the same traits (same genetic material) independently why can mammals and birds do the same? Why cant mammals evolve feathers independently?

Let's first see you demonstrate your claim that bats and dolphines evolved a set of 200 identical genes independently from one another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And what would be a completely wrong age for tiktaalik?

I don't know, you'ld have to ask a paleontologist or someone with more knowledge on the matter.
I can't even list all the various periods of geological history without looking it up first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

However it is still a fact that bats and dolphins evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently, this is true for atleast 200 genes related to echolocation.

So why cant mammals evolve some bird - like traits (same genes) independently?

Since hearing is involved of course some of the same genes will be involved. This is merely an example of convergent evolution where the environment determines which genes are involved.

And mammals could evolve some bird traits. Sometimes even some of the same genes would be involved. A feather like structure could evolve, but with the massive difference that exists between the two groups genetically it would be child's play to tell which gene came from which group. A true 'bird feather' could not evolve in a mammalian species. Once separation between species occurs the odds of evolving almost the exact same traits becomes astronomical.

A good example is shown by how genes can break. This is much simpler, since a break could conceivably occur in the same place the odds are perhaps only thousands to one against it happening twice. This is shown by the loss of function of vitamin C production. In all cases in vertebrates the loss of that ability is caused by a mutation or in some cases the total loss of a specific gene. With mammals scientists can determine if DNA is primate, guinea pig, or bat DNA from where that one break is in this gene:

The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

For a mammal to evolve a feather like structure genetically identical to a general bird feather would take far too many identical mutations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is not a single gene, we are talking about 200 genes related to echolocation.
I dont know if these 200 genes accout for all the echolocation mechanism or not (probably not)......... But The fact is that both dolphins and bats evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently multiple times.

So if bats and dolphins could evolve the same traits (same genetic material) independently why can mammals and birds do the same? Why cant mammals evolve feathers independently?

The point seems immaterial and outside of the scope. What difference does it make? One is evidence of evolution and the other is irrelevant what if speculation. Feathered mammals are not known to have existed and have not been postulated to have existed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

However it is still a fact that bats and dolphins evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently, this is true for atleast 200 genes related to echolocation.

So why cant mammals evolve some bird - like traits (same genes) independently?

Your question assumes goals and guidance that no evidence suggests. There is no reason that mutations and selection could not have occurred in mammals that lead to feathers except that it did not.

What is your point here?

 

[tas8831]

However it is still a fact that bats and dolphins evolved the same traits (same genetic material) independently, this is true for atleast 200 genes related to echolocation.

It is so cool how creationists latch onto tidbits of information that they do not fully understand, yet present it as if it is some major argument.

Odd they when they ask these questions, they fail to ask them of themselves regarding their supernatural beliefs. Like this:

So why cant mammals evolve some bird - like traits (same genes) independently?

 

[tas8831]

It is not a single gene, we are talking about 200 genes related to echolocation.

genes genes genes mutations mutations mutations.

All your gene and mutation talk and you wrote:

"My point is that you need much more than 50,000 mutations to explain the differences between chimps and humans."​

A mere assertion, totally fabricated, embedded in a misrepresentation of me...
And nary a bit of evidence for any of it.

 

[leroy]

genes genes genes mutations mutations mutations.

All your gene and mutation talk and you wrote:

"My point is that you need much more than 50,000 mutations to explain the differences between chimps and humans."​

A mere assertion, totally fabricated, embedded in a misrepresentation of me...
And nary a bit of evidence for any of it.

Ok so how many mutations do you think are needed to explain the differences between chimps and humans?

 

[leroy]

Your question assumes goals and guidance that no evidence suggests. There is no reason that mutations and selection could not have occurred in mammals that lead to feathers except that it did not.

What is your point here?

agree

my point is that according to @TagliatelliMonster Feathers could have not evolved independently in mammals and birds,

I simply tried to explain to him that he is wrong, feel free to give it a try and explain to him why given enough time and selective pressure, it would have been possible for mammals to evolve feathers independently from birds

The point is that evolution as presently understood, should result in nested hierarchies. So the model predicts that traits that evolve in one line, won't end up in another line, but only in its descendants.

in this post he specifically mentioned feathers in mammals as an example of somethign that would be
Considered as a failed prediction