Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ImmortalFlame]

Did humans evolve from a "close relative" in the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family? Come on, be honest.

Your question makes no sense. It's like me asking if you were born from "close relatives" of your family.

It's very simple: "Sharing common ancestors with gorillas" does not mean the same thing as "Evolved from gorillas". You claimed that Darwin said the latter. That claim is false.

Do you or do you not understand this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you did not see the connection between artifacts with vestiges of feathers that are supposedly dinosaurs and flying birds. So again, how about penguins? They have wings but cannot fly midair. Does that mean they don't have the natural selection to move on to flying birds and evolved from the dinosaur with beginnings of feathers? I am guessing here -- you will say yes. But I do have more questions.
By the way, the first article you presented, the Scientific American article, was somewhat understandable until the graph with dna sequence. Would you like to go over that with me? I'd be happy to go over it with you so you can explain what it means to me. OK?

It is a sin to assume that others have your lacks. Again what you are doing right now is no different from openly !ying.

And no, until you apologize there is no point in continuing. The concept of evidence is very clear. You are able to understand that. The concept of evidence, along with at least one apology from you, and then we can move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that you refuse to explain or discuss the references. In relation to evolution.

Until you can show at least the slightest bit of honesty you cannot make any demands.

The reason I will not explain anything to you is because you have gone back on your word.

Once again the concept of evidence first and then we can move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue , I need to remind you that the concept of scientific evidence was partially developed with dishonest people in mind. That is why there are only two questions to ask when presented with scientific observations. There is no "maybe", there is no "but". If you want to refute the evidence that comes later. I have two clear cut examples of scientific evidence that you had no answer for. Grasping at straws of unrelated articles that you do not understand is a form of lying. Using foolish arguments is a form of lying. That is not appreciated in a scientific discussion. Your actions also explain why creationists lose in court and so often earn the contempt of even conservative judges. Especially Christian ones. They put a high value on honesty and can see when people are not being honest.

Have you heard of the Dover Trial? It was the most recent big court case in regards to teaching creationism in schools. The creationists had their ideal judge. A conservative Republican appointed judge, and they still had an epic loss. There is a PBS special on it that is well worth watching.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess you did not see the connection between artifacts with vestiges of feathers that are supposedly dinosaurs and flying birds. So again, how about penguins? They have wings but cannot fly midair. Does that mean they don't have the natural selection to move on to flying birds and evolved from the dinosaur with beginnings of feathers? I am guessing here -- you will say yes. But I do have more questions.

The earliest penguins we know of are flightless. But there were a lot of species of flightless birds at the time. On the other hand, the closest relatives of the penguins are species that fly, like the albatross.

So, it is likely that we had birds that flew, that started eating fish and diving. Eventually, they evolved to be more adapted to the water and lost the ability to fly.

 

[Valjean]

I guess you did not see the connection between artifacts with vestiges of feathers that are supposedly dinosaurs and flying birds. So again, how about penguins? They have wings but cannot fly midair. Does that mean they don't have the natural selection to move on to flying birds and evolved from the dinosaur with beginnings of feathers? I am guessing here -- you will say yes. But I do have more questions.

Natural selection isn't something you "have." It's a process, not a feature.
Penguins? What about them?

Animals have a wide variety of lifestyles, taking advantage of the different opportunities their individual environments have to offer. In some situations flight is useful, and many different animals will develop it. In other situations it's useless or detrimental, and it either doesn't develop or is abandoned.

Flight is metabolically expensive and anatomically restrictive. Like any feature, it's a risk-benefit balancing act. If escape from predators or large hunting areas outweighs the many advantages of front limbs, developing wings might be selectively advantageous. If conditions change and birds can find food and safety without such an expensive adaptation it will be abandoned.

In penguins' case taking to the water offered better lifestyle opportunities than flight. Their wings evolved into flippers. We can see many modern examples of birds at different stages of this sequence even today.

If you understood biology the answers to these hows and whys you bring up would be obvious. Isn't this taught in school?

By the way, the first article you presented, the Scientific American article, was somewhat understandable until the graph with dna sequence. Would you like to go over that with me? I'd be happy to go over it with you so you can explain what it means to me. OK?

Post # please -- this is a long thread.

 

[Valjean]

I can, I suppose in a certain imagined scenario, perhaps in a probability of that imagined scenario, not question the assurance of your probabilities. And that, my friend, would make me a liar. So again, regarding evolution, what is your estimate of the chance that life somewhere else in the universe would evolve or did evolve to the kind of life we have here, on this earth? And that is the crux of the whole matter. Nevertheless, from time to time I will look into more of what is deemed to be life by means of evolution. And, of course, that would involve abiogenesis, a necessary vital factor in terms of life having evolved here.

"Life by means of evolution" makes no sense. Evolution is the study of change -- in already extant organisms. Abiogenisis is a different study.

Life elsewhere in the universe? We'd need more variables to accurately make such an assessment. The probabilities are expanding, though, as more discoveries are made.
And how would extraterrestrial life affect the ToE? Neither evolution nor abiogeneric mechanisms would be changed by extraterrestrial seeding.

 

[Valjean]

The earliest penguins we know of are flightless. But there were a lot of species of flightless birds at the time. On the other hand, the closest relatives of the penguins are species that fly, like the albatross.

So, it is likely that we had birds that flew, that started eating fish and diving. Eventually, they evolved to be more adapted to the water and lost the ability to fly.

It seems a lot of birds have taken to the water at various times. The great auk wasn't closely related to penguins, for example, but were rapidly evolving be practically indistinguishable.

There are aquatic bird/dinosaur fossils from > 60M years ago, and these were first taken as direct ancestors of today's penguins. More recent genetic studies, though, are casting some doubt on this:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0748

 

[Valjean]

It does? How so? Now the question of flying penguins. They have wings but can't fly like swsllows. They can use their wings, however, to navigate in water very well.

I don't understand what you're asking. Penguin flippers are evidence for evolution.

 

[Valjean]

"almost certainly." That statement is almost certainly equivalent to penguins being a transitional form to a smaller bird, perhaps, with big wings so it can fly in midair. Or, perhaps one believing in evolution as a certainty may believe almost certainly that the penguin was a stopping point with the form staying that way because it is almost certain that it was convenient for the penguin to be like that. So you believe that it is almost certain humans, fish, leopards, gorillas, trees, exist by means of evolution in another area of the universe?

What are you talking about? Penguins didn't begin in the water.
Evolution is driven by reproductive success, and doesn't favor any particular physical feature. If flippers are more useful than wings in a given situation, they'll likely be selected for.
The aquatic lifestyle is a very successful survival strategy. Why would penguins abandon it?

There IS no evidence. Go back to the penguin again. For evidence.

Evidence of what? Lots of land and air animals have returned to the water. There's nothing remarkable about penguins doing it, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand what you're asking. Penguin flippers are evidence for evolution.

Sadly he cannot admit to even the most obvious of evidence. He still does not understand the concept.

@YoursTrue , evidence is not "proof". There is no such thing as "proof" in the sciences. But if you cannot admit to obvious evidence, evidence that follows the rules for evidence and your only reply to this evidence is denial I do not think that we can advance at all here.

Once again, why are you afraid of evidence? Your fear tells us that you appear to have very serious doubts about your God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sadly he cannot admit to even the most obvious of evidence. He still does not understand the concept.

@YoursTrue , evidence is not "proof". There is no such thing as "proof" in the sciences. But if you cannot admit to obvious evidence, evidence that follows the rules for evidence and your only reply to this evidence is denial I do not think that we can advance at all here.

Once again, why are you afraid of evidence? Your fear tells us that you appear to have very serious doubts about your God.

The more I hear your answers, and especially the non-answers in the form of personal attack, the more I am convinced, including reading of the Rare Earth book, that evolution is a science of conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about? Penguins didn't begin in the water.
Evolution is driven by reproductive success, and doesn't favor any particular physical feature. If flippers are more useful than wings in a given situation, they'll likely be selected for.
The aquatic lifestyle is a very successful survival strategy. Why would penguins abandon it?

No development to becoming an airborne being.
In reference to dinosaur fossils with vestiges of feathers and wings as if that's proof that dinosaurs became birds.. So they had feathers and wings.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what you're asking. Penguin flippers are evidence for evolution.

No, they're not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The more I hear your answers, and especially the non-answers in the form of personal attack, the more I am convinced, including reading of the Rare Earth book, that evolution is a science of conjecture.

What "personal attacks"? You went back on your word. You will not honestly address the concept of scientific evidence.

You cannot judge science if you do not understand evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they're not.

Of course they are. But then you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No development to becoming an airborne being.
In reference to dinosaur fossils with vestiges of feathers and wings as if that's proof that dinosaurs became birds.. So they had feathers and wings.

Poor terminology. It is evidence that birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Valjean]

No development to becoming an airborne being.
In reference to dinosaur fossils with vestiges of feathers and wings as if that's proof that dinosaurs became birds.. So they had feathers and wings.

Penguins abandoned their wings for more useful flippers when they returned to the sea. You seem to think they're in some sort of arrested transition to flying birds. Do you expect evolution to work backwards?

There is more than feathers that connects dinosaurs to birds.

No, they're not.

How not? You can trace the anatomical changes within them back millions of years, just like bat's wings or human arms.

 

[YoursTrue]

What "personal attacks"? You went back on your word. You will not honestly address the concept of scientific evidence.

You cannot judge science if you do not understand evidence.

Similar to this one. Instead of telling me what I don't understand, and instead of showing me any fossils or living animals in which there are signals (absolute and utter signs) of micro evolution with proof these beings were evolving into another form, your recent posts are similar to the above. Whatever they're called, those dinosaurs that portrayed vestages of feathers and which scientists claim became birds, do not show the process or that they actually, truly, verifiably evolved to another verified form, in these micro steps. None. If I am wrong, please tell me and show the "evidence." Thank you.
What does this mean? It means that the concept, idea, or theory is open to speculation because there really is no concrete proof of micro evolution.
Does that mean that God created all of the species and variations? I am not in an authoritative position to say. But what I do see is that even those of the scientific community that do not profess to believe in God as I do are seriously questioning the validity of many of the concepts of evolution as now standing.
Here is a fair minded article about the varying viewpoints about evolution.
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

 

[YoursTrue]

Penguins abandoned their wings for more useful flippers when they returned to the sea. You seem to think they're in some sort of arrested transition to flying birds. Do you expect evolution to work backwards?

There is more than feathers that connects dinosaurs to birds.
How not? You can trace the anatomical changes within them back millions of years, just like bat's wings or human arms.

Ah, Valjean. Show me the images of micro evolution in these cases, please. Not opinion or conjecture as to what may have happened throughout, but please show the images, specifically the microevolution and the dating process used to confirm the micro transition, if one can find that. Thank you.