Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

What did I ever make up about you?

And yes, the evolution of white skin and dark skin are well understood. There are two factors to consider: Skin cancer and Vitamin D. Can you reason it out?

What I reason out is that a population, for example, with mostly dark skin and a population of those with lighter skin is not a result of evolution. It is genetically transmitted. They remain humans. Not evolving to another species.

 

[Astrophile]

Antony Flew is atheist and a philosopher, and yet he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute,

Was. He died nine years ago (8 April 2010, according to Antony Flew - Wikipedia ).

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists are already considering the possibility of life on, or inside, Venus (atmosphere or past life on surface), Mars (subsurface), and Ceres, and in subglacial oceans on the Jovian satellites Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, and the Saturnian satellites Enceladus and Titan (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Extraterrestrial_life and links). The possibility of life-bearing subglacial oceans on the satellites Rhea, Titania, Oberon and Triton and the dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, Sedna and Orcus, has also been mentioned, but at present we know very little about these bodies. Of course, the life-forms on these bodies, if they exist at all, would be extremophile micro-organisms; we are not talking about 'flying saucers' or 'men from Mars' here, and it would certainly be impossible for humans to live on these bodies. Also it would be very difficult to design probes that could travel to these bodies and search for evidence of life without contaminating the planet's environment with terrestrial organisms, so that it will be a long time before scientists can obtain evidence either way. However, although the probability of life on these planets and satellites is very low (perhaps 0.0001?), it is not zero.

According to E.A. Petigura (2013), 'Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars', https://pnas/org/content/early/2013/10/31/1319909110 , analysis of the observations by the Kepler telescope implies 'that 11±4% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet receiving between one and four times the stellar intensity as Earth', and that '5.7[±2]% of Sun-like stars harbor an Earth-size planet with orbital periods of 200-400 d' (i.e. in the period range of Venus and Earth). This implies that, in the Milky Way alone, there may be around a billion Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars - https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets. Thus there are likely to be many planets, in the Milky Way and in other galaxies, where life could have originated and evolved.

It is a small step to be able to infer the existence of so many Earth-like planets in stellar habitable zones; it would be a giant leap to conclude that these planets are actually inhabited, even by primitive micro-organisms. The discovery of an exoplanetary atmosphere that was out of chemical equilibrium would be evidence for life on the planet, and the presence of seasonally variable quantities of methane in the atmosphere of Mars may constitute such evidence. However, at present the evidence both from the solar system and from exoplanets suggests only that planetary and satellite environments exist that might be inhabitable by simple life-forms, and that the probability of the existence of such life-forms is above zero.

A relative of mine was a nuclear physicist and teacher in a major university. He loved reading Scientific American growing up. At this point, while it can be tantalizing to scratch one's head while reading about these things and trying to figure out Einstein's brain, I'm beginning to think it's a game with many, who could spend their time helping their fellow humans instead of the brain-boggling wondering about life perhaps q'zillions of light years away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. So where is the fossil evidence that any species evolved except that there are some fossil remains similar to an animal (dinosaur) that had feathers and is supposed to have become eventually a bird? After all, these animals died. And, of course, there is no evidence, is there, of living animals 'evolving' to another species? I have read that's a sore spot point with some, but I can honestly say I have not received a reasonable answer to this.
I can only imagine that by this time, some will accept (believe) the idea that there is no evidence written in particular because -- written communication in the form of scientific exploration hasn't been around for very long. Now if you want to go back to Copernicus and the like, well, it wasn't that long ago, in comparison to let's say, the hundreds of thousands of years that humans are said to have been around. And so amazingly, it is said they needed written communication because they built cities and began trading, after all these hundreds of thousands of years they were nomads. LOL, give me a break.

Everywhere. Seriously, how little do you know?

And there have been countless examples of new species evolving. We can see some in the process right now. Where do you get your misinformation from?

 

[YoursTrue]

"It doesn't matter what Einstein actually believed, I can claim what I want about the man and spread falsehoods about him because my religious beliefs conveniently enable me to assume he'd end up on my side anyway."

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your diatribe. I'm just going to tell you plainly:

Asserting falsehoods about people who can't defend themselves is morally wrong, and claiming people who expressed nothing but contempt for your beliefs actually agreed with you also morally wrong. If you won't admit that, then you are an immoral person and a failed Christian.

I have come to the mind that your assessment of me is not important. I look forward to meeting Einstein. I respect his thoughts but as it is said, the proof is in the pudding.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everywhere. Seriously, how little do you know?

Again -- where is the evidence other than figuring that because a fossil of a dinosaur had feathery marks on it and presumably had feathers, it means that a dinosaur became eventually a bird????? That's evidence????

 

[YoursTrue]

Everywhere. Seriously, how little do you know?

And there have been countless examples of new species evolving. We can see some in the process right now. Where do you get your misinformation from?

So again, after hundreds of thousands of years, you believe as many have said, that up until about 5,000 years ago, man had no need of written communication. OK. And by OK, I don't mean I agree with you. OK in that sense means, ok, I get what you're saying but I don't believe it and the discussion is enough for me right now. When I say thank you, I mean that though. Thank you.

 

[Astrophile]

Thanks. So where is the fossil evidence that any species evolved except that there are some fossil remains similar to an animal (dinosaur) that had feathers and is supposed to have become eventually a bird? After all, these animals died. And, of course, there is no evidence, is there, of living animals 'evolving' to another species? I have read that's a sore spot point with some, but I can honestly say I have not received a reasonable answer to this.

Do you think that there was a first bird, or a first ape, or a first dinosaur, etc. that came into existence by spontaneous generation rather than coming from two previous members of the same species? If not, how did fossil birds first appear in the Late Jurassic and fossil dinosaurs first appear in the Late Triassic if they didn't evolve from non-bird and non-dinosaur ancestors?

 

[Astrophile]

A relative of mine was a nuclear physicist and teacher in a major university. He loved reading Scientific American growing up. At this point, while it can be tantalizing to scratch one's head while reading about these things and trying to figure out Einstein's brain, I'm beginning to think it's a game with many, who could spend their time helping their fellow humans instead of the brain-boggling wondering about life perhaps q'zillions of light years away.

You may be right. However, some of us are not much good at helping our fellow humans, and we shall probably do less harm indulging in intellectual games such as wondering about extra-terrestrial life than interfering in matters where we have no competence. Perhaps Christopher Columbus would have spent his time better helping his fellow humans in Spain and Italy instead of the brain-boggling wondering about reaching China by sailing west. By the way, it was you who brought up Ward and Brownlee's book Rare Earth, in post 402.

 

[Polymath257]

Can an animal evolve while it's dead?

Individuals don't evolve at all. Populations do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- where is the evidence other than figuring that because a fossil of a dinosaur had feathery marks on it and presumably had feathers, it means that a dinosaur became eventually a bird????? That's evidence????

Feathered dinosaurs use to be rare, now they are quite common. Feathers are soft tissue so they do not fossilize well, but China especially has quite a few beds that had the right characteristics to preserve the evidence.

Watch this, it tells you quite a bit:

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think that there was a first bird, or a first ape, or a first dinosaur, etc. that came into existence by spontaneous generation rather than coming from two previous members of the same species? If not, how did fossil birds first appear in the Late Jurassic and fossil dinosaurs first appear in the Late Triassic if they didn't evolve from non-bird and non-dinosaur ancestors?

Of course they evolved from non-bird ancestors. But that isn't 'spontaneous generation'.

Think of it like this. Was there a 'first French speaker' that understood French and that had nobody to teach French to them? if not, how did French become a new language from Latin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing that I like about Jackson Wheat, the YouTuber whose video I just linked is that if you go to YouTube and click on "SHOW MORE" you will see a list with links of the papers that he mentions in his video. He is quite thorough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again, after hundreds of thousands of years, you believe as many have said, that up until about 5,000 years ago, man had no need of written communication. OK. And by OK, I don't mean I agree with you. OK in that sense means, ok, I get what you're saying but I don't believe it and the discussion is enough for me right now. When I say thank you, I mean that though. Thank you.

Why would they need it? It was not until man began to get civilized that a need for such record keeping existed.

Now one quick question. In one word can you tell me what is thought by many to be the most likely cause of civilization?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You really don't know that much about my beliefs, and it could be I have a sympathy for the contempt he expressed for the God in religion as he knew it.

And yet you're more than willing to spread falsehoods about the man and not apologize for it and correct yourself afterwards.

It takes a tremendous lack of humility to presume the beliefs and opinions of the dead against their actual expressed beliefs and opinions, but it takes an astronomical, God-like self-perception to act as if doing so is justified even after it has been pointed out to you that you're wrong.

All you need to do is write "I was wrong/mistaken and presumptuous, Einstein did not agree with my beliefs, and I'm sorry I claimed he did". Is that hard?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have come to the mind that your assessment of me is not important.

It's not my assessment of you, it's your God's. According to your religion, bearing false witness is a sin.

You have born false witness. All you have to do is admit your error and correct it. Will you do that, or will you continue on playing God?

 

[tas8831]

Can an animal evolve while it's dead?

Animals do not evolve when they are alive. They are born/hatch with whatever new/modified traits they will have, since it is via mutations in the gametes that these changes are produced.

 

[YoursTrue]

What did I ever make up about you?

And yes, the evolution of white skin and dark skin are well understood. There are two factors to consider: Skin cancer and Vitamin D. Can you reason it out?

You really don't want to have a conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Animals do not evolve when they are alive. They are born/hatch with whatever new/modified traits they will have, since it is via mutations in the gametes that these changes are produced.

And what, since you imply you know God and his thoughts by telling me I am lying about Him, do tell about new species that have come about from these mutations that you personally know about, or have had someone tell you in their eyewitness accounts. (Thanks.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Animals do not evolve when they are alive. They are born/hatch with whatever new/modified traits they will have, since it is via mutations in the gametes that these changes are produced.

Are they alive when they make/produce another of their organisms? (Or are they dead...)