Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that lions, although mammals, do not (cannot) mate with elephants, no matter how hard you push them. There is a limit to interbreeding, is there not? And, as in the case of bats, who knows when and where the interbreeding stopped for some. Let me ask it this way: do you believe it is possible bats started as all being able to interbreed? Or don't you know? Just asking. Because when bats first started, wonder how did they start. And now I'm learning from that article, that bats make up 20% of the mammalian population! Wow. Who'd a thought it?

Tigers and Lions fail to make fertile offspring. The lines die out. I don't know why you use such ridiculous examples.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Polymath257

Sorry. I checked now and it isn't there.

It is Subduction Zone who said he is against evolution. I hope I'm right this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Referring to the article above, I note the following, "Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another."
OK, let me guess. It started (the gradual changes) with two lineages eventually becoming incompatible with one another. You may call that evolution, and I am not going to contest that. However, and it's a big however, they are still -- lizards if I have that correct, aren't they? Despite horror movies, humans do not turn into lizards.

Of course they are still lizards. That is what the theory of evolution predicts. You are still an ape. Tell me, what do you think that evolution is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Polymath257
It is Subduction Zone who said he is against evolution. I hope I'm right this time.

Nope, wrong as usual.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tigers and Lions fail to make fertile offspring. The lines die out. I don't know why you use such ridiculous examples.

Oh, why are they ridiculous? I don't think so. No matter how you look at it, there's a limit to interbreeding. Further, I'm going back to the first single-celled organisms you believe were the first living organisms on the earth. Did they, or did they not become bacteria, and at what point did these unknown first single-celled organisms change, as it were, into their said development by natural forces?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, why are they ridiculous? I don't think so. No matter how you look at it, there's a limit to interbreeding. Further, I'm going back to the first single-celled organisms you believe were the first living organisms on the earth. Did they, or did they not become bacteria, and at what point did these unknown first single-celled organisms change, as it were, into their said development by natural forces?

Yes, but when you already know that a person cannot jump ten feet you do not ask if he can jump 100 feet.

And we don't know "when" they became bacteria. Why does it matter?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they are still lizards. That is what the theory of evolution predicts. You are still an ape. Tell me, what do you think that evolution is?

You didn't get the point unfortunately. Lizards must have interbred with supposed changes to become a different type or species of lizard. But they don't become elephants. Ever. Apes also do not interbreed with humans. Ever. One may say they have (common ancestor type thing), but again -- while you may claim humans are apes and elephants are not lizards, they all still do not interbreed. And on that note, although this has been an interesting conversation, I am going to say good night.
Except you bring up a memory. When I was in high school, I did a science project actually on evolution. I did drawings of the transmission of a fruit fly, with mutations. It was easy to draw those fruit flies, but I don't think mutations do too well. However, I thought the idea of mutations interesting. Which brings us back to humans with those so-called imperfect genes, since doctors want to know if certain diseases run in the family.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but when you already know that a person cannot jump ten feet you do not ask if he can jump 100 feet.

And we don't know "when" they became bacteria. Why does it matter?

It matters a great deal. Not the date, but the concept as to what came after (immediately) the first single-celled organisms. I said goodnight, I'm going to say it again. (Good night.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't get the point unfortunately. Lizards must have interbred with supposed changes to become a different type or species of lizard. But they don't become elephants. Ever. Apes also do not interbreed with humans. Ever. One may say they have (common ancestor type thing), but again -- while you may claim humans are apes and elephants are not lizards, they all still do not interbreed. And on that note, although this has been an interesting conversation, I am going to say good night.
Except you bring up a memory. When I was in high school, I did a science project actually on evolution. I did drawings of the transmission of a fruit fly, with mutations. It was easy to draw those fruit flies, but I don't think mutations do too well. However, I thought the idea of mutations interesting. Which brings us back to humans with those so-called imperfect genes, since doctors want to know if certain diseases run in the family.

It depends upon what you call a "lizard". By some definitions the ancestor of an elephant (and you) was a lizard. But there was no "change of kind" in the process.

And your fruit fly experiments were not experiments on evolution. They were experiments on genetics. But not all genetics is evolution.

Try to explain what you think evolution is. If you think that there was a "change in kind" you are almost certainly wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It matters a great deal. Not the date, but the concept as to what came after (immediately) the first single-celled organisms. I said goodnight, I'm going to say it again. (Good night.)

Why does it matter? If you cannot clearly say why then it clearly does not matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Not even a conjecture to figure out how one bat first appeared? And then, of course, multiplying, I suppose, to make over 1,000 species (populations) of bats? Wow. Who knew.

Bats don't fossilize all that well. So the actual data is pretty sparse. But, if you look at critters like flying squirrels, it isn't so hard to see how they developed early on.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, why are they ridiculous? I don't think so. No matter how you look at it, there's a limit to interbreeding. Further, I'm going back to the first single-celled organisms you believe were the first living organisms on the earth. Did they, or did they not become bacteria, and at what point did these unknown first single-celled organisms change, as it were, into their said development by natural forces?

Yes, but the limits that exist now between species didn't exist between the ancestors, just prior to when the species split.

And you have still failed to answer the question on how you determine whether two animals are the same kind or not.

So, for example, are all bats the 'same kind'? How about all sharks? How about sharks and rays? Are all fish? All mammals?

Please give us some criteria to use to help us answer these questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it matter? If you cannot clearly say why then it clearly does not matter.

It matters because it was, apparently, the first form of life said to come about without divine intervention, according to some who believe that evolution began with a "single-celled organism,", isn't that true? And, of course, with "evidence." So then what happened? Anyone know? And I'm talking about what is said to have happened when the "first unicellular forms" changed into--? Yes, it matters because it is essential to understand how the rest of life happened in the said line of evolution as it transpired right after that? Yes, it's important. Maybe not to you, but to some inquiring minds it is important to figure out how the distinctly different forms of life, including plants or animals, came about.
I found something you may find interesting, I will put that in another post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but the limits that exist now between species didn't exist between the ancestors, just prior to when the species split.

And you have still failed to answer the question on how you determine whether two animals are the same kind or not.

So, for example, are all bats the 'same kind'? How about all sharks? How about sharks and rays? Are all fish? All mammals?

Please give us some criteria to use to help us answer these questions.

I don't know if bats and sharks and rays are of the same kind. I'm supposing some of the "populations" are very different from others, and they do not/cannot interbreed. Whether an intermediary population died out, leaving behind another form of life it had been breeding towards is an interesting point and I"m not going to qualify that now because I don't know that much about it.
As I said, genetics play an important role in the life of an organism. For instance, if a particular disease runs in a family, those traits are not considered beneficial. Such as: heart disease and others, such as Epstein Barr syndrome. Doctors will ask about these, since they can be inherited.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but when you already know that a person cannot jump ten feet you do not ask if he can jump 100 feet.

And we don't know "when" they became bacteria. Why does it matter?

Well, did they first become bacteria? And then what happened, according to mindless but so-called naturally selective evolution (natural selection) after that? Did bacteria come after the supposed first many or one single-celled organisms?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, here's the interesting bit of news about the possibility of human life transporting to another planet:
Humans Will Never Live on Another Planet, Nobel Laureate Says. Here's Why.
Just taking one quote of a co-recipient Nobel prize winner in physics Michael Mayor's assessment of the possibility of migrating to another planet:
"If we are talking about exoplanets, things should be clear: We will not migrate there," he told Agence France-Presse (AFP). He said he felt the need to "kill all the statements that say, 'OK, we will go to a livable planet if one day life is not possible on Earth.'"
And here I didn't need to be a Nobel prize winner to figure that out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It matters because it was, apparently, the first form of life said to come about without divine intervention, according to some who believe that evolution began with a "single-celled organism,", isn't that true? And, of course, with "evidence." So then what happened? Anyone know? And I'm talking about what is said to have happened when the "first unicellular forms" changed into--? Yes, it matters because it is essential to understand how the rest of life happened in the said line of evolution as it transpired right after that? Yes, it's important. Maybe not to you, but to some inquiring minds it is important to figure out how the distinctly different forms of life, including plants or animals, came about.
I found something you may find interesting, I will put that in another post.

Hand waving is not an explanation. I would suggest that you think this over and try again. Tell us why does it matter when?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, did they first become bacteria? And then what happened, according to mindless but so-called naturally selective evolution (natural selection) after that? Did bacteria come after the supposed first many or one single-celled organisms?

Why does that matter? If you cannot properly answer that question you will not get an answer.

Once again you are merely grasping at straws.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know if bats and sharks and rays are of the same kind. I'm supposing some of the "populations" are very different from others, and they do not/cannot interbreed. Whether an intermediary population died out, leaving behind another form of life it had been breeding towards is an interesting point and I"m not going to qualify that now because I don't know that much about it.

You aren't answering the basic question: how do you figure out whether they are the same kind or not?

Being able to interbreed determines biological species (by definition). So mentioning that is simply using the biologists concept of species, NOT the notion of kind.

And, if some 'intermediate' population died out, we have a situation where one species became two species. And that *is* evolution! And yes, we know such happens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hand waving is not an explanation. I would suggest that you think this over and try again. Tell us why does it matter when?

It matters because every theory of evolution hinges on the beginning. There is no need for you to answer. It's ok. Because it matters since no one can really figure out how it started, it's all conjecture. And by figure out, I mean 'know.' No one absolutely knows for sure how life emerged (not speaking of abiogenesis) and transpired from those said one-celled organisms.