Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Not really. I can name several that do not. And you are misusing the term conjecture. In fact it is not wise to use that term when talking about a science that you do not understand since it puts the burden of proof upon you.

Tell me, what evidence do you have that it is conjecture? Since you do not even understand the nature of evidence I doubt if you can even begin to support your claim

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

This I know -- Bats and humans do not, cannot interbreed, to be specific, a bat with a human. Unless, of course, one believes in Batman? or Bela Lugosi type stuff. The idea that some intermediate population passed out (such as Denisovans) is beyond recognition. You may believe it, others may believe it, I don't believe they interbred with the next thing in the scale of evolution eventually becoming humans. There is simply no proof. It's all conjecture. And the idea that the next step to humans remained while the Denisovans died out is not something I can imagine. Even with genetic similarities.
What we know happens is that DNA of certain physical characteristics, including those of a tribal character or population, can be passed on while still interbreeding with those without those marked characteristics, thus changing the appearance of their progeny.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. I can name several that do not. And you are misusing the term conjecture. In fact it is not wise to use that term when talking about a science that you do not understand since it puts the burden of proof upon you.

Tell me, what evidence do you have that it is conjecture? Since you do not even understand the nature of evidence I doubt if you can even begin to support your claim

LOL, scientists support my claim that absolutely no distinct proof is there about the first cells evolving to possible multiple cells of the same kind or different kinds (types) and then branching out to become plants and the various types of animals. Yes, it's all conjecture about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL, scientists support my claim that absolutely no distinct proof is there about the first cells evolving to possible multiple cells of the same kind or different kinds (types) and then branching out to become plants and the various types of animals. Yes, it's all conjecture about that.

AND (to Subduction Zone) -- since you profess to know so much more, using the correct terminology and such, the burden is on you to explain it to novices such as myself. If you don't want to (or can't), that's ok with me.

 

[YoursTrue]

AND (to Subduction Zone) -- since you profess to know so much more, using the correct terminology and such, the burden is on you to explain it to novices such as myself. If you don't want to (or can't), that's ok with me.

There is simply nothing to support the idea (ok, not conjecture) that from one, ten, or thousands of unicellular organisms came more of the same kind evolving into different forms. I can imagine ideas -- that may have support from some scientists, but because there is no real solid substantial proof in the form of anything except an idea, it is just that: an imagined idea. (oops - don't want to say conjecture.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, scientists support my claim that absolutely no distinct proof is there about the first cells evolving to possible multiple cells of the same kind or different kinds (types) and then branching out to become plants and the various types of animals. Yes, it's all conjecture about that.

You have no clue. All you have is misinterpretation. Now please, support your claim or take it back.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is simply nothing to support the idea (ok, not conjecture) that from one, ten, or thousands of unicellular organisms came more of the same kind evolving into different forms. I can imagine ideas -- that may have support from some scientists, but because there is no real solid substantial proof in the form of anything except an idea, it is just that: an imagined idea. (oops - don't want to say conjecture.)

This again is a foolish post when you have no clue. By stating something as a fact you put the burden of proof upon you.

In fact scientists do not "prove" anything. All they have is evidence. And you keep forgetting that you failed when it came to evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

This I know -- Bats and humans do not, cannot interbreed, to be specific, a bat with a human. Unless, of course, one believes in Batman? or Bela Lugosi type stuff. The idea that some intermediate population passed out (such as Denisovans) is beyond recognition. You may believe it, others may believe it, I don't believe they interbred with the next thing in the scale of evolution eventually becoming humans. There is simply no proof. It's all conjecture. And the idea that the next step to humans remained while the Denisovans died out is not something I can imagine. Even with genetic similarities.
What we know happens is that DNA of certain physical characteristics, including those of a tribal character or population, can be passed on while still interbreeding with those without those marked characteristics, thus changing the appearance of their progeny.

All of this is dealt with in the biological concept of a species.

You have failed to explain the difference between a species and a 'kind'.

 

[gnostic]

LOL, scientists support my claim that absolutely no distinct proof is there about the first cells evolving to possible multiple cells of the same kind or different kinds (types) and then branching out to become plants and the various types of animals. Yes, it's all conjecture about that.

YoursTrue.

I am not a biologist, and I had (formally) stopped learning biology in Year 9 high school, because in high school’s later years and in universities, most of my focus was more physics and maths, because of the courses I chose to do (first, in civil engineering, later in computer science).

But over the last 15-16 years I picked up a bit of biology through my free time, but it still don’t make me a qualified biologist and and I am definitely no expert in biology. I am saying all this, because I know my knowledge in biology is limited, and amateurish at best.

But from reading your reply in the above quote, I must say you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Even with my limited knowledge, I can tell you are not speaking rationally.

Either you need to clarify what you have written above to clear up your muddled argument, or you need to go back to high school or college, to learn or re-learn basic biology.

The conjecture isn’t in the biology, but in your weak argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

It doesn't "hinge on the beginning." Evolution describes how existing life operates. How that life got there in the first place is a different field of study.

 

[Polymath257]

It doesn't "hinge on the beginning." Evolution describes how existing life operates. How that life got there in the first place is a different field of study.

I'll take this further. it is *common* and *expected* that we study how things work before we consider their origins.

So, for example, we can study the orbits, geology, and composition of planets without having to consider how the planets originally formed. That is a separate, and interesting, question. but it *is* a separate question.

We can study chemistry without knowing where the first chemicals came from. We can study history without studying the origin of humans. We can study study trees without knowing what the first tree looked like.

In most cases, we study the subject before we study how it came about.

In evolution, we study how species change over time. How the first living thing originated is a different, although interesting, question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll take this further. it is *common* and *expected* that we study how things work before we consider their origins.

So, for example, we can study the orbits, geology, and composition of planets without having to consider how the planets originally formed. That is a separate, and interesting, question. but it *is* a separate question.

We can study chemistry without knowing where the first chemicals came from. We can study history without studying the origin of humans. We can study study trees without knowing what the first tree looked like.

In most cases, we study the subject before we study how it came about.

In evolution, we study how species change over time. How the first living thing originated is a different, although interesting, question.

Thank you. And how the "first living thing," or thingS coming up at the same time -- plural, and then developing is another question. I am not really discussing abiogenesis here, although it must come into the equation, but I leave that out now. Although it's obvious that scientists for the main, do believe that something of a lifeform came from chemicals with no lifeform. From what I have read in journals and explanations of the more erudite kind than my uneducated self, there are certainly comparisons in genes and structures between organisms. And disagreements among scientists, with new findings overturning the thinking of what had been accepted before that.
With that said, however, it is interesting to note again that there are family characteristics among humans at least, that pass on the possibility of inherited illnesses which is why doctors generally ask about heart disease or cancer in close family lineage.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have no clue. All you have is misinterpretation. Now please, support your claim or take it back.

How can I take it back when all you have is hearsay about what might have-could have happened. Have a nice read with the following:
How Did Life Arise on Earth?
(And then I can only "guess" that you'll tell me how neither I nor the scientist in the article knows what they're talking about, ok?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I take it back when all you have is hearsay about what might have-could have happened. Have a nice read with the following:
How Did Life Arise on Earth?
(And then I can only "guess" that you'll tell me how neither I nor the scientist in the article knows what they're talking about, ok?)

No, no, no. You believe in hearsay, which is what the Bible is at best. I base my beliefs upon scientific evidence. A concept that you won't let yourself understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, no, no. You believe in hearsay, which is what the Bible is at best. I base my beliefs upon scientific evidence. A concept that you won't let yourself understand.

Yes, yes, yes! When I show you what other scientists have said, you just won't pay attention. Or -- let yourself understand. For instance, try this and see if you understand:
"How did organic molecules achieve a high enough level of complexity to be considered as “living”? The short answer is: we do not really know how life originated on this planet." (No kidding, I say...)
The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe
At least they told the truth there, but then went on to postulate more stuff.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll take this further. it is *common* and *expected* that we study how things work before we consider their origins.

So, for example, we can study the orbits, geology, and composition of planets without having to consider how the planets originally formed. That is a separate, and interesting, question. but it *is* a separate question.

We can study chemistry without knowing where the first chemicals came from. We can study history without studying the origin of humans. We can study study trees without knowing what the first tree looked like.

In most cases, we study the subject before we study how it came about.

In evolution, we study how species change over time. How the first living thing originated is a different, although interesting, question.

Oops. Here's an example of another drastic change in evolutionary thinking, guess there was no real proof of what was taught for truth for 50 years. Says the article, "For 50 years, researchers have thought that moths evolved ears to detect the ultrasonic calls of attacking bats—but a new study shows that ears came first." A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
Hmmm, and weirdly enough, the article states: "The standard version of the tale—the one told in textbooks and hundreds of scientific papers—goes like this." (Complete article in link.)
So similar to other ideas, it was said to have been the standard version of the -- TALE -- what was taught as truth (evidence?) is no longer truth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oops. Here's an example of another drastic change in evolutionary thinking, guess there was no real proof of what was taught for truth for 50 years. Says the article, "For 50 years, researchers have thought that moths evolved ears to detect the ultrasonic calls of attacking bats—but a new study shows that ears came first." A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
Hmmm, and weirdly enough, the article states: "The standard version of the tale—the one told in textbooks and hundreds of scientific papers—goes like this." (Complete article in link.)
So similar to other ideas, it was said to have been the standard version of the -- TALE -- what was taught as truth (evidence?) is no longer truth.

So, what you are saying is that conclusions based on scientific investigation aren't always accurate and are later corrected by further research?

And...?

Are you done nit-picking the non-scientific language used in news articles?

Also, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, what do you think this new research is based on?

 

[ratiocinator]

Oops. Here's an example of another drastic change in evolutionary thinking...

Except it isn't a drastic change in evolutionary thinking at all, it's a tiny detail in the sequence of what happened in a specific case, that impacts the overall evidence for evolution by not one jot.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, what you are saying is that conclusions based on scientific investigation aren't always accurate and are later corrected by further research?

And...?

Are you done nit-picking the non-scientific language used in news articles?

Also, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, what do you think this new research is based on?

That wasn't my point. The point is that what has been accepted as truth is sometimes rejected later on.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, what you are saying is that conclusions based on scientific investigation aren't always accurate and are later corrected by further research?

And...?

Are you done nit-picking the non-scientific language used in news articles?

Also, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, what do you think this new research is based on?

It's not just "so what." It is that sometimes (as the referenced article shows) conclusions based on comparing fossils or burgeoning embryos are one year (or for decades) said to be true, and later said to be untrue. I have no quibble with the fact that the new research is said to turn about the time difference between developing ears, that's what it says, yet it was taught as true for decades, and then it is said to be no longer true.
Similarly, the recapitulation theory was taught as certain in textbooks, if you didn't get the answer on the test as the textbook told you, you were marked wrong. Now that theory is no longer taught as true. An interesting article regarding this teaching is linked here:
Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia