Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Here's more learning: it turns out that the title of Darwin's book in full is (but you probably know this):
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Really -- the "preservation of -- FAVOURED RACES..." isn't that something?

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's more learning: it turns out that the title of Darwin's book in full is (but you probably know this):
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Really -- the "preservation of -- FAVOURED RACES..." isn't that something?

No, it is not meaningful as to how the knowledge of the science of evolution has evolved in contemporary science. Charles Darwin originated the hypothesis of evolution, but does not represent the contemporary knowledge of the science of evolution.

Should we condemn the role of our founding fathers in forming USA in history of the country we have today for their sins of owning slaves, and Franklin's debachary as the most hedonistic famous figure in US history.

Let's discuss the contemporary knowledge of the science of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not meaningful as to how the knowledge of the science of evolution has evolved in contemporary science. Charles Darwin originated the hypothesis of evolution, but does not represent the contemporary knowledge of the science of evolution.

Should we condemn the role of our founding fathers in forming USA in history of the country we have today for their sins of owning slaves, and Franklin's debachary as the most hedonistic famous figure in US history.

Let's discuss the contemporary knowledge of the science of evolution.

Once again, I see no evidence proving the absolute idea of evolution. I am not speaking of fossils and dating them. I mean there is no evidence of genes transitioning to (words elude me here) a successive form. One may speak of Denisovans, or Neanderthals as predecessors to the present homo sapien, but other than teeth or skulls that someone envisions as similar to present day humans and then artists' depictions of what they think they may have looked like as a form of supposedly convincing and positive truth (which it is not), there is no real biological proof of transitioning to be seen or examined on the molecular level.

 

[YoursTrue]

Don't apologise, So what The contemporary science of evolution is indifferent to what Darwin thought of racial superiority. True, Darwin proposed the hypothesis for evolution based on sound objective verifiable evidence, but he was a product of the beliefs of the time concerning race.

The science of evolution as demonstrated today based on the objective verifiable evidence does not view the issue of the evolution of races how Charles Darwin may have.

It is best to consider how science demonstrates the science of evolution today and not 150+ years ago.

We've been discussing that. So since you believe in, and are sure that evolution is true, (true? seems I can't use that word) -- please go ahead and start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope my calculations are not wrong. I soon have to look up the theory survival of the fittest. Humans are humans. They always were and always will be. What other species can they interbreed with? Everything you have is conjecture.

Once again you clearly break the Ninth Commandment. Please support your "conjecture" claim with valid sources .

Do you seriously have such a poor understanding of that rather basic Commandment that you cannot see when you break it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. It is a fact. Facts change, is that it?

You are the only one claiming facts change. You are trying to refute science with ignorance. That never works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, I see no evidence proving the absolute idea of evolution. I am not speaking of fossils and dating them. I mean there is no evidence of genes transitioning to (words elude me here) a successive form. One may speak of Denisovans, or Neanderthals as predecessors to the present homo sapien, but other than teeth or skulls that someone envisions as similar to present day humans and then artists' depictions of what they think they may have looked like as a form of supposedly convincing and positive truth (which it is not), there is no real biological proof of transitioning to be seen or examined on the molecular level.

And once again you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. That makes your claim worthless.

Why are you afraid to learn this simple concept?

EDIT: And Neanderthals and others are not ancestors. Cousins would be a better term.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you may say he was a Christian. I say he did not understand what he said he believed in. Meantime it is clear in their own writings that Darwin believed in racial superiority and so did Haeckel, so did Hitler.

It doesn't matter what people believe(d).

It has no impact whatsoever on the validity and accuracy of evolution theory. None whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible speaks of those professing to believe, but are hypocrites

So how are you so sure that you aren't one of them?
Because I can assure you that those you accuse to be such type of christians, don't believe they qualify as such and might even think YOU are one of such christians.

And the racial theory is in line with evolution

It is not. As has been explained to you a bazillion times by now.
But you've already demonstrated, and actually acknowledged indirectly, that you hate learning and progress.

, also leaning on intellectual ability

No.

So the racial idea of one race by evolutionary process as superior to another is clearly and distinctly used by Darwin, Haeckel and others.

And they were wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Salad or meat doesn't matter. Evolution is not a fact

It is. Species change over time. It's an observed fact. Speciation happens. It's an oberved fact. Species share common ancestors. It's a genetic fact.

Evolution theory, is the explanation of how the process works that results in / produces these facts.

It's a theory

The theory of evolution explains the mechanism that produces the facts of evolution.

Funny how after apparantly "years of study of the topic", you still haven't figured out the basics. Not even after so many people here have brought them to your attention.

It's almost like you are lying about having studied it.

We have already covered it is not an observed event

YOU might have "claimed" that. "We" most certainly haven't "covered" that, because that statement is simply wrong. The evolution process is observed all the time. Not only that, it is actively used in practical application. In breeding programs, in aggriculture, in medicine, in engineering (through use of genetic algoritms),...

MOST of the fruit and vegetables you find at the store for example, do not occur naturally. WE have created those species through artificial selection. Which literally is breeding for specific traits. The only difference with natural evolution is that instead the selection parameters being geared towards "survive and reproduce", they are geared to whatever the breeder decides it should be.

If evolution doesn't work, then we wouldn't be able to turn a single wild gabbage plant into things like brussel sprouts and brocollie, purely through selective breeding.

If evolution doesn't work, then it wouldn't matter how many times we try to produce a next generation - the plant would just stay the same as the original.

But that's not what happens at all. Because evolution DOES work. It inevitably works.

Nothing to show genes changing to produce or form by themselves different forms, or kinds

Except off course observed mutations, which happens in every single newborn of every single species.

. Or for that matter, kinds. Not then and not now.

"kinds"?
Are you making stupid claims again about how cats aren't producing dogs and pretending as if that is what evolution would expect to happen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope my calculations are not wrong. I soon have to look up the theory survival of the fittest. Humans are humans. They always were and always will be. What other species can they interbreed with? Everything you have is conjecture.

If humans would change into non-humans, then evolution would be falsified.

This is why you should first learn what the scientific theory actually says, before trying to argue against it. It will prevent you from saying stupid and ignorant stuff like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying Darwin and Haeckel did not believe in what was considered to be racial superiority of one race over another?

It doesn't matter to the validity and accuracy of evolutionary biology what these men, or anyone else for that matter, believed.

Here's something about Darwin.
"He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy." So whether you like it or not, whether he was right or wrong, he believed that the white races were evolutionarily more advanced than black races. Sorry...
Darwin, race and gender

Irrelevant to validity and accuracy of 21st century evolutionary biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's more learning: it turns out that the title of Darwin's book in full is (but you probably know this):
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Really -- the "preservation of -- FAVOURED RACES..." isn't that something?

It is something if you wish to talk about the man Darwin and his motivations, beliefs, psychology, etc.

It is irrelevant if you wish to discuss the validity and accuracy of 21st century evolutionary biology.

 

[Astrophile]

you may say he was a Christian. I say he did not understand what he said he believed in. Meantime it is clear in their own writings that Darwin believed in racial superiority and so did Haeckel, so did Hitler.

How much of Darwin's works have you actually read? For example, have you read Chapter VII ('On the Races of Man') in The Descent of Man. Have you read in The Voyage of the Beagle what Darwin had to say about slavery? He said somewhere in the book that the slaves were superior to the slave-owners (who were white). Have you read Darwin and Darwin's Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins, by Adrian Desmond and James Moore?

As a secondary point, how many 19th-century Europeans or Americans can you name and quote who did not believe in racial superiority?

 

[Astrophile]

Once again, I see no evidence proving the absolute idea of evolution. I am not speaking of fossils and dating them. I mean there is no evidence of genes transitioning to (words elude me here) a successive form. One may speak of Denisovans, or Neanderthals as predecessors to the present homo sapien, but other than teeth or skulls that someone envisions as similar to present day humans and then artists' depictions of what they think they may have looked like as a form of supposedly convincing and positive truth (which it is not), there is no real biological proof of transitioning to be seen or examined on the molecular level.

You are very good at repeatedly asking the same question, for example about the number of planets in the solar system and Haeckel's embryos. However, you are less good at answering other people's questions. Would you like to answer my questions in post 1341 about your understanding of the age of the Earth and the nature of the fossil record?

Are you willing to tell me how old you think the Earth is, and how you interpret the fossil record? Do you, like almost all geologists, accept that the Earth is about 4540 million years ago, and that fossils are the remains of animals, plants and micro-organisms that lived and died during approximately the last 3500 million years? If so, the fossil evidence shows that humans, and apes, are late-comers on the biological scene; the first apes appeared between about 25 and 30 million years ago. Where did they come from? Were they descended, by the normal process of reproduction, from animals that were not apes? Did they appear from non-living matter by spontaneous generation? Or did God create all the separate species that now occur as fossils at intervals throughout geological history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying Darwin and Haeckel did not believe in what was considered to be racial superiority of one race over another?
Here's something about Darwin.
"He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy." So whether you like it or not, whether he was right or wrong, he believed that the white races were evolutionarily more advanced than black races. Sorry...
Darwin, race and gender

You failed in your challenge. You were to show by quoting Darwin how he applied evolution to his beliefs. You merely linked someone that made that claim. I already acknowledged that he was a racist since he grew up in a very racist time.

Try again.

 

[Polymath257]

Once again, I see no evidence proving the absolute idea of evolution. I am not speaking of fossils and dating them. I mean there is no evidence of genes transitioning to (words elude me here) a successive form.

Can you give a hypothetical example of what you want here? What, precisely, do you want an example to show?

For example, what would qualify as a 'successive form'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's more learning: it turns out that the title of Darwin's book in full is (but you probably know this):
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Really -- the "preservation of -- FAVOURED RACES..." isn't that something?

Yes, it tells us that you do not understand how languages work.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, I see no evidence proving the absolute idea of evolution. I am not speaking of fossils and dating them. I mean there is no evidence of genes transitioning to (words elude me here) a successive form. One may speak of Denisovans, or Neanderthals as predecessors to the present homo sapien, but other than teeth or skulls that someone envisions as similar to present day humans and then artists' depictions of what they think they may have looked like as a form of supposedly convincing and positive truth (which it is not), there is no real biological proof of transitioning to be seen or examined on the molecular level.

Once again? What does this have to do with your slanderous accusations against evolution, via dumping on Charles Darwin.

These, of course are other issues involving considerations of the science of evolution, which reflect your religious agenda and lack of education in science that can be addressed in a dialogue, and NOT your attempts to slander Charles Darwin, and by implication the science of evolution, to justify your religious agenda against evolution.

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience in the field and lab. What are your qualifications to make such ridiculous assumptions in the above, and by the way very poor use of terminology concerning science? By the way. again, again, and again science does not prove anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again? What does this have to do with your slanderous accusations of evolution, via dumping on Charles Darwin.

These, of course are other issues involving considerations of the science of evolution, which reflect your religious agenda and lack of education in science that can be addressed in a dialogue, and NOT your attempts to slander Charles Darwin, and by implication the science of evolution, to justify your religious agenda against evolution.

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience in the field and lab. What are your qualifications to make such ridiculous assumptions in the above, and by the way very poor use of terminology concerning science? By the way. again, again, and again science does not prove anything.

Excuse me, but for one thing, it is Darwin's own writings you are talking about. Go back to the title of his book about the "origin" of species. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Clearly, and most clearly, he as well as others, then and now, believed in superiority of particular "races" of the human kind. There's more, but I didn't make up the original title of his book. He did. Or maybe you have other knowledge that he didn't.