Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

Science, said shunyadragon, cannot be proved. I understand that evolution is a theory, and is used to describe how evolution works. OTOH, explanations change. As far as proof goes, however, if I put a blue dye in a clear bottle of water, the water may turn blue. To me, that's PROOF that the blue dye had an effect on the water. Scientific? I guess because it was based on a blue dye being placed in a bottle with clear water. And when I said 'may' turn blue, I meant that it is possible what is considered a blue dye may have a substance in it that does NOT turn the water blue. Yeah, experiments, experiments of the scientific kind. What "experiments" have been done in reference to evolution? Please do tell, if you will kindly. Thank you.

Maybe look up the word "demonstrable" then read my post again.

Here's an experiment for you ...

When human beings produce children, they are not genetic clones of themselves, rather they are made up of a 50/50 mix of both parent's DNA with something like 100 genetic mutations. If evolution were not a fact, our children should all just be our clones, which of course, they are not.

For a really good "experiment" look up comparative genomics and nested hierarchy. Or try "artificial selection" which wouldn't work if evolution were not a fact of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for link, I truly doubt I'll have time to read through the whole thing, although may be interesting. Can you please point at least to the contention you're making -- that he believed races and species are the same thing? I mean, that's what you said above, didn't you, in another post?

No, you have to read it since it is context that will tell you that. If you want to claim different you would have to show it. But so far you have a poor history when it comes to doing that. You can skim through that pdf and you will find that it is a very general explanation. He laid down the groundwork for understanding how evolution occurred. He did not go into specifics. And considering how little was really known then he was amazingly accurate, though he did get quite a bit wrong. Of course what do you expect before genetics was understood? At that time Mendel's work was largely unknown. His evidence was based more upon phylogeny than anything else at that time. The fossil record played a very very minor role.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@shunydragon and SZ (and whoever else may want to think about this):

This in reference to what Darwin believed about race. And now that I am thinking about it, and reading what more recent scientific EVIDENCE (genetically) is coming up about difference between people, I am moving back from answering questions about what race I am. If possible. Since I am changing my viewpoint about RACE. "I" didn't make it up about race. That's what I was taught, without question, and that's what is taught now in many respects, including questionnaires that seem innocent enough.

Yes, a quote mine. What do you think that it means? In your own words please.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sounds like maybe you should go and read some of Darwin's works, instead of just hypothesizing about the titles of his works.

Who's hypothesizing? He wrote it. I didn't. Here is something I like that he said:
“If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you have to read it since it is context that will tell you that. If you want to claim different you would have to show it. But so far you have a poor history when it comes to doing that. You can skim through that pdf and you will find that it is a very general explanation. He laid down the groundwork for understanding how evolution occurred. He did not go into specifics. And considering how little was really known then he was amazingly accurate, though he did get quite a bit wrong. Of course what do you expect before genetics was understood? At that time Mendel's work was largely unknown. His evidence was based more upon phylogeny than anything else at that time. The fossil record played a very very minor role.

OK, so did you say that species and race meant or means the same thing?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, a quote mine. What do you think that it means? In your own words please.

He's pretty clear about this, unless you'd like to give a further explanation, I don't think there's too much to explain about his idea of "human RACES." It's obvious that he thought, however, that there were different races of men. "Civilized races" vs. "savage races." I don't see too much hypothesizing about that will do. It's (in his mind), "civilized races" and "savage RACES." Not too much to explain there. There's so much more with this idea. However...perhaps another time.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you have to read it since it is context that will tell you that. If you want to claim different you would have to show it. But so far you have a poor history when it comes to doing that. You can skim through that pdf and you will find that it is a very general explanation. He laid down the groundwork for understanding how evolution occurred. He did not go into specifics. And considering how little was really known then he was amazingly accurate, though he did get quite a bit wrong. Of course what do you expect before genetics was understood? At that time Mendel's work was largely unknown. His evidence was based more upon phylogeny than anything else at that time. The fossil record played a very very minor role.

In other words, did he or did he not say that species and race means the same thing?

 

[YoursTrue]

It demonstrates things.

But how does this answer my query?

It's like if you don't see it, you don't see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite often when writing titles it can seem redundant to use the same term more than once. "species" and "races" were synonyms in that title. That is all. Nothing do with African people versus European people.

So species and races were synonyms, as far as ?? Darwin goes. And so you are saying that humans were classified into races, which is also synonymous with species. Race=species: humans, say you about Darwin's thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so did you say that species and race meant or means the same thing?

In that work, yes. This is the second time this has been answered for you by me, if not more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So species and races were synonyms, as far as ?? Darwin goes. And so you are saying that humans were classified into races, which is also synonymous with species. Race=species: humans, say you about Darwin's thinking.

You may need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Even today words can have multiple definitions and one needs to be able to understand the meaning from the context of the use of the word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He's pretty clear about this, unless you'd like to give a further explanation, I don't think there's too much to explain about his idea of "human RACES." It's obvious that he thought, however, that there were different races of men. "Civilized races" vs. "savage races." I don't see too much hypothesizing about that will do. It's (in his mind), "civilized races" and "savage RACES." Not too much to explain there. There's so much more with this idea. However...perhaps another time.

Once again, in your own words explain what you think that he means. Try not to get hung up on terms that you do not understand. Or did you realize that it does not say what you at first thought that it says?

 

[Astrophile]

@shunydragon and SZ (and whoever else may want to think about this):

This in reference to what Darwin believed about race. And now that I am thinking about it, and reading what more recent scientific EVIDENCE (genetically) is coming up about difference between people, I am moving back from answering questions about what race I am. If possible. Since I am changing my viewpoint about RACE. "I" didn't make it up about race. That's what I was taught, without question, and that's what is taught now in many respects, including questionnaires that seem innocent enough.

First, this quotation is from Chapter VI of The Descent of Man, not Chapter 3; it is in the section 'Birthplace and Antiquity of Man'. Second, in context, Darwin was arguing that 'the great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies' was not, as some had considered it, 'a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form'. Darwin pointed to other 'breaks in the organic chain', ... 'between the orang and its nearest allies - between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae - between the elephant, and ... between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals.' As he explained, the existence of these breaks depends 'merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct.' The hypothetical extermination of the savage races and (in the next sentence) of 'the anthropomorphous apes' was a thought experiment intended to convince the reader that intermediate forms between humans and the great apes could have existed and have become extinct; it was not an assertion that the extermination of the savage races and the anthropomorphous apes was something desirable.

I might add here that in 1861, ten years before the publication of The Descent of Man, R.M. Ballantyne sent the heroes of The Coral Island to Africa to kill large numbers of gorillas (The Gorilla Hunters); it seems that other people besides Darwin could contemplate the extermination of a species of anthropomorphous ape with equanimity. Ballantyne also had a low opinion of the indigenous population of Africa, describing them as being ruled by their 'abominable superstitions' and becoming 'incarnate fiends' as a result. However horrifying we find Darwin's words now, his opinions were similar to those of most Europeans of his time. We do not reject the work of the 19th-century scientists who made fundamental discoveries in physics, chemistry and astronomy on the grounds that they were racists, so why should evolution be rejected on the grounds that Darwin and Haeckel were racists?

 

[Astrophile]

All right, I'm reading certain things more about Darwin and his writings. So what do you say Darwin believed? Did he believe there are races of mankind or there are not races of mankind? I'm reading what he said and he was quite dismayed when certain slaves were released and they went back to their original ways, evidently not adopting the ways of their slave-owning masters.

If I understand him correctly, Darwin thought that human races had originated as a result of sexual selection - see Chapters XIX to XXI of The Descent of Man. This hypothesis has been proved false. However, you must consider what Darwin was trying to do, and the intellectual environment that he was working in. As in The Origin of Species, he was trying to show that evolutionary changes in living things were 'the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition' (Origin, 'Historical Sketch').

At the time, many people supposed that a dark skin was either the mark that God had set on Cain (Genesis 4:15) or a consequence of the curse of Ham (Genesis 9:24-27), and they used this belief as grounds for enslaving dark-skinned people. By proposing that a dark skin was the consequence of a purely natural process (i.e. sexual selection) 'and not of miraculous interposition', Darwin destroyed this supposed justification for slavery.

 

[YoursTrue]

In that work, yes. This is the second time this has been answered for you by me, if not more.

Ok, I am the novice and have a question. Thank you for answering btw. So do current evolutionists call humans a race, or in several races, or are they considered a species?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I am the novice and have a question. Thank you for answering btw. So do current evolutionists call humans a race, or in several races, or are they considered a species?

Even the concept of "race" has been widely refuted. The main differences between humans is cultural. We are one species.

There is a rather basic definition of "species". If organisms from two different population can breed and produce fertile offspring they are the same species. If they can't they are not. Black people can breed with white people with no problem at all. Their children are fertile. That means that they are the same species.

 

[YoursTrue]

If I understand him correctly, Darwin thought that human races had originated as a result of sexual selection - see Chapters XIX to XXI of The Descent of Man. This hypothesis has been proved false. However, you must consider what Darwin was trying to do, and the intellectual environment that he was working in. As in The Origin of Species, he was trying to show that evolutionary changes in living things were 'the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition' (Origin, 'Historical Sketch').

At the time, many people supposed that a dark skin was either the mark that God had set on Cain (Genesis 4:15) or a consequence of the curse of Ham (Genesis 9:24-27), and they used this belief as grounds for enslaving dark-skinned people. By proposing that a dark skin was the consequence of a purely natural process (i.e. sexual selection) 'and not of miraculous interposition', Darwin destroyed this supposed justification for slavery.

I'm really not sure what you mean by miraculous intervention pertaining to dark skin, but I don't believe the Bible justifies it. Could be that some might have thought that the mark of Cain was dark skin, and religious people believed that the dark skinned person was cursed. Any color passed on, then or now, was, as we know, genetically induced. He wasn't happy when he found out freed slaves became as they had been before they were slaves. Also, he did compare Savage "races" with other races of mankind. Let's be honest here. That was, in part, contemporary thinking.

 

[YoursTrue]

Even the concept of "race" has been widely refuted. The main differences between humans is cultural. We are one species.

Cultural differences along with physical differences make for what some might call ethnic heritage.

There is a rather basic definition of "species". If organisms from two different population can breed and produce fertile offspring they are the same species. If they can't they are not. Black people can breed with white people with no problem at all. Their children are fertile. That means that they are the same species.

No contest. Right now. Except for the word species. Oops that brings up the subject of passed away predecessors like--Neanderthals. But thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, this quotation is from Chapter VI of The Descent of Man, not Chapter 3; it is in the section 'Birthplace and Antiquity of Man'. Second, in context, Darwin was arguing that 'the great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies' was not, as some had considered it, 'a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form'. Darwin pointed to other 'breaks in the organic chain', ... 'between the orang and its nearest allies - between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae - between the elephant, and ... between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals.' As he explained, the existence of these breaks depends 'merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct.' The hypothetical extermination of the savage races and (in the next sentence) of 'the anthropomorphous apes' was a thought experiment intended to convince the reader that intermediate forms between humans and the great apes could have existed and have become extinct; it was not an assertion that the extermination of the savage races and the anthropomorphous apes was something desirable.

I might add here that in 1861, ten years before the publication of The Descent of Man, R.M. Ballantyne sent the heroes of The Coral Island to Africa to kill large numbers of gorillas (The Gorilla Hunters); it seems that other people besides Darwin could contemplate the extermination of a species of anthropomorphous ape with equanimity. Ballantyne also had a low opinion of the indigenous population of Africa, describing them as being ruled by their 'abominable superstitions' and becoming 'incarnate fiends' as a result. However horrifying we find Darwin's words now, his opinions were similar to those of most Europeans of his time. We do not reject the work of the 19th-century scientists who made fundamental discoveries in physics, chemistry and astronomy on the grounds that they were racists, so why should evolution be rejected on the grounds that Darwin and Haeckel were racists?

Actually I didn't say evolution should be rejected on those grounds...but it went with the theory. Which, now I wonder if in Haeckel's idea, would the human embryo have gone through the black race first in the womb? Too bad he's not here to hypothesize about that. Or what he thought about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cultural differences along with physical differences make for what some might call ethnic heritage.


No contest. Right now. Except for the word species. Oops that brings up the subject of passed away predecessors like--Neanderthals. But thank you.

Neanderthals were not predecessors. They were a side branch. Think of a tree and they are the result in a separation of one branch into two branches. Neither is a predecessor of the other.