Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are incorrect sir: ...

No, sir, I am not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He was just confirming the way that the genetic algorithm for the wing design works.

What is a "genetic algorithm for the wing design".

 

[SkepticThinker]

" It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Richard Dawkins

I don't think he would consider himself a creationist source?

No, it's a quote mine - a partial quotation cherry-picked to misrepresent the author's intended meaning.

You know this because I point it out every time I see you posting it. And that's a lot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I don't think there are any slam dunk arguments either way- but whatever the answer, this IS a tricky question, not as simple/inevitable as often portrayed

So in this example- we need not only a lucky fluke endowing the advantage of whiter skin, but this person also happens to be a very powerful criminally insane individual who conquers and personally reproduces with huge numbers of people! and THEN natural selection has something to work with!

we all understand how populations with significantly advantageous genes could prevail over those without- how they actually got that way much less obvious

What if the lucky mutation isn't given to Genghis Khan, but an unremarkable guy who- looking a little funny now- doesn't have much luck with the ladies. this lucky mutation is NOT naturally selected, NO evolution has taken place whatsoever- even when this improbably lucky fluke is granted to the individual

Add to this that the vast vast majority of 'random' mutations would be deleterious, not advantageous, and the simple algorithm of random mutation + natural selection is going to have a very tough time making a human out of a molecule- with no design goals to work from

Are you not aware that 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct?

 

[Parsimony]

Nor do we have the computing power to simulate the relationship between every atom in every celestial body- but we can establish proof of principle (or lack thereof for classical physics) at a smaller scale-

Because the relationship of the atoms to each other in a planet has practically no effect compared to other parameters such as the masses, distances and rotation rates of the celestial bodies when it comes to orbital mechanics. In biological systems, the specifics of gene transcription, protein synthesis, protein folding, enzymes, etc. have extremely important effects on the organisms they are a part of it. Since evolution affects these systems, modelling them precisely would be important if you were trying to replicate real-world evolution in a computer.

But you are getting to my point; simple laws don't work for evolution any more than they do for physics. - I was initially responding to somebody claiming the evolutionary algorithm of random mutation and natural selection was so simple,nothing could prevent it working.

It is true that there are times when evolution doesn't "work". Mutational meltdown and Muller's ratchet being examples of this (which occur in very small or very genetically-uniform populations).

You and I agree more, that it doesn't work on this sort of simple level- there seems to be a very wide range of beliefs in evolution re. how it is actually supposed to work.

I wouldn't be surprised if we made many more critical discoveries about evolution in the future that we don't even suspect right now.

What is a "genetic algorithm for the wing design".

I don't know the exact technique used by the developers, but they used a form of natural selection to optimize the shape of a P-51's wing in a computer in order to reduce its drag at high speed (by increasing its critical mach number, if I remember correctly). Mutated wings with higher critical mach numbers would be more "fit" than those with lower numbers. The final wing produced by this was analyzed computationally and determined to indeed have less drag than the original wing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know the exact technique used by the developers, but they used a form of natural selection to optimize the shape of a P-51's wing in a computer in order to reduce its drag at high speed (by increasing its critical mach number, if I remember correctly). Mutated wings with higher critical mach numbers would be more "fit" than those with lower numbers. The final wing produced by this was analyzed computationally and determined to indeed have less drag than the original wing.

I'm not too sure what that has to do with evolution, but thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I mean kind. Like cats and dogs are different kinds of animals while wolves and dogs are like kinds.

Why are dogs and cats different kinds but wolves and dogs are the same kind?

I've been asking for years and I still don't know what the actual definition of "kind" is supposed to mean. I guess that's why scientists don't use it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is quite credible. If you don't think it is then prove Genesis 1 and 2 didn't happen.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove it did happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you'll read further on that site you'll see that science substantiates Genesis. It isn't taught in science classes because academia has rejected creation.

Because it is not supported by the available evidence.

 

[First Baseman]

Because it is not supported by the available evidence.

Neither are any of the abiogenesis theories. Back to Square 1 for macroevolution without a creator.

Also, the link I gave above does show that the evidence does support creation. Most scientists choose to interpret the evidence to intentionally exclude the possibility of a creator for their own personal reasons because they certainly can't rule out creation theories. They just choose to ignore them.

 

[outhouse]

Most scientists choose to interpret the evidence to intentionally exclude the possibility of a creator for their own personal reasons because they certainly can't rule out creation theories

FACTUALLY FALSE.

They don't rule out your pseudoscience, there is nothing to test for.

To date it stands as mythology and imagination of those poorly interpreting biblical text, like you who know nothing about the biblical text in academia.

the link I gave above does show that the evidence does support creation

Your link was from laughable apologist with NO credibility

 

[First Baseman]

When you say "proof", are you referring to "absolute proof" that would make evolution "indisputable fact"? Or, are you using it in the way that I was previously assuming, meaning "supporting evidence"?

I mean proof. I do not mean conjecture based on assumptive reasoning and method.

 

[outhouse]

Neither are any of the abiogenesis theories.

False, I don't think you know anything about the topic to debate it. You don't even know what a theory is let alone talk about evidence.

There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis, you just don't know any of it.


And for the record, there are no abiogenesis theories

 

[outhouse]

I mean proof.

We only want evidence from you for your mythology playing a part in nature. We know you cannot prove anything at all.

By the way science does not prove anything. That is not what science does, but thank's for playing.

I do not mean conjecture based on assumptive reasoning and method

Yes not apologetic rhetoric based on biblical ignorance as well as severe scientific ignorance.

 

[First Baseman]

FACTUALLY FALSE.

They don't rule out your pseudoscience, there is nothing to test for.

To date it stands as mythology and imagination of those poorly interpreting biblical text, like you who know nothing about the biblical text in academia.




Your link was from laughable apologist with NO credibility

Your claims are laughable to me. I do not accept arguments from authority or assumption while you clearly do. Your claim that the Bible is mythology based on academia is simply not valid. Go and hear your academia. I will hear God's word.

 

[outhouse]

FACTUALLY FALSE.

They don't rule out your pseudoscience, there is nothing to test for.

To date it stands as mythology and imagination of those poorly interpreting biblical text, like you who know nothing about the biblical text in academia.




Your link was from laughable apologist with NO credibility

 

[First Baseman]

False, I don't think you know anything about the topic to debate it. You don't even know what a theory is let alone talk about evidence.

There is plenty of evidence in support of the hypothesis, you just don't know any of it.


And for the record, there are no abiogenesis theories

Here are 7 abiogenesis theories. This article is dated Feb., 2015. You are quite wrong, sir.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one/

 

[outhouse]

After looking up the word fact and actually comprehending it, you can start with the facts below.

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[First Baseman]

Why are dogs and cats different kinds but wolves and dogs are the same kind?

I've been asking for years and I still don't know what the actual definition of "kind" is supposed to mean. I guess that's why scientists don't use it.

If you really don't understand it then you have no business is such an argument. I have discussed this for years with atheists and this is the first time one told me he didn't understand it.

Google it up. Youll figure it out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Neither are any of the abiogenesis theories. Back to Square 1 for macroevolution without a creator.

Also, the link I gave above does show that the evidence does support creation. Most scientists choose to interpret the evidence to intentionally exclude the possibility of a creator for their own personal reasons because they certainly can't rule out creation theories. They just choose to ignore them.

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Your claims about scientists are unsubstantiated creationist nonsense. Frances Collins is a Christian who happens to be a scientist who accepts evolution based on the available evidence and rejects young earth creationism for lack of evidence.

Creationism isn't taught in science and isn't considered a scientific theory because it has not been demonstrated to meet standards of testing and substantiation that evolution (and all other scientific theories) has stood up to over time. All this evidence you keep asking for has been provided, hence the reason evolution is a scientific theory. If creationism can ever do that, it can then be considered a scientific theory and can rightfully be taught in science classrooms.