Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[leibowde84]

No, you can only assume it happened. There is zero proof that it did.

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"?

 

[leibowde84]

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

It is an unfalsifiable claim. The notion that lack of proof that Genesis is false somehow supports the argument that Genesis is accurate is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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"?

1. "proof" does not mean "supportive evidence" - at best it means sufficient evidence
2. the term is best reserved for the domains of law, logic, and liquor

See here.

 

[Parsimony]

Did the wing start pondering the meaning of life?

I don't know why you are so hung up on this. Computer simulations of evolution are crude when compared to the real thing. They can't accomplish nearly as much.

The genetic algorithm hones in on the most efficient way to satisfy the fitness function(s), less drag while maintaining lift etc, no more no less-

I won't argue with that.

The wing could arguably be a far better wing, if it was self aware and thought about how to do it's job better! But unless that was specified as a fitness function, it's never going to happen as an unintended consequence.

Because there are no reproductively-advantaged intermediate forms that could bridge the gap.

Under classical evolution alone, the fitness function is reproduction, nothing more, nothing less.

Right, and there are many different different strategies for reproduction, as nature shows us. There is no single best solution.

prove Genesis 1 and 2 didn't happen.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no "chance only" evolution.

we agree!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The genetic algorithm hones in on the most efficient way to satisfy the fitness function(s), less drag while maintaining lift etc, no more no less-

I won't argue with that.

What is being asserted here?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know why you are so hung up on this. Computer simulations of evolution are crude when compared to the real thing. They can't accomplish nearly as much.

it was very fairly crude simplified simulations - of planet orbits etc, that showed classical physics did not match observed reality. That random mutation and natural selection fails at such a crude level to produce even crude emergent/ unspecified properties, likewise does not bode well for far more complex scenarios

 

[David M]

" 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?

A quote mine from 1996 of a rhetorical overture, this was before the ediacaran fossils were discovered in such numbers. The sudden appearance of the cambrian species is no longer "sudden" as the more we look the more we find.

 

[dust1n]

What is being asserted here?

You don't know?

The hereditary formula centers in on the most resourceful way to meet the health-criteria; less friction while maintaining high velocity.

 

[David M]

And for your information there are several abiogenesis theories out there. Did you not know that?

No, there are several abiogensis hypothesis out there. None have reached the status of a Theory of Abiogenesis.

 

[Yorutenchi]

we agree!

Good.

 

[David M]

God has provided all the hard facts I need.
.

And you are the one claiming that others are making assumptions? It is to laugh.

 

[Parsimony]

What is being asserted here?

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

it was very fairly crude simplified simulations - of planet orbits etc, that showed classical physics did not match observed reality. That random mutation and natural selection fails at such a crude level to produce even crude emergent/ unspecified properties, likewise does not bode well for far more complex scenarios

Simulating the orbits of the planets is far, far simpler than simulating anything even remotely close to realistic evolution of an entire biosphere. We don't have the computing power to simulate gene transcription, protein synthesis, organelles, etc. for every one of millions, billions or trillions of individuals in a computer-simulated, evolving population. We have to simplify it significantly. In doing that, things that happen in the real world are obviously not going to be able to happen in the simulation. I will admit there are probably things about evolution that we don't know yet. That's not to say that what we know of it so far is wrong, but rather that it is incomplete. There's a good bit about epigenetics in particular we don't know yet.

 

[David M]

You need to research about your dating methods. The reason why different ones are used is to obtain the closest to the desired/expected results. If something is dated and it reveals a highly unexpected result it is thrown out. Of course the scientists don't tell you about that.

This is libel. The reason that different methods are used is that different materials require different methods if you want to obtain accurate results.

 

[Parsimony]

This is libel. The reason that different methods are used is that different materials require different methods if you want to obtain accurate results.

Yes, I would be quite interesting in seeing his sources for those claims. In particular, a source that (1) wasn't quote-mining, (2) used homogeneous samples for the dating (no xenoliths), (3) had the dating performed with non-contaminated machines designed specifically for the dating in question, (4) used samples that weren't weathered or disturbed in other ways, and (5) had the dating performed by people trained to do it properly. My guess is that no such sources exist. Anywhere.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Simulating the orbits of the planets is far, far simpler than simulating anything even remotely close to realistic evolution of an entire biosphere. We don't have the computing power to simulate gene transcription, protein synthesis, organelles, etc. for every one of millions, billions or trillions of individuals in a computer-simulated, evolving population. We have to simplify it significantly. In doing that, things that happen in the real world are obviously not going to be able to happen in the simulation.

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-

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.

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.

 

[leibowde84]

1. "proof" does not mean "supportive evidence" - at best it means sufficient evidence
2. the term is best reserved for the domains of law, logic, and liquor

See here.

You are incorrect sir:

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation

 

[Yorutenchi]

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-

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.

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.

Evolution isn't simple. The concepts dictating how it works are very complex. The generalized idea of how it works which displays very little understanding and zero conceptual explanations for how it actually functions is simple to understand. Its why we tell it to children. But if evolution were dictated by simple laws like classical physics then we wouldn't have several different doctorate degree programs of totally different fields that still don't encompass the whole theory. I can teach a 12 year old the vast majority of classical physics in a day. It would take 20 years to take all of the courses required to be a total expert in all we know of evolution. And in 20 years from now that information will have expanded.

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution isn't simple. The concepts dictating how it works are very complex. The generalized idea of how it works which displays very little understanding and zero conceptual explanations for how it actually functions is simple to understand. Its why we tell it to children. But if evolution were dictated by simple laws like classical physics then we wouldn't have several different doctorate degree programs of totally different fields that still don't encompass the whole theory. I can teach a 12 year old the vast majority of classical physics in a day. It would take 20 years to take all of the courses required to be a total expert in all we know of evolution. And in 20 years from now that information will have expanded.

Very well-put.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You don't know?

Sorry.