Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Mine, too. A witch wouldn't have been very welcome back then.

If they weigh as much as a duck, then they're made of wood. If they're made of wood, then they are a witch. You know what we do with them?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Magical transformation of one species to another or magic beans is not evolution. No one studying biology expects to ever see that.

And yet they say humans came from monkeys. So how do you dewfine evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And yet they say humans came from monkeys. So how do you dewfine evolution?

But not by magical transformation of monkeys into people.

Almost all the post I see against evolution share one common factor. They are clearly written by people that either do not know the science or intentionally mischaracterize the science. I realize that some people are members of groups that force their membership to repeat doctrine whether they believe that doctrine or not, but most anti-evolutionists just have no clue about science, theories or evolution. I see that well illustrated here.

It has generally been defined on here by others, but it is basically a change in the gene frequency of a population over time. It is the result of natural, heritable variation arising in a population that can be acted on by natural selection. The variation is random, but the selection is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And yet they say humans came from monkeys. So how do you dewfine evolution?

Apes. We are apes that share a common ancestry with other extant ape species.

 

[Wildswanderer]

doesn’t natural selection take care of the rest I.e. survival of the fittest?

Supposedly. But you also have genetic drift. The fittest don't always survive in reality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It does. The mutations happen randomly, producing a variety of traits in the individuals of a population. But then the environment (or humans) select certain individuals based on the survival advantages of their traits (or whatever traits humans prefer) to reproduce for the next generation. After a few generations of biased selection, those traits are much more prevalent in the population. That is evolution.

Change within a certain kind of animal doesn't equal macro evolution. And if this always works, then every species would get better. In reality, many go extinct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Change within a certain kind of animal doesn't equal macro evolution. And if this always works, then every species would get better. In reality, many go extinct.

You have no clue what science says about evolution do you. Where in the theory is it a claim that species improve through evolution? What is the standard the theory uses to assign improvement? What is the scale? What is a "kind" of animal? What about plants? Are they one kind or another or several?

Without the scientist you hate so much, you would never know that 99% of all the species that have evolved on earth have gone extinct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Supposedly. But you also have genetic drift. The fittest don't always survive in reality.

What is fittest? Can you define it for me?

 

[Wildswanderer]

What is fittest? Can you define it for me?

Definition of survival of the fittest


: the natural process by which organisms best adjusted to their environment are most successful in surviving and reproducing :

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Definition of survival of the fittest


: the natural process by which organisms best adjusted to their environment are most successful in surviving and reproducing :

I'm impressed. You actually supplied something requested. I am guessing that these are not your own words and you just cut and paste something you found with Google?

If you were talking to someone about hunting, and that person had to look for definitions on the internet about things they had been discussing with conviction before, would that make you doubt they really knew enough to make the claims they made?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm impressed. You actually supplied something requested. I am guessing that these are not your own words and you just cut and paste something you found with Google?

If you were talking to someone about hunting, and that person had to look for definitions on the internet about things they had been discussing with conviction before, would that make you doubt they really knew enough to make the claims they made?

You are never satisfied are you?
You wanted an official definition, no?
If I was the best adjusted to my environment of my kind, that would make me the fittest person alive I suppose, but if I get hit by a bus, I'm still not passing on my genes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are never satisfied are you?
You wanted an official definition, no?
If I was the best adjusted to my environment of my kind, that would make me the fittest person alive I suppose, but if I get hit by a bus, I'm still not passing on my genes.

Here's the thing guy. Survival of the fittest is a misnomer and not the best metaphor for biological fitness. Most people are confused and think that it means vigor, health, strength or something like that. What it refers to is the ability of some living thing to pass on its genes to offspring. It isn't about being the most optimal in a particular environment, though could be a fitness advantage. Sometimes the prettiest or longest feathers increases a birds fitness, but it also makes that bird a better target for predators.

There is no one denying that chance plays a part in survival. But not being careless about crossing roads might be related to some trait that provides a fitness advantage. Like intelligence for instance.

Still no word on those questions to you from my other recent post I see.

 

[Valjean]

That's just selective breeding. Not evolution. It doesn't happen randomly.

Selective breeding utilizes the same mechanisms natural selection does. It's managed, targeted selection. It does the same thing nature does to weed out the unfit and enhance the reproductive success of the fit.

By random mutations. Think about it. Selection by humans being neccasary doesn't support the ToE which is supposed to just happen by itself.

It selects from both random mutations and, more importantly, from the reproductive variation produced by mixing the genomes of two individuals in offspring.
Natural selection works by selecting the best choices from among random variation. The ToE describes the mechanisms by which these choices happen. They're pretty much commonsense and obvious. We can observe them happening in nature.

 

[an anarchist]

All the evidence indicates that our life spans are increasing and a greater number of people have a higher quality of life than ever before. Not everyone, but on average much longer and better.

Something that will be interesting to witness (for me at least) is the increased lifespan of humans this century. I don’t think it will happen, but I will be able to wait and see for myself. I’m a Biblical literalist, and in Genesis is where God says that because of man’s immorality, He was going to set the lifespan to 120.
I think there is one documented case of someone living past 120, but I choose not to believe it to be authentic solely on my literalistic beliefs. Read an online article too supposing that the documents were fraudulent so there’s that.
If humans do live past 120, for literalist that will be very interesting to try to explain

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Something that will be interesting to witness (for me at least) is the increased lifespan of humans this century. I don’t think it will happen, but I will be able to wait and see for myself. I’m a Biblical literalist, and in Genesis is where God says that because of man’s immorality, He was going to set the lifespan to 120.
I think there is one documented case of someone living past 120, but I choose not to believe it to be authentic solely on my literalistic beliefs. Read an online article too supposing that the documents were fraudulent so there’s that.
If humans do live past 120, for literalist that will be very interesting to try to explain

Is that the recognized interpretation of Genesis 6:3? What about all those people referenced in the Bible that were claimed to have lived well beyond 120 years?

 

[Valjean]

It’s called “evolution” by those who want us to believe what is not proven science, but more based on educated guessing.

You can’t suggest something, for which you have no proof, and call it genuine “science”. It’s a theory....an unproven...unprovable, theory. That is a very uncomfortable truth. Evolution of the macro kind is not a fact. It is an impressive edifice with no foundations......there is nothing to support its first premise, but it is fed to the masses as a “scientific” theory. The word “scientific” here is supposed to add weight to the fact that a theory in science can be passed off as a proven fact. It is far from that.

Silly pelican. How many times have we corrected you on this, about science and 'proof', and about scientific 'theories'? You're either incredibly obtuse, or you're deliberately ignoring our posts; ignoring anything that doesn't support your presumed and unsupported view of reality.

The germ theory, the spherical Earth theory, the heliocentric theory -- all theories, all unproven, and none with more consilient evidence than the ToE. Do you question these, as well?
Science doesn't even attempt to prove anything. It gathers and tests data.

Its still a gecko.....it will always be a gecko, no matter how many adaptations occur.....it remains true to its “kind” or “family”. Show me where this is not the case.

Why do you say this? Don't you think 'adaptations' can accumulate into major changes?
If I took a red pen and made a tiny dot on a white movie screen, and repeated this every twenty or thirty years, don't you think the screen would soon be pure red?

When was an equine not an equine? When was a canine not a canine? Or a feline not a feline? “Families” of creatures remain within their families no matter how many varieties of their own species are produced. Whether they can interbreed or not is irrelevant. They instinctively seek an appropriate mate.....to perpetuate their species or to create new varieties within that species.

Yes, we all know this song and dance. You're making these proclamations, but have nothing concrete to support them -- and they disagree with observed reality.

Did the Peppered Moth become something other than a Peppered Moth that changed color in adapting to a change in the color of the trees they were situated in? It is presented as an example of “evolution”......but it is an example of “adaptation”. That is not even close to “evolution” as science suggests it must have taken place from that microscopic beginning. You cannot suggest that “if a little is good, a lot must be better” with nothing to substantiate it.

It's an example of the mechanism of Natural Selection. Environmental changes constantly advantage or disadvantage natural variations, and these selected variants ACCUMULATE. Moreover, you're not likely to see major changes in just a few decades (although this has been observed). Give the moths a few hundred thousand years and see if they're still t same moths.

It’s an absolutely brilliant mechanism, isn’t it? IMV, All credit to the Creator.

Constantly magically poofing new species into existence is a brilliant mechanism? But it's not a mechanism, it's magic, and it's never been observed, plus there's no known 'mechanism' that would account for it.
You're positing unobserved magic as more reasonable than observed reality. That's just not reasonable.

 

[an anarchist]

Is that the recognized interpretation of Genesis 6:3? What about all those people referenced in the Bible that were claimed to have lived well beyond 120 years?

It is the literal interpretation. All those people who lived beyond 120 years lived before God made that decree (early Genesis)

 

[an anarchist]

Is that the recognized interpretation of Genesis 6:3? What about all those people referenced in the Bible that were claimed to have lived well beyond 120 years?

Let me double check my above claim

 

[Valjean]

No, you couldn't. Evolution is about survival advantage.

It's adapting to the selector's wishes.

No, you couldn't. Evolution is about survival advantage.

The variants the farmer likes survive. The rest are culled.

 

[an anarchist]

Is that the recognized interpretation of Genesis 6:3? What about all those people referenced in the Bible that were claimed to have lived well beyond 120 years?

By Abraham’s time, there had been a a successive decrease in lifespan (175 for him). From Noah to Abraham, the Bible records a steady decrease of lifespan, and by Moses, it seems the 120 cap is fully in place