Evolution has been observed... right?

[Wildswanderer]

And life does not evolve willy nilly by chance. The theory doesn't claim that it does.

It would serve you better to learn science rather than this appalling nonsense you have been indoctrinated to believe is science or what is said in science.

And this is why I stopped reading your posts on other threads. You don't actually say anything most of the time.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You say some irrational things at times. Is that going to be the height of your arguments here? I think it is clear you are emotional about all of this. But it would be more useful to you to channel that emotion into learning. It does a body good.

Emotional?
No.
Logical?
Yes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hence we have a 'selection' criterion that is equivalent to human selection that also chooses certain traits to contribute to the next generation.

Only it's not equivalent at all.
One is artificial and one is random.
There's too many other causes to allow natural selection to bring about the variety of life we see. Plus it doesn't explain human self consciousness.

 

[Jose Fly]

Telling you that you are ignorant about the field of biology is not fallacious, or an attack on your character.

In the case of @Rise it's not a fallacy; it's simply true.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

How about 3 billion years, which is slightly older than I am.

Well, I mean who's counting? A million here, a billion there. Does anything in nature show that a population of single cell animals can evolve into other animals? You can certainly take a population of birds and put half in one environment and half in another environment. Over time they will adjust to there environment by growing longer beaks or something. Or you can taks a population of bears and put half in a warm environment and hald in a cold environment. Over time the ones in a col environment will grow heavier fur. If this is "evolution" then I am 100% in agreement with evolution. But science has never seen evidence that you can put dogs in two different environments and get cats. Or that one cell animals over a long time become complex animals.If this is "evolution" then it is just guess work with no science to support it. Or do you have solid evidence of it?

 

[Jose Fly]

But science has never seen evidence that you can put dogs in two different environments and get cats.

Hilarious. If nothing else, creationists sure are entertaining.

 

[tas8831]

I’m no scientist.

And yet you preface this admission with unwarranted dismissal of science, pretending that there is no 'solid evidence'.

Start here for a primer if you are actually interested.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

As an aside, has creation of, say, the bison kind been observed?

 

[tas8831]

I disagree with this just because of my own views. I think humanity is devolving, and we have been since Adam and Eve.

"I’m no scientist."

 

[tas8831]

The Corbett Report

First entry:

"Will France Submit to COVID Tyranny?"

That SCREAMS paranoid BS. The rabbit hole you fell down was full of rabbit pellets.

 

[tas8831]

Alright, for example. The government controls everything we put in our bodies. From the water to the food to the medicine. All of it reduces the brain capacity. Fluoride in the water don’t drink the tap

What is "brain capacity"? Let me guess - Corbett?

 

[tas8831]

Oh yes. It started because these companies had all this excess nuclear waste, so they had to sell it. It came in the form of fluoridating the water, and the government helped them do it.

Standard unwarranted extrapolations.

Reminds me of the Trump zealots coming to his rescue when he stupidly suggested looking into injecting isopropyl alcohol and bleach into our lungs, bleach and alcohol are disinfectants, ozone is a disinfectant, therefore Trump was right because ozone therapy is a real (fringe, actually quite harmful) thing and there is a paper from an obscure Indian journal that listed all the wonderful things ozone therapy is used for...

You've been conned.

 

[tas8831]

Well I believe all governments take part in what I’m talking about, not just America. I’m doing a lot of assuming here, ok, but it seems to me that obesity would have a negative effect on the brain. As I think the governments purposefully reduce brain capacity, I see them using obesity as a means to do this. This isn’t the only way they do this, just perhaps an observable example. I believe government makes fattening foods readily available, with ill intent. What’s going to happen in a couple of generations if the obesity crisis worsens? How will that affect us genetically? Will it at all? I think so
I recognize my views may be niche

Wow.... Homeschooled?

 

[Rise]

Telling you that you are ignorant about the field of biology is not fallacious, or an attack on your character.

Given that you only made arguments of assertion in response to my arguments, and then followed up with ad hominem remarks, that makes it an ad hominem fallacy by definition because you are using the ad hominem remarks to substitute for having for an actual counter argument.

You still have not given any arguments to support your claim that any of the things you listed (polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, plasmids, VNTRs, endogenous retroviruses,) could be used to explain how the new genetic code required for reptilian style scales could be introduced by random chance into a cat and result in replacing their fur.

Merely asserting it does, without giving logical reasons why, is the fallacy of argument by assertion.
It's not true just because you assert it is.

It is a statement that warrants belief, based or your comments that indicate no understanding.

You have Your character may be wonderful, but you happen to be miseducated about scientific facts, theories, concepts, and definitions.

You don't get to make any claims about anyone not understanding something until you can demonstrate logically why anything they have said shows a lack of understanding.

You failed to do that in your post because you did not offer any logical refutation of anything I argued. And I gave point by point logical reasons why your responses failed to constitute a valid refutation of my points.
You basically only offered fallacies of argument by assertion on the main point.

Comparing your statements to the consensus of qualified experts in the field of biology is not a fallacious appeal to authority, either.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion

Merely claiming you are not committing a fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You have provided no logical reasons for why what you said does not constitute the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.

The very definition of an appeal to authority is to cite an authority's belief in something as proof that it is true. Qualifications don't logically make it stop being a fallacy of appeal to authority because logically qualifications don't prove that what someone says is true. They could logically both have qualifications and be wrong about something. Only logical arguments can establish the objective logical truth of something.

1. Evolution doesn't suggest we can purposefully cause a population of cats to evolve into lizards.
We could get them to look very lizard-like, but would they be identical to other lizards species?
No, the randomness of mutations means evolution predicts that this would not be an expected outcome. So there is no problem for me here, only for your poor understanding of what evolution predicts.

Logical fallacy, strawman.

I never said you needed to be able to turn cats into something identical to lizards for my argument to be valid.

You are misrepresenting what I said to try to make it easier to attack, because you can't answer the specific argument I did make.

I gave you a much more limited goal: Selectively breeding cats to produce lizard-like scales on them instead of fur.

A very limited goal. And you've even got a big advantage over natural processes because you can artificially select for certain traits and don't have to let survival do it for you.

Would you be able to produce that outcome? You have no reason to think you would. Not without inputing new code into the cat's genes.
And you have no reason to think you're going to introduce new genetic code into the cat by selectively breeding it. You're just expressing epigenetically what the code already is capable of. You aren't adding new capability.

Why would you think natural selection is going to have any more chance of inputing new genetic code into the cat when you can't even do it by artificial sped up selection?

You have nothing you can point to observationally in reality that would suggest what you describe could happen or ever has. It's pure speculation that doesn't line up with what we know about the fact that code only comes from minds and the statistical impossibility that a functional code could be added to an organism's genes by random chance.

2. Maybe you should define adaptation. Based on the dictionary.com website, adaptation is a way of describing evolution by natural selection. So I'm not sure what your distinction is.
My original point is that the way you defined adaptation is also consistent with the definition of evolution. Dictionaries seem to agree. Perhaps reflect on whatever reasons you have to relabel evolution with other words in order to deny the facts of evolution by calling it something else?

Adaptation - Wikipedia

"In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection."

Adaptation is observable and verified to exist.

"Evolution", in contrast, is a much broader umbrella word encompassing a collection of beliefs that ultimately assert that the concept of adaptation, when applied over time, can result in turning a single celled organism into various different organisms of increasing complexity until you finally arrive at mankind.


What you are doing, probably unintentionally because it's what was done to you when you learned about the concept of evolution, is the logical fallacy of a bait and switch.

You start from an easy to prove concept like adaptation, you call it "evolution", but then you also include a bunch of other stuff under the umbrella of the term "evolution" that is pure speculation with no observation to verify it does happen and no known mechanism by which it could occur.

So you point to adaptation of a moth changing colors to fit an environment, call it evolution, and say "see, evolution is true!". Then you speculate that man could have evolved from a single celled organism, call it evolution too, and then declare it is true because because "evolution is already proven true" by the observation of adaptation.

3. Your idea that we are "losing genetic information" is completely, demonstrably false. This is a canard that apologists pass around between each other, and is untethered to anything observable in actual science or reality.

You are committing the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

Whether or not genetic information actually is lost isn't actually going to defend your original claim that new functional genetic code can be introduced into an organism by natural selection.

So it's not even necessary for me to try to defend that point unless you can demonstrate why it would be necessary for the sake of the core argument about whether or not new functional genetic code can be introduced into an organism that will result in a something that is significant enough to be selected for by survival.

4. Irreducible complexity has been entirely debunked. It was effectively abandoned over a decade ago. You should stop raising this issue, and redirect your attention to the comprehensive, evidence-based, scientific explanations for every supposed example that apologists have raised, like the flagellum, the eye, etc. Biologists understand this process extremely well. Again, it is a function of your misunderstanding of biology, rather than a problem for biology.

Logical fallacy, strawman.

I never argued anything from the irreducible complexity of the mechanics of a biological cell

I said something "like irreducible complexity" in reference to the introduction of new genetic code.

An analogy would be computer code. There is a minimum standard of information that has to be typed in before any functional change in the program will result when it is run.
I am not talking about merely changing single digit numerical values attached to the functional lines of code that is already there - but adding new lines of code to do new functions.
Ie. Random letters here and there aren't going to generate new functions. It takes a string of letters arranged as information to be readable code to meet a minimum standard of producing a new function.

5. You seem to have the fundamental misconception that evolution happened intentionally,

Your claim is false. And I don't see how you could have gotten that claim from anything I actually said.

Therefore any arguments you try to make based on that premise are invalid.

We simply observe that evolution takes whatever beneficial mutations occur and then it runs with them.

Your statement doesn't refute anything I argued nor does it prove your original claims.

Because you haven't given us a mechanism by which random mutations of genetic code could produce new genetic functions of significance to effect the rate at which nature selects for them by survival and reproduction rates.

For example, evolution predicts (and observes) that two identical populations of rodents would evolve differently when placed in identical environments, such that one might end up going down the path of camouflage and the other might evolve a burrowing strategy, or a better mouth for eating new plants, or countless other possibilities.

You are describing adaptation.
Adaptation doesn't prove cells to mankind evolution happened.

Everything you are describing falls within what their genetic code is already capable of expressing. Not unlike how selective breeding of dogs produces different mouth shapes, different personality traits, and different affinities for different tasks.

You aren't observing new genetic code functions being introduced into them by random chance. You are seeing epigenetic expressions of the existing code.

That's why there are limits to what you can expect to see expressed by selective breeding.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Hilarious. If nothing else, creationists sure are entertaining.

Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?

 

[Viker]

Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?

Seriously. Do you have anything better to offer us? Something that can hold up to over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny and critical thinking?

 

[Deeje]

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.

How many times have I dismissed your empty rhetoric as unsubstantiated nonsense? I only deliberately ignore your posts when you dish up the same excuses....none of which address anything I have said with real evidence.

Science doesn't even attempt to prove anything. It gathers and tests data.

You could have fooled me....science likes to state all its opinions as if they were proven facts that cannot be contested....gathering and testing data, can never address science's first premise, for which it has absolutely nothing to back up its assertions. Stating that something "might have" happened is not the same as stating that something "must have" happened because science says so....what arrogance!
Science is not my god or my religion.

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?

It will still be a movie screen, no matter what color it ended up....do you understand that? There is absolutely no real substantiated evidence for evolution of the 'macro' kind. Hiding behind adaptation like it explains the process is nonsense because every single "repeatedly tested" experiment ever undertaken by scientists never took any creature outside of its taxonomy.

This is where we get the whole ridiculous "whale evolution" scenario by suggesting that the four legged furry creature Pakicetus was actually a "whale", because you could not call him anything else...otherwise your chain of evolution snaps and falls in a heap.

What do you notice about this graph? Do the math and tell me why the whales that we see today have basically remained unaltered for 34 million years...whilst the others morphed spectacularly in just a few million years?
What do you see regarding the lines representing "common ancestors" that go back 65 million years? Not one of them is identified......they "must have" existed because evolution cannot stand if they don't. So where are they? There must be countless millions of them that supposedly were responsible for branching out to become every species of creature on this earth......so where are they? How could they all be missing?

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.

The song and dance is not nearly so entertaining as the scientists having to resort to insults instead of evidence.
By stating that I have no concrete evidence to support my assertions, don't you have to wonder why you have have none either? If science can virtually kill God, then it must have the goods....so far I haven't seen anything but educated guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.
Who turned "might have" into "must have" I wonder?
God is not dead to those of us who see through the smoke and mirrors.

It's an example of the mechanism of Natural Selection. Environmental changes constantly advantage or disadvantage natural variations, and these selected variants ACCUMULATE.

They might accumulate some traits different from their cousins on other continents, but they will never become something else. Darwin did not see any change in species, just adaptations in the same creatures he knew from the mainland. None were becoming something else.

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.

They will still be moths....and there may be more varieties...but they will all still be moths. None of them will have morphed into some other creature with invisible "common ancestors".

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.

Ah...this old recurring chestnut.....creation taken over eons of time is not "magic"...it never was. The Creator is the inventor and producer of the materials he used for the living creatures he created. He fashioned them deliberately and thoughtfully to co-exist in perfect harmony with the habitats he created before they were even here.....well prepared in advance to receive them with food supply and water supply...along with all the mechanisms required for reproducing their "kind"......inbuilt genetic roadblocks would prevent one "kind" from wanting to mate with another....each instinctively knew who was a suitable mate. These creatures all came fully programmed to do as they were created to do. Instinct has never been fully explained by science, has it? How is it possible to be born with an inbuilt "program"...without a programmer?

Sorry but your protests are falling far short of the certainty that science offers for its 'ideas masquerading as scientific facts'.....I'm not buying what you are selling. You can if you wish....

 

[rational experiences]

Observation in science says healing has been studied. Which in life is not evolution.

We live with extremely mutated human bodies today. Would a scientist in the future look at those bones and claim evolution?

If he said I can only find mutated bones then human bodily self healthy life removed as combustion was seen. Wouldn't the equals answer say human like mutated past bones is all that was left? Event radiation gas burning fallout causes.

Notating human is always used in comparing data.

If a human says I live in water generated oxygenation in the past Christ gas presence of mass from earth body said Christ symbol the holy ox meant holy water oxygenated was why body changes occur!

Christ mass having to be present to achieve life health by mass. Science said it had been removed in anti effect. Consumed.

Ant notified as the reason. In a vision I was bitten on my side by an ant looking vision as an alien. Vision said fallout cause of a dna bowel dysfunction. Which I suffered.

As a loss of gas mass as bodily presence.
Cooling.

Christ body mass returns by conditions science was notified of a wandering star stone body. Constantly returning.

Regained mass pressure changes and water mass was then held to ground reoxygenating health.

Bio diversity would emerge constantly as the heavens would be constantly shifting it's mass.

Either as mass existing gas by evaporation above us irradiating causes. Shifting mass diversifying changing the nature DNA constantly.

Reminding science sex only allowed any body living today to be studied. Sex is also not evolution.

Or flooding effects returning water to the ground state where it belongs.

Pressure would force unnatural cell forms to be removed and healthy cell reoxygenated cell blood to change living tissues.

Chemical behaviours would change.

Natural.

Why science in the past stated gods heavens holy never change the gases in mass as God conditions heavens had changed healed all life forms.

Not as an illogical human but as a scientist.

Looking for God? Science said a gas spirit is clear you cannot see a gas.

Changed gases cooled are seen.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Seriously. Do you have anything better to offer us? Something that can hold up to over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny and critical thinking?

Has anyone ever seen a one celled animal turn into any other animal?

 

[rational experiences]

How many times have I dismissed your empty rhetoric as unsubstantiated nonsense? I only deliberately ignore your posts when you dish up the same excuses....none of which address anything I have said with real evidence.


You could have fooled me....science likes to state all its opinions as if they were proven facts that cannot be contested....gathering and testing data, can never address science's first premise, for which it has absolutely nothing to back up its assertions. Stating that something "might have" happened is not the same as stating that something "must have" happened because science says so....what arrogance!
Science is not my god or my religion.


It will still be a movie screen, no matter what color it ended up....do you understand that? There is absolutely no real substantiated evidence for evolution of the 'macro' kind. Hiding behind adaptation like it explains the process is nonsense because every single "repeatedly tested" experiment ever undertaken by scientists never took any creature outside of its taxonomy.

This is where we get the whole ridiculous "whale evolution" scenario by suggesting that the four legged furry creature Pakicetus was actually a "whale", because you could not call him anything else...otherwise your chain of evolution snaps and falls in a heap.

What do you notice about this graph? Do the math and tell me how why the whales that we see today have basically remained unaltered for 34 million years...whilst the others morphed spectacularly in just a few million years?
What do you see regarding the lines representing "common ancestors" that go back 65 million years? Not one of them is identified......they "must have" existed because evolution cannot stand if they don't. So where are they? There must be countless millions of them that supposedly were responsible for branching out to become every species of creature on this earth......so where are they? How could they all be missing?


The song and dance is not nearly so entertaining as the scientists having to resort to insults instead of evidence.
By stating that I have no concrete evidence to support my assertions, don't you have to wonder why you have have none either? If science can virtually kill God, then it must have the goods....so far I haven't seen anything but educated guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.
Who turned "might have" into "must have" I wonder?
God is not dead to those of us who see through the smoke and mirrors.


They might accumulate some traits different from their cousins on other continents, but they will never become something else. Darwin did not see any change in species, just adaptations in the same creatures he knew from the mainland. None were becoming something else.


They will still be moths....and there may be more varieties...but they will all still be moths. None of them will have morphed into some other creature with invisible "common ancestors".


Ah...this old recurring chestnut.....creation taken over eons of time is not "magic"...it never was. The Creator is the inventor and producer of the materials he used for the living creatures he created. He fashioned them deliberately and thoughtfully to co-exist in perfect harmony with the habitats he created before they were even here.....well prepared in advance to receive them with food supply and water supply...along with all the mechanisms required for reproducing their "kind"......inbuilt genetic roadblocks would prevent one "kind" from wanting to mate with another....each instinctively knew who was a suitable mate. These creatures all came fully programmed to do as they were created to do. Instinct has never been fully explained by science, has it? How is it possible to be born with an inbuilt "program"...without a programmer?

Sorry but your protests are falling far short of the certainty that science offers for its 'ideas masquerading as scientific facts'.....I'm not buying what you are selling. You can if you wish....

A human is a parent in adult life of human life continuance. Adults human studies as the consciousness other humans.

Claiming innocence beginning from and as their human baby life against false preachers. Scientists.

Says a designer being the human as a human scientist theist has to be involved as some God form he is always searching for.

Always had historically been searching for it.

Basic advice human.

All humans die.

Science statement. If we all died in the exact same moment you would be stopped looking for a God not of any human condition.

As an idea something greater than my own human person.

Yet the human names observes any body even those he does not live on in outer space. Proof of human egotism claiming the greater self is his owned man presence. By existing expressing his evaluations. Human only.

That review is egotism actually.

Proven before in human life by humans sick and tired of being sacrificed life abused by human scientists. Who say if I experiment by forcing change I will learn and find.

Claiming from destruction came God.

If I put it all back together then I will have God.

In science that advice.... oh you mean all natural self present forms.

 

[Deeje]

The way I reason it I my mind is like this. Humans used to have longer lifespans, right? Then God capped it at 120 years, according to the Bible. I believe this is an example of negative evolution happening and being documented

I agree....human life spans have been dropping over time from those who lived closer to the perfection of our first parents...one who lived up to 969 years (Methuselah) It was not unusual for humans to live for hundreds of years before even becoming parents. Noah for example was 500 years old before he had his three sons. (Genesis ch 5)

God's mention of 120 years is not a re-setting of man's lifespan however, but more like a judicial decree, informing Noah of his determination to end the corruption and wickedness he was seeing on the earth among Noah's contemporaries, so 120 years hence God was giving Noah and his family ample time to complete the enormous task he had set before them.

Humans still lived for several hundred years after Noah's exit from the ark....all of whom were his descendants. He lived for 950 years. But as time went on we can see a dramatic reduction in man's lifespan.....and we can speculate that perhaps the water canopy that once surrounded the earth (now missing because God used it to flood the world) might have had an impact that many may not recognize....
2 Peter 3:5-7....
"For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people"

So the increased radiation from the sun may now have aged things prematurely....including man, who life span eventually dropped to a mere 70 or 80 years. It could also perhaps alter radio carbon dating estimates.

An interesting thought is also brought out in 2 Peter 3:8-9 where it states...
"However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."
Not a single person in the Bible lived longer than a "day" in God's counting of time. This gives us an indication of why God told Adam that "in the day" that they ate from the fruit, they would die......it wasn't a 24 hour "day".

Psalm 90:10 says....
"The span of our life is 70 years,
Or 80 if one is especially strong.

But they are filled with trouble and sorrow;
They quickly pass by, and away we fly."

Those of us who have lost our youth, lament how quickly 70 years went by.

I look forward to the time when God will reinstate everlasting life in the paradise conditions that Adam and his wife once enjoyed.....that was the start we had, but selfish use of free will changed everything, forcing God to demonstrate to all humankind how important it was to obey his directions. Misuse of free will is the cause of all human problems.....so we had to learn to drive it by experiencing first hand, the consequences of human selfishness.

The reign of God's Kingdom in the hands of his son will also be for "a thousand years". (Revelation 20:6) A mere "day" to get things back to the way God first intended them to be.