Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

To all those reading who claim any degree of devotion to TOE.

This thread is about material presented in another thread (linked in OP). This thread is about going through that material to deal, as squarely as I care to (others are welcome to join in) on the straw man claims that Creationists may make, like "evolution is not observable."

If you are someone who thinks evolution is observable, and you think the data that would verify this is present in the material I've so far covered in this thread, I'm very interested in hearing that from you (anyone). I don't believe the material covered so far has provided that evidence / proof.

If you think / know the material I am currently engaged in will be covering that, then feel free to chime in with mention that it does, and even which part that is. I don't believe I'll skip ahead to get there, but I would prefer to know it does get there. Even if current material doesn't, I still think it is helpful for where this thread may go.

If you have other material that gets point across (that evolution is observable) and you strongly believe / know that none of the other linked material conveys this, then I suggest a) you make that clear on other thread, asking other thread to amend things so your material can be top item on list and b) you let me know I'm essentially on wild goose chase that won't present evidence / proof, and that I am best to go with other material. Assuming 3 or more TOE proponents agree with your assessment, I'll likely switch gears and go with your material instead.

Thanks.

 

[Me Myself]

Wasn´t evolution happening to Panda´s by developing a kind of thumb (not yet fully developed) so they can better grab the bamboos?

Human´s self defense mechanisms have adapted to varios nw diseases certainnly and bugs do raise resistance to pesticides. I´ve always seen evolution as a long term aplication of this same scenario.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To all those reading who claim any degree of devotion to TOE.

This thread is about material presented in another thread (linked in OP). This thread is about going through that material to deal, as squarely as I care to (others are welcome to join in) on the straw man claims that Creationists may make, like "evolution is not observable."

If you are someone who thinks evolution is observable, and you think the data that would verify this is present in the material I've so far covered in this thread, I'm very interested in hearing that from you (anyone). I don't believe the material covered so far has provided that evidence / proof.

If you think / know the material I am currently engaged in will be covering that, then feel free to chime in with mention that it does, and even which part that is. I don't believe I'll skip ahead to get there, but I would prefer to know it does get there. Even if current material doesn't, I still think it is helpful for where this thread may go.

If you have other material that gets point across (that evolution is observable) and you strongly believe / know that none of the other linked material conveys this, then I suggest a) you make that clear on other thread, asking other thread to amend things so your material can be top item on list and b) you let me know I'm essentially on wild goose chase that won't present evidence / proof, and that I am best to go with other material. Assuming 3 or more TOE proponents agree with your assessment, I'll likely switch gears and go with your material instead.

Thanks.

I listed the (Nylon Eating Bacteria). This is just one of the many example of observed evolution.

This is just one of the many cases listed throughout this thread. But so you know, just because you don't believe or agree the evidence presented is evidence that it is observed evolution hardly changes the fact that it is evidence of OE.

 

[Jose Fly]

I second DP's post. Numerous examples of observed evolution were provided throughout this thread, and now we're seeing the standard creationist tactic of dealing with data: "Ignore it, wait until it's buried deep in the thread, and then claim no one has presented you any".

 

[outhouse]

I second DP's post. Numerous examples of observed evolution were provided throughout this thread, and now we're seeing the standard creationist tactic of dealing with data: "Ignore it, wait until it's buried deep in the thread, and then claim no one has presented you any".

+1

and ill add

I don't believe the material covered so far has provided that evidence / proof.

statements like this above are from a severe lack of education on the subject at hand.


creationist love to go deep into something they know nothing about and then play scientist to prove their strawman has some sort of validity. They fail severly pitting ignorance against some of the brightest scientist avalible.

 

[Gunfingers]

We don't even need esoteric examples like the Nylon Eating Bacteria. We can see nested hierarchies in family trees, we can see how organisms become more genetically dissimilar as they get less closely related. If these people paid one bit of attention they'd see how patently obvious evolution is to see.

 

[snl2240]

Yes it has, this topic is absurd. I'm sure you've researched this topic, and you simply disagreed with anything that disproved your beliefs.

Why don't you prove god exists, before I have to prove evolution does (especially since I'm not a expert in biology ), makes sense doesn't it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes it has, this topic is absurd. I'm sure you've researched this topic, and you simply disagreed with anything that disproved your beliefs.

Why don't you prove god exists, before I have to prove evolution does (especially since I'm not a expert in biology ), makes sense doesn't it?

:clap

 

[Acim]

I second DP's post. Numerous examples of observed evolution were provided throughout this thread, and now we're seeing the standard creationist tactic of dealing with data: "Ignore it, wait until it's buried deep in the thread, and then claim no one has presented you any".

Or your stacking argument in way that is disrespectful to both OP and latest update I presented.

Either material listed in other thread presents this, or it doesn't. Either you know it does, or you don't know if it does.

I was in a whole other resource, ripping it to shreds, and then one of the contributors to that other thread, came in and said, (I paraphrase) before you go off on the minutiae in your critical analysis, how about dealing with fundamentals of biological evolution?

I didn't jump right in on that, and we had some back and forth on why that would make sense for me to stop scrutinizing one material in favor of another. While this was occurring (the back and forth) the peanut gallery was chiming in with, "but what about this, and hey read my link, and you're a retard, doofus, pea-brain loser, and that's how I know I'm right." So, essentially things got side tracked, which I admit to contributing to, and helps demonstrate that some of you all don't trust the material (really), but want your version of data to be the one that I go with.

Which I'm open to, but with stipulations I mentioned in previous post. If that is not something you can agree to, then I'll ask again for you to leave this thread.

And will just note that I'm about 2 more post types from this sort of request (saying I have a bit more patience) before I ask moderator type to come in and formally ask trollers / detractors to 'leave this thread alone' if not contributing to explicit, and I would say reasonable, wishes I am making. But, even now, if these requests I'm making strike you as wholly unreasonable and you are thinking I have no desire to look at the evidence, I'll entertain that yet again as I have for about 14 of the 20+ pages in this thread. Either you think I need to abandon the other material in favor of your links, or you are willing to allow me to continue with material that has been presented from people who most likely agree with you. Up to you, feel free to call your shots, and let the games continue.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think Acim's still waiting for a cat to turn into a dog...

 

[lunakilo]

To all those reading who claim any degree of devotion to TOE.

This thread is about material presented in another thread (linked in OP). This thread is about going through that material to deal, as squarely as I care to (others are welcome to join in) on the straw man claims that Creationists may make, like "evolution is not observable."

If you are someone who thinks evolution is observable, and you think the data that would verify this is present in the material I've so far covered in this thread, I'm very interested in hearing that from you (anyone). I don't believe the material covered so far has provided that evidence / proof.

What would in your opinion be proof?

 

[otokage007]

I think Acim isn't a creationist at all. Actually, I bet he accepts evolution. :flirt:

 

[Jose Fly]

Or your stacking argument in way that is disrespectful to both OP and latest update I presented.

Either material listed in other thread presents this, or it doesn't. Either you know it does, or you don't know if it does.

I was in a whole other resource, ripping it to shreds, and then one of the contributors to that other thread, came in and said, (I paraphrase) before you go off on the minutiae in your critical analysis, how about dealing with fundamentals of biological evolution?

I didn't jump right in on that, and we had some back and forth on why that would make sense for me to stop scrutinizing one material in favor of another. While this was occurring (the back and forth) the peanut gallery was chiming in with, "but what about this, and hey read my link, and you're a retard, doofus, pea-brain loser, and that's how I know I'm right." So, essentially things got side tracked, which I admit to contributing to, and helps demonstrate that some of you all don't trust the material (really), but want your version of data to be the one that I go with.

Which I'm open to, but with stipulations I mentioned in previous post. If that is not something you can agree to, then I'll ask again for you to leave this thread.

And will just note that I'm about 2 more post types from this sort of request (saying I have a bit more patience) before I ask moderator type to come in and formally ask trollers / detractors to 'leave this thread alone' if not contributing to explicit, and I would say reasonable, wishes I am making. But, even now, if these requests I'm making strike you as wholly unreasonable and you are thinking I have no desire to look at the evidence, I'll entertain that yet again as I have for about 14 of the 20+ pages in this thread. Either you think I need to abandon the other material in favor of your links, or you are willing to allow me to continue with material that has been presented from people who most likely agree with you. Up to you, feel free to call your shots, and let the games continue.

None of that directly addresses the fact that your claim that "I don't believe the material covered so far has provided that evidence / proof" of evolution being observable is false.

The fact remains multiple people have provided you multiple examples of observed evolution and you have failed to directly address most of it and explain why it is either not evolution or not observed. Thus, your declaration is simply false.

 

[Acim]

What would in your opinion be proof?

Hard to say right now, but something beyond inference would be decent start. Wouldn't be conclusive for me, but a start. And something at macroscopic level of new species emerging from existing species. In a consistent way where it is not a fluke.

I grant that this likely exists, in fact I'll speak to this in a bit, but would also just say that I have bias of ID that is not old school Creationism and has been spoken to at least twice on this thread. I cannot help but filter through this bias, even while I feel I can also maintain sense of objectivity.

 

[Acim]

I think Acim isn't a creationist at all. Actually, I bet he accepts evolution. :flirt:

I'll bet you're correct.

I just think accepting evolution and a variation of ID is plausible. The bias that says they are exclusive and leads to debate we are all aware of is something I like speaking to.

While I accept evolution (and therefore believe it), I can't say it is conviction for me, and part of what this thread is about is me scrutinizing the heck out of the material as I would expect skeptic to do with religious or spiritual text.

I honestly think the material so far that I've reviewed has not been great presentation of what I believe about evolution. Or IOW, it seems like scrutiny can possibly take things down a notch or two, while I recognize some on this thread (devout believers of TOE) don't appreciate that level of scrutiny.

 

[Acim]

The fact remains multiple people have provided you multiple examples of observed evolution and you have failed to directly address most of it and explain why it is either not evolution or not observed. Thus, your declaration is simply false.

I've addressed all material brought up in this thread. I have not gone to links where there is material to review and then present findings back here. And I've explained why I am not doing this at least 4 times.

I can cite the 3 areas on this thread where people have said something akin to, "while not directly observed." And is me calling them out on what is title of this thread.

The declaration is not mine alone and is something that is up for discussion in this thread, but basis of this thread continues to be referencing material in another thread. If you simply don't get why I am insisting on being orderly and referencing that material (first), then it would be wise to leave, for it will continue to show up to you like I am in denial, but IMO, all you who are butting heads with me aren't addressing the material I have read. Instead, you are wanting to have other material read, invoked into conversation and I'm telling you I'll get to that when I get to it. Do let me know if material I am reading in this thread gets to points you are raising. If it doesn't I'd like to know that sooner than later.

 

[Acim]

So, picking up on main vein of this thread, and going back to post #202.

In this material, we are still in section 2 of 7, titled "Patterns."

Upon review of the material, I am realizing I skipped a subsection in "Understanding Phylogenies" and will cover that now. It is titled "Phylogenetic Starbursts."

Phylogenetic Starbursts​

The branching pattern of phylogenies provides information about the relationships between organisms.

Often, one sees phylogenies that include polytomies, nodes with more than two descendent lineages, creating a “starburst.”

Polytomies defined as: a node on a phylogeny where more than two lineages descend from a single ancestral lineage. A polytomy may indicate either that we don’t know how the descendent lineages are related or that we think that the descendent lineages speciated simultaneously.

Critical analysis wants to know what 'we think' where it is being stated we don't know. And what it being purported about what 'we think' strikes me as speculation. I am willing to go with it. Though this is addressed further, so I'll continue.

This can mean one of two things:

Lack of knowledge:
Usually, it means that we don’t have enough data to figure out how those lineages are related. By not resolving that node, the scientists who produced the phylogeny are telling you not to draw any conclusions—and also to stay tuned: often gathering more data can resolve a polytomy.

Translated: don't speculate on why data appears to be missing in presenting related lineages. Researchers are still doing their job, be patient.

I do wish to note that I don't know (don't think) material has so far presented how lineages are related. I'll assume, for now, this will be presented in material later on.

There are many solutions to this polytomy; six possible solutions are shows below.

Pictures help. What I'm supposed to be getting from this feels lacking. If it is 'just familiarize yourself with patterns, do not be concerned with meaning / content just yet' then I'm good to go. If it is assumed I already should know content and how it applies to patterns, this simply has not been presented, and thus feels like material is failing.

Rapid speciation:
Sometimes, it means that multiple speciation events happened at the same time. In this case, all the daughter lineages are equally closely related to one another. The researchers should tell you if they feel that the evidence indicates that this is the case.

Very interesting proposition. Doesn't feel backed up to me right now, but from what I understand, it doesn't seem far off from "God created all this at same time." Of course TOE proponents ain't going along with that proposition, but to deny that the two appear similar seems like a denial.

Anyway, at this moment, I don't know how often material is suggesting rapid speciation occurs, nor why I need to pay attention to it, other than it is part of comprehensive pattern that makes up phylogeny (as a whole).

The cladogram below shows the phylogenetic relationship among the members of a group of fish called cichlids. Cichlid fish speciated quickly after their home lakes formed in Africa, resulting in several phylogenetic polytomies.

Interesting. Tells me very little. I guess this is example of rapid speciation, yes?

End of this section, and now officially done with subsection of "Understanding Phylogenies." Note that nowhere in this section I covered does the word observe or observation occur. Again, I take this as explanation on base understanding for conceptual framework that is biological evolution.

Next up (in next post) is subsection titled "Tree Building" in the Patterns section

 

[tumbleweed41]

And something at macroscopic level of new species emerging from existing species. In a consistent way where it is not a fluke.

Like I said...

I think Acim's still waiting for a cat to turn into a dog...

 

[Acim]

So, continuing on main vein of this thread, and going from post #237.

In this material, we are still in section 2 of 7, titled "Patterns."

And in this post, I'm going with subsection titled, "Tree Building." This actually has 2 sections and I think 4 pages in all.

Building the Tree

Like family trees, phylogenetic trees represent patterns of ancestry. However, while families have the opportunity to record their own history as it happens, evolutionary lineages do not—species in nature do not come with pieces of paper showing their family histories. Instead, biologists must reconstruct those histories by collecting and analyzing evidence, which they use to form a hypothesis about how the organisms are related—a phylogeny.

Underlined portions all seem slightly questionable to me, but I'm actually passing up temptation to nitpick. I'll choose to understand this as some humans desire to study lineages of organisms and postulate interrelationships of any / all lineages.

To build a phylogenetic tree such as the one to the right, biologists collect data about the characters of each organism they are interested in. Characters are heritable traits that can be compared across organisms, such as physical characteristics (morphology), genetic sequences, and behavioral traits.

While not underlined, I have critical question on "that can be compared" as that seems to assume (conclude) what hypothesis is proposing. I can't say I would do things differently, but will say that I would deem this as speculation (at best). I will do all I can to move beyond speculation, but not based on assumptions, and instead based on rigorous proof.

I do also wish to say that if the traits can be compared in reasonable way, given the evidence, this tells me intelligent design is at work. And that we are that which is (very much) invoking the design (via comparison) and insisting on it being intelligent (based on our understandings, our models, our awareness of 'what is going on.') This is where I back up to logic that purports, "biologists must reconstruct those histories." Must they? If yes (to any degree), then I am affirming intelligent design is alive and well. If not, biologists don't need to do this, for this is in essence, 'not natural' then I can back off the ID proposition I am proposing and will continue to address. I believe what biologist(s) is up to is natural, and that this is precisely ID at work, as if nature intended this, for we are doing this within intention, yes?

In order to construct the vertebrate phylogeny, we begin by examining representatives of each lineage to learn about their basic morphology, whether or not the lineage has vertebrae, a bony skeleton, four limbs, an amniotic egg, etc.

IOW, we choose what the baseline data will be, and proceed from here to make our comparison notes.

Using shared derived characters
Our goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. A shared character is one that two lineages have in common, and a derived character is one that evolved in the lineage leading up to a clade and that sets members of that clade apart from other individuals.

Yeah, my ID filter is firing off mass alarms right now. Lots of pre-supposing of data being conveyed here, but again, I can't say I would do it differently and lends to my understanding of how ID isn't just a 'me, individual' thing. Anyway, let us see example of what this paragraph is conveying.

Shared derived characters can be used to group organisms into clades. For example, amphibians, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, birds and mammals all have, or historically had, four limbs. If you look at a modern snake you might not see obvious limbs, but fossils show that ancient snakes did have limbs, and some modern snakes actually do retain rudimentary limbs. Four limbs is a shared derived character inherited from a common ancestor that helps set apart this particular clade of vertebrates.

Feels like leap to go from, "let us group this stuff together, based on characters we are self determining as group-able" to "must be common ancestor."

On one hand the grouping does very little for me. Not looking to insult anyone who is excited by grouping characteristics and comparing notes, but just saying it doesn't advance much for me, and does come off as speculation (even still) to compare notes in interrelationship way. On the other hand, we are that which is doing this grouping, not nature. This was point made earlier in material. And yet we are natural. Thus on another level of what I see going on, and bizarre to me that no one else would see it (as obvious) we are that which is evidence of intelligent design in the process. We are saying there is story to be told here, and it is reasonable, natural, ongoing. While we are part of that, and also that which is now telling the story. Making the intelligent connections about the pattern (design) to be found in this tree of life.

However, the presence of four limbs is not useful for determining relationships within the clade in green above, since all lineages in the clade have that character. To determine the relationships in that clade, we would need to examine other characters that vary across the lineages in the clade.

Because again, the (larger) goal is find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. For this will make the story even more intelligent and able to understand the variation that is biological evolution.

Again, in this portion that I covered, the word "observe" or "observation" does not appear.

Next up for this material is still in "Tree Building" and is section titled, "Homologies and Analogies," which I'll get to in next post.

 

[Acim]

Housekeeping update. I had hoped to do this with OP, but I can (for some reason) no longer edit that post. So perhaps I will have to do this sort of housekeeping periodically in this thread.

Here are the posts (by me) in this thread that are intended to be in line with OP:

• Post #3: Evolution has never been observed (Part 1)
• Post #4: Evolution has never been observed (Part 2)
• Post #7: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 1)
• Post #48: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 2)
• Post #60: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 3)
• Post #74: Re: Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 4)
• Post #85: Summary understanding of Observed Instances of Speciation (Part 1)
• Post #98: Re: Evolution 101 (Intro)
• Post #100: Re: Evolution 101 - Definition (Part 1)
• Post #104: Re: Evolution 101 - Definition (Part 2)
• Post #121: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns (Part 1)
• Post #150: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns (Part 2)
• Post #202: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Phylogenies (Part 1 and 2)
• Post #237: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Phylogenetic Starbursts
• Post #239: Re: Evolution 101 - Patterns - Tree Building (Part 1)