Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance.

...And you still haven't defined "fitness" with scientific rigor or shown that it has any predictive capabilities whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you would like anyone to believe that Tiktaalik represents a stage of fish evolving to -- humans -- you'd have to do better than what you say above.

It represents the stage between fish and tetrapods.

Those are just words. Without backup.

No. It is backed up by the fact that it was found by prediction.
Age, anatomical features, location, habitat,.... IF evolution is true and IF land animals evolved from "fish", then we should be able to find animals of such age, with such anatomical features (= mixture of "fish" and tetrapod traits) in such location in such a habitat.

They then looked at geological maps from earth's history, looked up where rocks of such an environment of such age were exposed, went there, started digging and there it was: tiktaalik.

How come they were able to make such accurate predictions based on this theory, if the theory is false?
Tiktaalik being a transitional between fish and tetrapods is not some ad-hoc-after-the-fact explanation.
It was a find that was done by prediction

That the predicted fossil was found IS the backup

You'd have to do better imo than saying, Look! there is a real-time item of evidence that PROVES fish evolved to humans.

That fish and humans share ancestors is proven through comparative genomics. Phylogeny. We have been over this many times.
Species sharing ancestry is a genetic fact.

It may seem rational to say and believe it shows the stepping stone between water dwelling fish and land roving animals, but it is a fossil of an organism that had four appendages.

It also had thin ray bones, scales and gills like fish.
It also had sturdy wrist bones, neck, shoulders and thick ribs like a tetrapod.

It was, as they say, a fish-apod. Exact what a transitional is supposed to be: clearly exhibiting traits of both its ancestors as well as its descendants.
A tetrapod with fish features.
Or a fish with tetrapod features.

As predicted.

You may say it is proof (or demonstrates) of the theory, but that does not mean it is.

It is evidence of the theory.
When you have a theory and from that theory naturally flows specific predictions, then discoveries that match those predictions are evidence that support the theory.
Tiktaalik is clearly evidence in support of the theory, since its existence was a specific prediction. A very specific prediction: age, location, habitat, anatomical features. And at the time the prediction was made, no known fossils matched those specifications.

But as it turns out: the predictions were spot on. So yeah... not sure what else you want me to tell you....
Your argument against this seems to amount to nothing more or less then "I don't believe it".

There is nothing to show from where it came and where the organism went (eventually evolved) to.

Again, it's a transitional between fish and tetrapods.
It has both fish as well as tetrapod features. That's what transitionals are.

You want to believe it all happened by "natural occurrences"? That's obviously your choice.

We have a very well understood natural mechanism that accounts for all of this.
We have no reasons at all to include any non-natural mechanisms.

And the natural explanation makes predictions that turn out to be spot on (like tiktaalik), so yeah....


If you want to include non-natural mechanisms or factors, be my guest.
Name them, explain how they can be supported by independently verifiable evidence and demonstrate how they would need to be included and what problem they solve.

If you can't do such, then.... well.... I'll reject at face value without evidence that which is asserted without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sure you rounded off here. What were the actual results, something like .976504407423388 in 1?

It must be nice to not only know everything but have actual numbers to many decimal places to prove it.

No, it's 1 in 1.

Inevitable.

The only thing that would stop evolution in that setting to be inevitable, if is when all would go extinct.
At which point there is no more probability for evolution because there would be nothing to evolve.

But as long as such systems (reproduce with variation; struggle for survival; in competition for limited resources) exist, probability of evolution is 1 in 1. It is inevitable.

Just like it is inevitable that if you walk taking one step at a time, you end up walking miles.

 

[cladking]

Reductionistic science can fill a cage full of rats with enough hydrogen cyanide to kill half of them and then repeat this over and over through multiple generations to create a rat that is less sensitive to hydrogen cyanide. But they can't predict at ANY stage which individuals are more "fit". They simply point at the survivors and announce they mustta been more fit because it lived.

Nonsense on steroids.

Just because it is known that species change there is absolutely no reason to presuppose it mustta been caused by "fitness". Just because the "fossil record" shows change doesn't mean it mustta been gradual.

All observed change is sudden and determined by behavior which I maintain is derived from consciousness and genetics. THIS is what REAL science shows. "Fitness" is a concept right out of the `19th century and it has NEVER been shown in the lab or even properly defined.

 

[McBell]

If you would like anyone to believe that Tiktaalik represents a stage of fish evolving to -- humans -- you'd have to do better than what you say above. Those are just words. Without backup. You'd have to do better imo than saying, Look! there is a real-time item of evidence that PROVES fish evolved to humans. It may seem rational to say and believe it shows the stepping stone between water dwelling fish and land roving animals, but it is a fossil of an organism that had four appendages. You may say it is proof (or demonstrates) of the theory, but that does not mean it is. There is nothing to show from where it came and where the organism went (eventually evolved) to. You want to believe it all happened by "natural occurrences"? That's obviously your choice.

Simple.
God Did It.

 

[cladking]

I determined the probability of evolution occurring in systems that self-replicate with variation and which are in a struggle to survive and in competition with peers over limited resources, to be a probability of 1 in 1.

No, it's 1 in 1.

I agree with none of your premises.

That everything changes is axiomatic in a reality where no two identical things exist.

But life cooperates to fill every niche and resources are not "limited" but rather always changing. It is Darwin and those who wanted an excuse to oppress who believed that resources are limited and some people have less right to them because they were less fit or less evolved. How did this nonsense survive into modern times?

Of course everything changes but there's no reason to believe they Evolve. It's hardly surprising that species as well change in a reality where EVERYTHING changes. The question remains why and how do groups of individuals that we call "species" have offspring that are fundamentally different in many ways.

You are being asked to show your work. You just penned an essay about how species mustta changed but you never showed your work and your essay runs counter to ALL observation that shows sudden change and individuality.

Stripping the dispossessed of their humanity strips our own as well. We are humans and worthy of rights not because we are fit but because we are human.


Show your work. This is a math test not a 19th century sociology test. In science we must prove our methodology is sound as part of experimental results and you have NO EXPERIMENT.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans are interesting in that we are all the same species, but we come in different sizes, shapes and colors. Even in a family, there can be wide differences in a range of physical, intellectual and emotional attributes. But all that difference does not lead to a change into a new species.

From a practical POV, all that difference conceptually allows for maximum adaptation of the species, to the ever changing environment. We sort have become, like a Swiss Army knife species, that has a tool ready for any adaptive change. Culture also allow us to warehouse the extra tools, in case we have a rainy day. This makes more sense, if the brain was leading the adaptive change factor.

The main problem, with the theory of evolution, that keeps coming back is, DNA will not work or be useful without water, yet biology textbooks continue to misrepresent bio-active DNA, not showing the water; out of sight out of mind. They will give water, lip service, but still show naked DNA in textbooks. Rather than a logical theory, it is stuck at dice and cards. Water is so fundamental to the form and function of life, at any scale, how can it be left out and still be called sound science?

The cell has 100 times a many water molecules, as all the rest combined, so let us leave it out; brilliant. Nobody seems to notice or care due to the black box approach can sort of gloss over the lack.

Rational science does not need as much experimentation as empirical science. Experiments in rational science is like the cherry on the sundae. Einstein's Relativity was set up with math and logic and one predictive experiment was enough to solidify it. You guys need a giant bowl of cherries, with no room for the sundae; no predictive logic.

If you introduce water in the equation, it is easier to make a sundae that can still be eaten without the cherry. The fundamental principle for making use of water is the water and oil effect; surface tension. Cells are made of water and oil, with the oil loosely defined as all the organics from membrane to naked DNA. Since water is the dominant secondary bonding force, that underlies the fluid nature of life, water will try to optimize itself, by optimizing the shapes and surfaces of the oil; organics, to its own needs. Pure water is like that massive 3-D matrix of hydrogen bonds, with four hydrogen bonds per water molecule. It is very stabilizes and due small size of water and the large number of water units and hydrogen bonds, its is the major player. Water has sweet spots based on its own free energy optimization. The organics will oblige. We end up with bioactive form and function.

New protein, all stretched out will create surfaces tension in water. Water will pack and fold the protein to bury the most oily parts and leave the least oily on the surface. Now it is bio-active. If we used oil and protein; membrane, it would pack it inside out; ion pump. The main reason cells will not work with other solvents is they will pack in different ways, but not lead to bioactivity; instead of water and oil it is more more oil and oil. The final shapes are wrong. Water has the best strongest water and oil effect; naturally selected.

To lower surface tension of water, the water also lowers the complexity of the original protein; from stretch out to all balled up, thereby lowering the entropy of the protein against the 2nd law. This adds a potential for change, to the protein, with water holding it there. The movement toward higher entropy and complexity are surface reactions.

Water sets up the internal cellular environment, into a state of lowered organic entropy, below the 2nd law background, and now there is built in drive to move toward higher entropy and complexity; replication, metabolism and synthesis. Since water integrates the cell, via the water and oil effect, it can globally increase entropy; replication, as well as locally; enzyme reactions.

With water leading, water becomes a source of internal natural selection; nano-scale. With water the integrator, imbalances within the cell that appear due to any number of reasons, will require a new balance to optimize the global.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance.

It's important to go beyond fossils to substantiate your case of evolution by natural selection and/or mutations that formed species that lasted or may not have lasted. (Gorillas are still gorillas and finches are still finches and Nepalese humans are still humans...) In the meantime, if someone were to see a fossil of a fish type with 4 appendages, he might say, hey look! that's proof that fish evolved to land animals. But is it? Not necessarily. Because there's nothing beyond that showing "the next step" or mutation. And nothing before that to show how and where the Tiktaalik came from (evolved from). Deny or argue away, please...As a form of recognizing what you might say, I can say that it's "logical" for some to put in the missing data, such as pretending to know the exact way it happened. Internally and externally. Life goes on...

 

[YoursTrue]

It represents the stage between fish and tetrapods.

I realize that's what you believe.

No. It is backed up by the fact at it was found by prediction.
Age, anatomical features, location, habitat,.... IF evolution is true and IF land animals evolved from "fish", then we should be able to find animals of such age, with such anatomical features (= mixture of "fish" and tetrapod traits) in such location in such a habitat.

They then looked at geological maps from earth's history, looked up where rocks of such an environment of such age were exposed, went there, started digging and there it was: tiktaalik.

How come they were able to make such accurate predictions based on this theory, if the theory is false?
Tiktaalik being a transitional between fish and tetrapods is not some ad-hoc-after-the-fact explanation.
It was a find that was done by prediction

That the predicted fossil was found IS the backup

Well now let's see -- what exactly do they predict that specimen evolved from? And what did it supposedly (specifically) evolve to? Any information from SCIENTISTS you know of as to what it evolved FROM (specifically which fish) and what it evolved TO (again -- what organism exactly).
That's all for now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...And you still haven't defined "fitness" with scientific rigor or shown that it has any predictive capabilities whatsoever.

"predictive capabilities"? What a weird thing to say about the word "fitness".

As for defining it, it's not hard....
Fitness = the quantitative representation of reproductive success.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with none of your premises.

Shocking.

That everything changes is axiomatic in a reality where no two identical things exist.

But life cooperates to fill every niche and resources are not "limited" but rather always changing. It is Darwin and those who wanted an excuse to oppress who believed that resources are limited and some people have less right to them because they were less fit or less evolved. How did this nonsense survive into modern times?

Of course everything changes but there's no reason to believe they Evolve. It's hardly surprising that species as well change in a reality where EVERYTHING changes. The question remains why and how do groups of individuals that we call "species" have offspring that are fundamentally different in many ways.

Change = evolution.

Also, no off spring of any species is "fundamentally different".
Speciation is a vertical process. Speciation always results in SUB-species. They are different but not "fundamentally" different from their ancestral species. Au contraire, they are in fact "fundamentally" the same as their ancestral species.

The common ancestors of humans and chimps were primates. Humans and chimps are fundamentally still primates.
The common ancestors of primates and cats were mammals. Primates and cats are fundamentally still mammals.
etc

You are being asked to show your work. You just penned an essay about how species mustta changed but you never showed your work and your essay runs counter to ALL observation that shows sudden change and individuality.

Like how you "show your work" that all change is "sudden"?
Wonna see "my" work? Go take a biology course.

Stripping the dispossessed of their humanity strips our own as well. We are humans and worthy of rights not because we are fit but because we are human.

What the...?
When did I ever say anything about how humans must be treated based on their biological fitness?
You are so weird.

Show your work. This is a math test not a 19th century sociology test. In science we must prove our methodology is sound as part of experimental results and you have NO EXPERIMENT.

Every new born comes with a handful of mutations (called the "mutation rate) which are passed on to off spring.
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+...+1+1+1 = big number.




How do you NOT walk a mile taking one step at a time?

 

[McBell]

It's important to go beyond fossils to substantiate your case of evolution by natural selection and/or mutations that formed species that lasted or may not have lasted. (Gorillas are still gorillas and finches are still finches and Nepalese humans are still humans...) In the meantime, if someone were to see a fossil of a fish type with 4 appendages, he might say, hey look! that's proof that fish evolved to land animals. But is it? Not necessarily. Because there's nothing beyond that showing "the next step" or mutation. And nothing before that to show how and where the Tiktaalik came from (evolved from). Deny or argue away, please...As a form of recognizing what you might say, I can say that it's "logical" for some to put in the missing data, such as pretending to know the exact way it happened. Internally and externally. Life goes on...

And yet in your favored version you can not get past "GodDidIt".

Actually, if we are going to be completely honest, you can not even get to "GodDidIt" if you followed your very own as presented standards.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's important to go beyond fossils to substantiate your case of evolution

1. it's not "my" case

2. we don't need any fossils. Genetics show beyond a shadow of a doubt that all species share ancestry.

(Gorillas are still gorillas and finches are still finches and Nepalese humans are still humans...)

And still you have learned nothing at all, even though this simple lesson has been provided to you on a near weekly basis since at least June 2021.
Why do you refuse to learn? Why do you insist on being wrong?

There really is no point in talking to you if you can't even manage to comprehend such simple things.

All you are doing with this silly behavior is confirm the statement that you quoted:

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance

In the meantime, if someone were to see a fossil of a fish type with 4 appendages, he might say, hey look! that's proof that fish evolved to land animals. But is it?

You mean: predicted the existence of such a fossil based on evolution theory / history and THEN actually finds it.

The mere existence of this fossil is indeed evidence in support of evolution theory.
And doubly so when it is found by prediction.

Not necessarily. Because there's nothing beyond that showing "the next step" or mutation. And nothing before that to show how and where the Tiktaalik came from (evolved from).

Another typical example of creationist intellectual dishonesty.
"where is the missing link between fish and tetrapods?"
"here, it's called tiktaalik!"
"ok, but where is the missing link between fish and tiktaalik, or between tiktaalik and tetrapods?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realize that's what you believe.

No, that's factually what it is.

If tetrapods evolved from fish-like organisms, then at some stage there should have been fish-like tetrapods, or tetrapod-like fish.
Tiktaalik is exactly that.

Well now let's see -- what exactly do they predict that specimen evolved from? And what did it supposedly (specifically) evolve to? Any information from SCIENTISTS you know of as to what it evolved FROM (specifically which fish) and what it evolved TO (again -- what organism exactly).
That's all for now.

You are once again showing your ignorance.

For all we know, the specific species of tiktaalik went extinct and other similar species were the ancestors of tetrapods. It is impossible to know since we can't extra DNA from 300 million year old fossils.

Fossils are snapshots in time. They show us the "state" of life in some lineage in the age that they lived.

If fish-like organisms were the ancestors of tetrapods, then there should have been an age where in that lineage there were species that were transitionals between fish and tetrapods. Based on everything science knew about history and anatomy, they predicted that age, the habitat and the anatomical features such a creatures would have had.

They found it. Exactly matching the prediction. A ~350 million year old fish-apod that lived in shallow waters.
Exactly the type of transitional you would expect to find if fish-like creatures gradually evolved into tetrapods 400 to 300 million years ago.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just think what what computers can do with binary code, just 0 and 1's
Think what more can be done with four digits as in the genome.
AI is accomplished with just 0 and 1's as is complex CNC machining.
Even more and faster can be done with a Quantum computer which can use zero and one at the same time.
Complexity is never a good argument to use against science. Especially evolution..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just think what what computers can do with binary code, just 0 and 1's
Think what more can be done with four digits as in the genome.
AI is accomplished with just 0 and 1's as is complex CNC machining.
Even more and faster can be done with a Quantum computer which can use zero and one at the same time.
Complexity is never a good argument to use against science. Especially evolution..

Talking about computers and AI....

Genetic Algorithms (= based on the principles of evolution) is actually a big part of optimization and machine learning. It plays quite a role in AI development.

 

[cladking]

Fitness = the quantitative representation of reproductive success.

If it's quantitative you can quantify the "fitness" of any individual.

You CAN NOT. THIS IS A FACT. You are reasoning in circles. Murdering half of a cage full of rats by adding cyanide until half are dead does not show some are fitter. It shows you murdered rats in the name of Charles Darwin. Then we have despots that do the same thing; murder half a population to figure out which are the fittest.

Define fitness and then measure it. Don't tell me about murdered rats.

 

[cladking]

Change = evolution.

No. Change is change. Evolution is a theory/ belief.

Also, no off spring of any species is "fundamentally different".

No. This statement merely reflects your belief in Evolution. You believe observation can be explained by gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but you have no experimental support AND you are ignoring the fact ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN SPECIES occurs suddenly like peppered moths and dogs.

You have a belief and no theory.

Like how you "show your work" that all change is "sudden"?

I'm not the one who claims to know how any unobserved change occurred. I don't need to show my work. You need to support your beliefs because they fly in the face of observation.

Every experiment agrees with my theory and so do ancient scientists.

What the...?
When did I ever say anything about how humans must be treated based on their biological fitness?

All action in humans are founded in belief. You support the idea that some humans are less fit than others. I disagree. My experience is most humans can excel in the proper environment. While I don't believe in "intelligence" there is certainly such a thing as stupid and these individuals are unlikely to excel anywhere at all.

If you believe the some are less evolved or less fit then hacking off their arms and legs to save bullets makes sense. I believe most all humans and all other living individuals of all species are equally fit.


You see reductionistic science preferentially to everything even the evidence of your own eyes. Experiment proves everyone does this but somehow the holiest of all thous think it doesn't apply to scientists because they are right. Amid all this confusion science is bought and sold like hog futures by lobbyists. Meanwhile 19th century assumptions still masquerade as truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Change is change. Evolution is a theory/ belief.

Evolution is change. If you insist on misrepresenting evolutionary biology, then that's a you-problem.

No. This statement merely reflects your belief in Evolution.

No. It reflects the actual theory of evolution instead of the strawman you people insist on.

You believe observation can be explained by gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but you have no experimental support AND you are ignoring the fact ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN SPECIES occurs suddenly like peppered moths and dogs.

All changes are gradual. Even in artificial selection. Wolves don't give birth to chiuwawa's.

You support the idea that some humans are less fit than others.

Not just humans. Fitness (in the evolutionary biology sense; not the strawman sense you guys insist on) is a quality that applies across the board to all organisms of all species.

f you believe the some are less evolved

There is no such thing as "less evolved".

or less fit then hacking off their arms and legs to save bullets makes sense.

Wut?

I believe most all humans and all other living individuals of all species are equally fit.

Only because you insist on a strawman version of what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.

You see reductionistic science preferentially to everything even the evidence of your own eyes. Experiment proves everyone does this but somehow the holiest of all thous think it doesn't apply to scientists because they are right. Amid all this confusion science is bought and sold like hog futures by lobbyists. Meanwhile 19th century assumptions still masquerade as truth.

Would you like some mayonnaise with that word salad?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it's quantitative you can quantify the "fitness" of any individual.

It's exactly what happens in genetic algorithms. Each "individual" is given a score based on overall performance in terms of the configured selection pressures.
In GA's this is rather easy to do because we deal with far less complex environments and limited selection pressures.

In the real world, there's a ridiculous amount of factors to keep into account, making it near impossible to do this. Although it's easy to tell the difference between the extreme unfit and the more or less fit. But it gets exponentially harder to do the further you go from the obvious, to the point of being impossible (again: not because there is no such thing as fitness, but simply because of the sheer complexity and ridiculous amount of factors to keep into account). The principle / concept is the exact same though.

Someone who actually understands the theory, selection pressures and "fitness" is actually all about in context of evolutionary biology would have no problem understanding this.
I guess that doesn't include you.

You CAN NOT. THIS IS A FACT.

And I just explained why we can not.
And it's not because there is no such thing.
It's rather because there are so many things to keep into account, so many factors and selection pressures, that it is literally impossible to account for all of them.

But once we simplify it (like in a GA), we see that we can.

You are reasoning in circles.

No. Instead, you are arguing strawmen.

Murdering half of a cage full of rats by adding cyanide until half are dead does not show some are fitter.

Except it actually does, in context of that specific environment.
That specific environment being an environment with traces of cyanide.

You don't seem to understand that "fitness" is directly related to selection pressures and in evolutionary biology, only makes sense in context / relation to selection pressures.

Take that same population of rats and put them in a different environment without cyanide but with for example some other type of gas, and the "fitness score" for the individuals would change.

The question to ask is, given this environment / these selection pressures, what is the reproductive success of this individual in the larger population?
The answers will shift as the selection pressures / environments change.

What aids reproductive success / overall performance in on setting, might work against you in another.

It shows you murdered rats in the name of Charles Darwin. Then we have despots that do the same thing; murder half a population to figure out which are the fittest.

Ow look, another ridiculous comment

Define fitness and then measure it.

I already explained this multiple times. I don't see how explaining it yet again will make any difference.

Don't tell me about murdered rats.

I didn't. You brought that up.