Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

Your source didn't support your claim.

It had the same words in it.

 

[leroy]

As a rather silly meaningless hypothetical, yes, given enough time and some unknown set of selection pressures, yes evolution can come up with all sorts of solutions to all sorts of problems, but that is about it. Though I don't know why you suddenly added ancestors into it. Your father falls into the silly category, for our earliest vertebrate ancestors they actually did evolve what we call gills and then lost them in further evolution.

Is there a point here or are you just trying to cover up your confusion between the science of evolution and your interpretations of it in your attempts to justify your desire for evidence of purpose in the universe?

there a point here

The point is that in principle through convergent evolution our descendents could develope something like a gill, scales swimming habilites and other traits that we commonly associated with fish.

Hence humans can evolve in to something that we would call fish


You obviously agree with this point but you won't admit it. But rather you will make a strawman and refute that strawman

 

[leroy]

Then admit your error.

Care to quote my alleged error? no you can't so stop making things up

 

[leroy]

Ow, okay, indeed, you didn't say "most", you said "many"



You didn't say "today", but you did use present time, not past time. So yea.... You have yet to support this.

Ok perhaps today there is no such controversy. I really dont know.... My mistake see how easy it is to admit mistakes?

That the same complex structures with the same genetic underpinnings evolve multiple times is not "impossible", but so incredibly unlikely that we might as well call it impossible.

Granted. Luckily I didn't say same genes and same structure

I was talking about convergent evolution.... Gills could evolve multiple times in the same eyes or wings did

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The point is that in principle through convergent evolution our descendents could develope something like a gill, scales swimming habilites and other traits that we commonly associated with fish. Hence humans can evolve in to something that we would call fish

If selection pressure favored human descendants with progressively more gill-like breathing apparati, then a strain of humans would likely develop gills. That's what the theory predicts.

But it might be the case that nothing could generate that selection pressure. Mammals that have returned to the sea haven't found it advantageous to give up their lungs, mammalian skin, wombs, or warm-bloodedness. It may be that there is an advantage in going from gills to lungs but not from lungs to gills.

Your argument is YOUR responsibility.

If you're looking for discussion, you'll need to do better than this. Your reply was nonresponsive, meaning it didn't affirm or attempt to falsify my comment, and in this case, went off on an unrelated tangent.

I said that your education was your responsibility in response to your words, "I want to see an experiment that shows gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. I want you to show me EXACTLY what makes an individual more likely to be naturally selected and then show your definition actually works."

He has no duty to produce that for you on your demand. Find it yourself.

Previously, you had only search engines like Google to research questions on the Internet, which was generally sufficient, but required an effort to curate and read assorted Internet information sources and distill them into a coherent answer.

Today, we can get better answers with less effort querying AI. I submitted your question and got a comprehensive answer in seconds. You can do that, too.

how do you feel about the eternal virginity of Mary

Mythology.

 

[leroy]

False.

Birds are dinosaurs because they fit the criteria of what a dinosaur is.

Yes according to a modern definition from this century (different from the original) .... Birds are dinosaurs... So what ? .... My point is that this just semantics..... Scientist could have used any other word to describe birds and their ancestors....or could have defined dinosaur in some other way ... It is just semantics

 

[leroy]

I'll do you one better. Here's a video of the main scientist from that expedition, explaining what they were looking for and why and how they went about finding it. Very interesting watch if actually interested.

Finding Tiktaalik, the Fossil Link Between Fish and Land Animals

Shubin explains that careful planning was key to the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, the 375 million year old fossil link between fish and land animals.

www.ibiology.org

Why would they predic to find tikalik in in 375 million year old layers if we know that tetrapods evolved long before that ?

 

[Pogo]

The point is that in principle through convergent evolution our descendents could develope something like a gill, scales swimming habilites and other traits that we commonly associated with fish.

Hence humans can evolve in to something that we would call fish


You obviously agree with this point but you won't admit it. But rather you will make a strawman and refute that strawman

Colloquially yes, in the five year old looking at pictures sense, yes. If that is your point then fine I admit and agree. BUT, that has nothing to do with understanding evolution, only the strawman version of it.

I hereby grant you a MAGA style Pyrrhic victory.

Spoiler: Pyrrhic victory

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that is not worth winning because the victor suffers such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. The term can be used in military and nonmilitary contexts.

.

 

[cladking]

If you're looking for discussion, you'll need to do better than this. Your reply was nonresponsive, meaning it didn't affirm or attempt to falsify my comment, and in this case, went off on an unrelated tangent.

Your comment was that my argument is my responsibility after you failed to make any argument. I have repeatedly provided facts and logic and it is not addressed as your counterargument is "I have already shown experiment". Over and over; you claim you have experiment showing gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest but you can't say what that was, where to find it, nor even summarize it.

You have no argument except Darwin and centuries of support for him that includes no experiment. Whether you understand why or not the fact is science, all science, is based in experiment and a scientific perspective, while admirable, is hardly sufficient to establish theory.

I could literally make a better case for Evolution than I'm seeing here.

I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in using experiment and data to create hypothesis and then supporting this hypothesis through logic and facts until experiment is devised to support it.

You want to short circuit science and dialog altogether and promote the existing paradigm because you believe that it must be correct.

Please don't resort to word games in support of your beliefs.

 

[cladking]

He has no duty to produce that for you on your demand. Find it yourself.

This is pathetic. You don't need to make an argument or to address mine because you're already right and can't get any righter.

Did it even occur to you that even if I'm mostly wrong I could be right in part?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did it never occur to you that as all the species are slowly evolving through survival of the fittest some species that was nearly wiped out suddenly underwent change?

Homo omnisciencis is a wondrous species. Every one ever born knew everything. No matter that no two Catholics and no two scientists have the same beliefs and models but they each know everything. No matter you can't even establish communication or argue points because you already have every answer.

 

[cladking]

I still can't believe anyone would even say that scientists can predict which individuals will live because they have have invented a "survivability quotient" to apply to each@!!! Just incredible! Fitness exists because someone claims they can predict the fastest rabbit or the stupidest fox.

The future is unpredictable which all by itself lays waste to the concept of "survival of the fittest".

 

[cladking]

The future is unpredictable which all by itself lays waste to the concept of "survival of the fittest".

"B" follows "A" therefore I can always predict the future. Since I can predict the future it follows that if "B" follows "A" and "B" still exists then it came into existence as a result of following "A". "B" is the existing form of "A".

Our powers of induction are absolute. We just keep going and if we have a scientific bent then we arrive at the point we began just as if we have a religious bent.

How can smart educated people not see that defining terms in such a manner leads straight to the assumptions? How can they not see that any effects of "natural selection" if such a thing were real would tend to push the genome in a random walk? Now if someone believes in Evolution they should say that the random walk is the change in species but nobody is arguing for Evolution; they are lecturing to the heretics, ignorant, and fools.

 

[gnostic]

Birds are dinosaurs, because it simply happened to be the case that we happen to classify them as such .

Originally the word dinosaur was a flexible word used to describe all those ancient reptiles that appear in movie Jurassic Park, which included T-Rex, triceratops, pterodactyls, Pleasioraurus etc. ……….. but them (within the year 2,000 I think) someone decided to change the definition of dinosaurs (ruin our childhood) in to something that includes modern birds like chickens and excludes cool animals like pterodactyls………… but this are just words and definitions, this is just the way we happen to classify animals ……..

Jurassic Park mov did change the definition of dinosaur, Leroy.

you clearly don’t know the history.


The whole dinosaur-bird connection actually began to the time contemporary to Charles Darwin.

While Richard Owen (1804 - 1892) was the one who coined the word "dinosaur" in 1842 that means "terrible lizards", he wasn't the first to scientifically investigate dinosaur fossils; that was Gideon Mantell (1790 - 1852), whose wife (Mary Ann Mantell, a geologist) discovered the fossil (1822) that was later identified as the ichthyosaur. Referring to dinosaurs to “lizard” (as Owen did) isn’t accurate, because not all reptiles were lizards.

It was Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895), who first recognised that the birds have evolved from the smaller dinosaurs that we today, referred to as "avian dinosaurs", as opposed to another groups of "non-avian dinosaurs". He wrote extensively on the origin of birds, particularly examining the Archaeopteryx. Today, biologists and paleontologists don't think birds were direct descendants of Archaeopteryx, as they found avian dinosaurs to be the most likely candidates for the origin of the birds.

Anyway, lizards and snakes, both belonging to order Squamata, were to descendants of the reptile group - the superorder Lepidosauria.

Dinosaurs belonged to the group completely separate from the Lepidosauria, the clade of Reptilia - the Archosauria.

Archosauria also include crocodiles.

Since, the 1970s, paleontologists & biologists have confirmed Huxley’s findings in regards to the dinosaur-bird connection, about a couple of decades prior to the 1st Jurassic Park film (1993).

So, the JP movies didn’t do anything new.

 

[gnostic]

I still can't believe anyone would even say that scientists can predict which individuals will live because they have have invented a "survivability quotient" to apply to each@!!!

I am not surprised that you are still using the outdated sociological concept “survival of the fittest” invented by a sociologist Herbert Spencer.

Natural Selection is the evolutionary mechanism, not “survival of the fittest”.

Modern Natural Selection don’t use “survival of the fittest” as much today as ignorant creationists, because creationists, such as yourself, haven’t had original thought.

Worse still, you are still using the Tower of Babel myth to validate your nonsensical claim of 40,000 years old metaphysical language & ancient science.

You don’t see the hypocrisy & irony of arguing against modern biology for using 19th century theory - which isn’t true, as modern theory includes modern genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, monophyletic taxonomy, etc, that have updated Natural Selection - you seemed to wanted to accept your outrageous concept biology together with the (nonexistent) 40,000 year old science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your comment was that my argument is my responsibility

No, It wasn't. I made my comment, you replied unresponsively, and I repeated it. It had nothing to do with your argument. YOU introduced that word.

I don't see how it's even possible to make the mistake you made. You took a five-word, simple, declarative sentence - "Your education is your responsibility" - and changed it to something different.

But whatever. I've gone down rabbit holes like this with you in the past whether due to malice (trolling) or some cognitive defect that impedes focus and information integrity - there is no way to tell the difference without your cooperation, which has never been forthcoming - and decline to do so again. If your answers don't address my comments either by affirming that you agree with them, or if you don't, making your falsifying counterargument, then whatever else they are, they don't matter to the discussion because they don't help resolve differences of opinion, and you shouldn't expect me to respond to them.

Focus on doing that if you want to maintain an intelligent, forward-going discussion. I liken it to a game of ping-pong. Responsive answers that either affirm or attempt to falsify, or that attempt to seek clarification, are returns. A long as this process - called dialectic - continues, progress is being made toward resolving differences of opinion. We can call this a volley, and it may be long or short.

But as soon a one player fails to return a shot, the discussion (volley) is over. The issue ends with the last, plausible, unrebutted argument and its conclusion, whether that is because one discussant relents and agrees with the other, or because one discussant doesn't know what is expected or for any other reason is unable to cooperate.

Me: Your education is your responsibility.

Responsive replies:
I agree.
OK, but I'd like some help.
Not just mine. It takes a village
Could you explain better what you mean by education

Unresponsive replies:
Your argument is your responsibility.
Your car is your responsibility.
Your rent is your responsibility.
I like cheese.
One is the loneliest number.
How about those Dodgers?

It's a matter of engaging your collocutor if you are able.

You don't need to make an argument

Yes, which is why it is pointless and counterproductive to demand answers.

The future is unpredictable which all by itself lays waste to the concept of "survival of the fittest".

That is incorrect. For starters, the future is at least partly predictable, but that's not relevant here.

Survival of the fittest is the name for the self-evident fact that individuals or groups that survive and reproduce best are the ones best adapted to do so. It's a definition, not a claim of fact that might be right or wrong. In any environment in which there is competition for scarce resources, like restaurants competing among themselves for customers - a non-biological example - some will do better than others and thrive, while others will languish and perhaps disappear.

Like I said, it is a self-evident fact that this happens, and it has been given a name. It is not necessary to predict the future any more precisely than to say that there will be winners and losers without predicting which will be which or what will give the winners the win other than vague comments such as in the case of restaurants, that the ones that combine good food, good service, good prices, good ambiance, and availability as their customers define those things best will outperform those provide less.

"B" follows "A" therefore I can always predict the future. Since I can predict the future it follows that if "B" follows "A" and "B" still exists then it came into existence as a result of following "A". "B" is the existing form of "A".

"Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.”

The problem is that there may be other causes of B than A. Consider: If Bob forgets about our lunch date, he won't be there. Bob wasn't there, therefore Bob forgot. Bob was actually broken down roadside.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You guys amaze me. You know and believe whatever science says about evolution.

Yes, because it's demonstrably true.
Why you find that amazing is baffling to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would say so. But they can't figure out if the universe really came from zilch. And then they have to really figure what nothing means. Food for really fin-ite minds. Let them enjoy the plate.

You're the ones claiming the universe came from nothing.

 

[Pogo]

"B" follows "A" therefore I can always predict the future. Since I can predict the future it follows that if "B" follows "A" and "B" still exists then it came into existence as a result of following "A". "B" is the existing form of "A".

Our powers of induction are absolute. We just keep going and if we have a scientific bent then we arrive at the point we began just as if we have a religious bent.

How can smart educated people not see that defining terms in such a manner leads straight to the assumptions? How can they not see that any effects of "natural selection" if such a thing were real would tend to push the genome in a random walk? Now if someone believes in Evolution they should say that the random walk is the change in species but nobody is arguing for Evolution; they are lecturing to the heretics, ignorant, and fools.

Smart educated people and even most not so smart ones know for starters that evolutionary fitness is a population attribute and is not predictable or even calculable at the individual level.

That is because we also know that evolution is a random walk with for example 120 steps since our parents in each of us. Selection acts on us as we stroll toward reproduction and our children's walk.

Yes we are lecturing to the ignorant and to the fools, furthermore the concept of heresy does not apply to evolution or the theory that describes it.

 

[gnostic]

If your point is that humans will never evolved “back” to become the *same* ancestral fish that we used to be 500M years ago………….I agree………if your point is that we will never recover the exact same gills (same genes) that we lost 400My ago I agree

My point is that through convergent evolution and given enough time selective pressure and luck our descendants could evolve in to creatures with something like a gill scales and other traits that we commonly associate with fish ……….. this is not supposed to be controversial, there is no hidden trick nor hidden agenda………..I am just repeating what we all learned in school when we were 12 years old

From the older extinct crocodile species, 80 million years ago, the fossils showed that their anatomy haven’t changed as much with the extant modern crocodile species. So neither the extinct species, nor modern & extant species, show evidence that these crocodiles possessed gills.

The oldest known extinct cetaceans, the Archaeoceti (paraphyletic group) about 56 million years ago, didn’t have gills, nor do any of the modern species of whales or dolphins.

So if neither (aquatic) reptiles, nor (aquatic) mammal, haven’t grown gills in their respective tens of millions of years, why would you think they will in another tens of millions years in the future?

You are still making claims of future possibilities that haven’t happened. You are still playing the game of what-if, where you are only making speculative assumptions. Assumptions that cannot be verified are merely claims, not evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Why would they predic to find tikalik in in 375 million year old layers if we know that tetrapods evolved long before that ?

Cite your sources, please?

In any case, you are wrong.

The earliest true tetrapods were the extinct groups of amphibians, that appeared around 330 to 350 million years ago (Early Carboniferous).

The earliest amniotes around 317 million years ago (Late Carboniferous). The two clades of Amniota are -

• Sauropsida, ancestor to all reptiles (extinct & extant)
• Synapsida, ancestor to the extinct & extant mammals, as well as the extinct mammal-like families.

I don’t where you get that the tetrapods predated the Tiktaalik…you’re incorrect with your claim.

Tiktaalik were “tetrapod-like” fishes. The later tetrapod-like fishes, the Acanthostega, and later Ichthyostega, were more tetrapod-like than the Tiktaalik.