Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I meant that proponents of evolution determine the relationships between different animal species by examining basic anatomical resemblances, rather than through direct observation of changes, or the presence of transitional species. Consequently, their findings are merely conjectures founded on these physical likenesses.

Thank you for elucidating.

 

[YoursTrue]

Today it feels more like it's been overtaking me.

...but then we might mean different things by the word.

And perhaps application...

 

[Valjean]

Exactly.

When evolutionists compare humans to animals, they often disregard human consciousness and the traditional concept of family as it has been recognized throughout history in human societies. Even among the less developed human tribes, the notion of family persists.

Take a course in cultural anthropology, Eli. Our familiar notion of family in one amongst many, and even ours has changed over time.
Q: How does our traditional concept of family relate to evolution or animals? I'm not seeing your point.

It makes me question whether the phrase "changes in a population" aims to erase the concept of family from our minds.

No. It's not about family. It's about adaptive anatomical, physiological, psychological and behavioral changes.

Confusing contemporary ideas of "morality" with the natural progression of human populations poses a risk. Altering the moral perspective of humanity differs from accurately portraying historical human realities.

Not sure I'm following, here. What is the natural progression of human populations, and how are you relating it to contemporary ideas of morality? For that matter, what contemporary ideas of morality are we talking about?

Who's altering moral perspectives? How? Why?
How does this relate to human realities? What human realities are we talking about?

Please clarify.

A genuine sexual partnership is essential for a family to produce offspring, and only then can a human population develop.

No. Only sexual intercourse is essential to produce offspring.

Not all societies/populations have families or partnerships in the sense we're familiar with. Not all children are raised by or live with 'parents'. In fact, while a mother may be known, an actual, biological father may not be. In a society where sexual contacts are frequent, casual, promiscuous, and fleeting, an official father might be designated pro forma, or as a convenience. He may have no interaction with either the mother or child.

Societies successfully organize themselves in many different ways. The nuclear families we're familiar with are culturally unusual arrangements.

 

[Valjean]

My comparison was imaginary, illustrating the absurdity of believing that a cow and a whale are related merely because they have some shared biological traits.

You implied that biologists inferred the relationship from scant evidence or conjecture.

 

[Valjean]

I meant that proponents of evolution determine the relationships between different animal species by examining basic anatomical resemblances, rather than through direct observation of changes, or the presence of transitional species. Consequently, their findings are merely conjectures founded on these physical likenesses.

The proponents determine the relationships by a great deal more than simple anatomy. The relationships are well evidenced.

 

[Valjean]

But not because they are both "species". It's because they are each conscious. Every whale, every microbe, and they are each individuals because there are no species.

Bacteria are conscious? Did they consciously choose an antibiotic resistance mutation? Why didn't they all choose it?

There are no species; no "kinds"? You seriously don't see that organisms are arranged into identifiable groups; groups they, themselves identify with?

But there's not only one single monolithic science. There used to be but now every scientist has his own models and sees something a little different.

There are many types of science but only homo omnisciencis science REQUIRES experiment.

What you're talking about? Tell me about these other, non-experimental sciences.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. Family is even more important than tribe or clan. It is also critical to understanding change in mankind. However, I do believe change in species concerning homo omnisciencis is wholly distinct from change in every other species because we do everything based on beliefs and this includes even procreation.

Humans are also different because we have such vast knowledge compared to other species as well as instruments, devices, and processes that can be brought to bear on everything from marriage to geriatrics. Other species choose mates on acceptability and good health while we choose based on unique and individual parameters. Humans seem more to be "devolving" rather than each generation being more suited to the environment. We are becoming dim witted, gullible, and narcissistic. Greed is good, hedonism is even better. Of course with our species it is far more difficult to differentiate between innate traits and learned ones.

You're presuming that humans have a natural or proper family arrangement. They do not. We're a very culturally diverse species.
Your projecting your own cultural norm on our whole species.

 

[Valjean]

I'd mention the lack of precise definitions, lack of predictability, and further clarifications throughout the topic and other forum discussions.

Lack of precise definitions? Of what? Examples, please.
Where are you seeing lack of predictability?

Biological similarities often back many assumptions found in evolutionary theory. While a similarity doesn't always clarify a connection, within evolutionary theory, this idea appears to be the sole foundation for linking various species. Is this method grounded in science, or does it lean so heavily on subjectivity that it borders on being classified as superstitious?

Relationships are more than just conjecture. If evidence for a relationship is weak, scientists will acknowledge it, and seek more evidence. Scientific progress is built on accurate knowledge. Guesswork is an impediment, and science goes to great lengths to avoid it.
Scientists don't have an agenda or doctrine they're promoting. They follow the evidence, wherever it leads, whether they like it or not.

The term "evolution" inherently refers to gradual change. Claiming that we can observe the transformation of one species into another over just a few years is utterly absurd.

Evolution's usually gradual, but it can proceed pretty quickly in some situations.
Sometimes we do observe speciation over just a few years. I can provide examples, if you're interested. Speed of change is influenced mostly by environmental change, challenges, and generation times.

Microevolution does not serve as evidence for species evolution; instead, it highlights the inherent ability of a species to exhibit natural internal variation within its family since its inception. These variations result in the genetic diversity observed in flowers, dogs, fish, and more.

A knowledgeable evolutionist would never mistake microevolution for the evolution of species.

But these small variations accumulate with each generation, year after year. In time, the prototype can become entirely unrecognizable.
Micro changes do not suddenly stop to prevent new species from developing.

 

[Valjean]

A very interesting theory.

Now tell us how that would be demonstrated in a currently living human population.

Childless people or those whose children are grown cannot contribute to society? Grandparents can't help with child care? Unmarried people can't build, maintain, farm, or protect?
I'm childless and I worked as an RN for 40 years. Is that not a contribution to the prosperity of the population?
Our population is complex, with a division of labor. Not everyone is a breeder

 

[Valjean]

I think you've forgotten that generally life requires both a male and female progenitor.

But no new genes result. Sex mixes, it doesn't add. A child has the same number of genes as its parents; the same amount of 'information'.

Anything that can't be palpated or put under a microscope is an abstraction. A snow flake is real. The rabbit named "Bunny" is real, but "rabbits do not exist. It is a word that symbolizes Bunny, her family, and those with whom we believe she might mate. No species exist and it's impossible to step into the same river twice. These are simple facts and reductionistic science recognizes them as facts. It is relevant that they ignore these facts especially as it applies to "change in species'.

Bunny has her own unique consciousness that drives her behavior and her chances of survival and procreation. She is no more and no less selectable than every other individual of her "species".

Discussion that mixes apparent and Platonic realism isn't going to go anywhere.
Pick one.

 

[Valjean]

I think you've forgotten that generally life requires both a male and female progenitor.

But no new genes result. Sex mixes, it doesn't add. A child has the same number of genes as its parents; the same amount of 'information'.

Anything that can't be palpated or put under a microscope is an abstraction. A snow flake is real. The rabbit named "Bunny" is real, but "rabbits do not exist. It is a word that symbolizes Bunny, her family, and those with whom we believe she might mate. No species exist and it's impossible to step into the same river twice. These are simple facts and reductionistic science recognizes them as facts. It is relevant that they ignore these facts especially as it applies to "change in species'.

Bunny has her own unique consciousness that drives her behavior and her chances of survival and procreation. She is no more and no less selectable than every other individual of her "species".

Discussion that mixes apparent and Platonic realism isn't going to go anywhere.
Pick one.

 

[Valjean]

A change is a process that is observed between an original condition that is transformed into a final condition.

It is like a segment of real numbers. If we mark the number 1 as the start and 3 as the end, we must first go from 1 to 1.00001 and then to 1.0002, then to 1. 0003 and so on until we reach 3. We could find all the intermediate numbers on the number line. So the continuum (which would be the change) from 1 to 3 is supported by reality.

What evidence are those that you speak of, where from one species we go to a different species?

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Gills are gills.

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

Gills are specific structures. Wings are a more general term.
Since you think using correct terms are so important, you might want to do what you preach.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes according to a modern definition from this century (different from the original)

But the definition isn't arbitrary.
It's build from evidence. It's about listing the anatomical features all dino's have in common and then seeing birds fit those criteria.

You make it sound as if it is arbitrary. It is not. It is extremely well motivated and evidence based.
The definitions don't change because some scientists feels like changing it. It's changed because evidence necessitates it.
Science follows the evidence. Not the whims of a scientist.

.... Birds are dinosaurs... So what ? .... My point is that this just semantics

It absolutely is not about semantics. It's about evidence.

..... Scientist could have used any other word to describe birds and their ancestors

Yes, instead of dinosaur they could have used any term. The name doesn't matter.

....or could have defined dinosaur in some other way ... It is just semantics

No, they could not. The definition is derived from evidence. It's not semantics.
This is the part you seem to not get.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Did you even watch the video?

 

[leroy]

..........

Because it would require a species to jump to another branch of the evolutionary tree of life.

So what ?

A mammal could develope traits that we commonly identify and accept as "fish traits"

And this new organism would be considered a fish..... (A member of the parafiletic group that we call fish)


This is not news to you.... You obviously know all that......

You know (but pretend to disagree) that:

1 A fish is what we subjectively decided to call "fish" (unlike true clades like birds and mammals that have objetive definitions) ... There is no absolute definition of fish .. ... We call eels sharks and tuna " fish" and whales and frogs non fish because we subjectively decided it is a convenient thing to do.


2 there is nothing in the mechanism of evolution that prevents non fish to evolve traits that we call "fish traits" ..... There is nothing in the current definition of" parafiletic group" that prevents us from adding this new organism in to the " fish parafiletic group "



None of this is news to you..... You grant and accept both 1 and 2 ........... All you have is an unexplainable impulse of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing

 

[leroy]

But the definition isn't arbitrary.
It's build from evidence. It's about listing the anatomical features all dino's have in common and then seeing birds fit those criteria.

You make it sound as if it is arbitrary. It is not. It is extremely well motivated and evidence based.
The definitions don't change because some scientists feels like changing it. It's changed because evidence necessitates it.
Science follows the evidence. Not the whims of a scientist.



It absolutely is not about semantics. It's about evidence.



Yes, instead of dinosaur they could have used any term. The name doesn't matter.


No, they could not. The definition is derived from evidence. It's not semantics.
This is the part you seem to not get.

Yes it is just semantics........We decided to define dinosaur as: a group of animals with a specific evolutionary history that includes birds and trex but not petrodactils (something with a different evolutionary history by definition would not be called dinosaur)


What is do controversial about this ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it would require a species to jump to another branch of the evolutionary tree of life.

So what ?

Dude.... if your response to that is "so what", then no wonder you are keeping this ignorant argument going..............
You might want to learn the basics of evolution before trying to play with the big boys.

A mammal could develope traits that we commonly identify and accept as "fish traits"

Yeah, in the sense that my 5 year old daughter says "look daddy! BIG FISH!" when she sees a whale.

And this new organism would be considered a fish..... (A member of the parafiletic group that we call fish)

No, just like a whale is not considered a fish.

This is not news to you.... You obviously know all that......

You know (but pretend to disagree) that:

1 A fish is what we subjectively decided to call "fish" (unlike true clades like birds and mammals that have objetive definitions) ... There is no absolute definition of fish .. ... We call eels sharks and tuna " fish" and whales and frogs non fish because we subjectively decided it is a convenient thing to do.


2 there is nothing in the mechanism of evolution that prevents non fish to evolve traits that we call "fish traits" ..... There is nothing in the current definition of" parafiletic group" that prevents us from adding this new organism in to the " fish parafiletic group "



None of this is news to you..... You grant and accept both 1 and 2 ........... All you have is an unexplainable impulse of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing

You argue like a 5-year old. We've been over all this multiple times already.
No tetrapod descendants will ever be considered a fish.
In evolution, species don't jump branches.
The tetrapod branch is not considerd part of "fish" and never will be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it is just semantics........

It's not. It's cladistics. Cladistics is not semantics. It's comparative anatomy and comparative genomics.

We decided to define dinosaur as: a group of animals with a specific evolutionary history that includes birds and trex but not petrodactils (something with a different evolutionary history by definition would not be called dinosaur)

We "decided" nothing. We concluded from evidence

What is do controversial about this ?

It's not controversial. It's just wrong.

 

[wellwisher]

Take a course in cultural anthropology, Eli. Our familiar notion of family in one amongst many, and even ours has changed over time.
Q: How does our traditional concept of family relate to evolution or animals? I'm not seeing your point.

No. It's not about family. It's about adaptive anatomical, physiological, psychological and behavioral changes.

Not sure I'm following, here. What is the natural progression of human populations, and how are you relating it to contemporary ideas of morality? For that matter, what contemporary ideas of morality are we talking about?

Who's altering moral perspectives? How? Why?
How does this relate to human realities? What human realities are we talking about?

Please clarify.

No. Only sexual intercourse is essential to produce offspring.

Not all societies/populations have families or partnerships in the sense we're familiar with. Not all children are raised by or live with 'parents'. In fact, while a mother may be known, an actual, biological father may not be. In a society where sexual contacts are frequent, casual, promiscuous, and fleeting, an official father might be designated pro forma, or as a convenience. He may have no interaction with either the mother or child.

Societies successfully organize themselves in many different ways. The nuclear families we're familiar with are culturally unusual arrangements.

Family is a big part of evolution. Evolution is not just about the individual. For example, there is no more ferocious animal state in nature, than a mother animal protecting her young; her family. The protective mother will put her own life at risk, to make sure her family and offspring move forward, and be part of evolution.

The nuclear family, although diminished by Liberal Philosophy, offers the offspring the best chance, not only for survival, but for a full human experience; two parents, extended family, structure, resources, that set them up for success; future selective advantages.

Less Poverty, Less Prison, More College: What Two Parents Mean For Black and White Children

In modern culture, the State can and does act as a prosthesis, to create an illusion all are similar. However, that illusion is not natural or base on natural selection. Nature does not have a welfare state, but requires more self sufficiency. The family group has a team effect;; the team is more than the sum of its parts herds, lion prides, etc.

Evolution is about natural instinct, and not fake instinct with prosthesis support to create an illusion. The extra resources for the prosthesis, is a direct function for how inefficient it is, and why it would never be naturally selected; wastes resources. All the money involved, in this social inefficiency, is the end goal; game of middle man induction and rip off.

What would happen to nature if humans, via a hypothetical animal welfare state, played favorites? Would natural selection still apply? The answer is yes, but instead of optimized natural selection, selection would have to accept the lessor of evils.