Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

 

[nPeace]

There is also the argument that the DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, the geographic column, etc, is solid evidence for the theory. What do we find to be the truth?
One piece at a time...
Assumptions - Conflicting Data
#1

This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail – perhaps because a Pompeii-style catastrophe swamped the area in volcanic ash. The Jehol Biota is famous for its fossils of feathered dinosaurs and early birds. Their penchant for gobbling up invertebrates may have helped drive the evolution of the stick insect’s plant mimicry.


Ancient stick insect in camouflage for 126 million years: Fossil discovered in China
Scientists have recently excavated the fossilized remains of an ancient stick insect in China. The insect is a member of a newly discovered species that exhibited leaf mimicry over 126 million years ago.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period [145–66 million years ago] and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. The researchers who found the insect published their findings in the online journal PLOS ONE.

"Fossil species that can be conclusively identified as stem-relatives of stick- and leaf-insects (Phasmatodea) are extremely rare, especially for the Mesozoic era [252 to 66 million years ago]," says the study. ...

"As early as in the Early Cretaceous, some stem-Phasmatodea achieved effective leaf mimicry," the study says. "The diversification of small-sized arboreal insectivore birds and mammals might have triggered the acquisition of such primary defenses."

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period. The team found two specimens in a single layer. The first specimen was male and the second was female. The scientists also noticed something intriguing about the fossils.
...
"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.


Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
...A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler from the University of Göttingen and senior author of the study. 38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon, first author of this study from the University Wageningen.

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals. The authors revealed a New World lineage of purely North and South American species and a group of Old World origin that comprises species from Africa to New Zealand.

The biogeographic history was reconstructed by Sarah Bank, PhD student at the University of Göttingen and coauthor of the study, which resulted in further unexpected results: "The flamboyant stick insects of Madagascar, for instance, descended from a single ancestral species who colonised the island approximately 45 million years ago."

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

"Stick insects become more and more important as model organisms for evolutionary research. The new comprehensive molecular dataset won't be exhaustively analysed for quite some time and will provide exciting insights into the function of the numerous detected genes," explains Bradler with regard to future studies.

There is clearly no corroborating evidence for conclusions on the extended concept of the ToE. More to come.

 

[nPeace]

Assumptions - Mere Conjecture
Next. I will consider the assumptions in the following video.

 

[Jainarayan]

So... disproving the ToE, which btw has nothing to do with the origins of life, proves conclusively the existence of God. And the existence of God must be proven conclusively. Personal faith is invalid unless there is proof for the existence of God. Or rather, by the process of elimination, God’s existence is unquestionable if the ToE is disproved.

And if God’s existence is proven, then the Bible must be accurate, and thereby disproves the ToE.

“Seriously?”

 

[nPeace]

So... disproving the ToE, which btw has nothing to do with the origins of life, proves conclusively the existence of God. And the existence of God must be proven conclusively. Personal faith is invalid unless there is proof for the existence of God. Or rather, by the process of elimination, God’s existence is unquestionable if the ToE is disproved.

And if God’s existence is proven, then the Bible must be accurate, and thereby disproves the ToE.

“Seriously?”

View attachment 33547

What a huge assumptions. Sorry to have to tell you... It is completely wrong.
Providing an argument in support of you belief, that can demonstrate the OP's arguments to be false is what this is about.
So far you haven't done that
Maybe because you can't.
I find when evolution believers are confronted with their own data, the easiest thing they seem to do, is hide their eyes, and make statements that are basically... strawman..

You can always make another attempt.

 

[Jose Fly]

The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

Gee, Jehovah's Witness denies evolutionary common descent....who would've guessed?

FYI, nPeace has me on ignore for merely suggesting that his being a Witness influences his views on science

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

Pretty simple really. Selection is primarily driven by the environment in which the population exists. So in a cold environment, new traits that increase an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to persist and spread in the population, whereas new traits that decrease an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to be eliminated from the population. After that plays out for a period of time, you have a population that is better suited to exist in a cold climate than in a hot climate.

That's how selection generates non-random results. Again, a very simple concept.

How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?

No idea where nPeace got the idea that beneficial mutations don't exist, since we not only directly observe them, we also exploit them (domestication) and fight against them (antibiotic resistance).

I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it.

Of course scientists make assumptions. But the key is, they then go and test those assumptions.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is also the argument that the DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, the geographic column, etc, is solid evidence for the theory. What do we find to be the truth?
One piece at a time...
Assumptions - Conflicting Data
#1

This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail – perhaps because a Pompeii-style catastrophe swamped the area in volcanic ash. The Jehol Biota is famous for its fossils of feathered dinosaurs and early birds. Their penchant for gobbling up invertebrates may have helped drive the evolution of the stick insect’s plant mimicry.


Ancient stick insect in camouflage for 126 million years: Fossil discovered in China
Scientists have recently excavated the fossilized remains of an ancient stick insect in China. The insect is a member of a newly discovered species that exhibited leaf mimicry over 126 million years ago.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period [145–66 million years ago] and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. The researchers who found the insect published their findings in the online journal PLOS ONE.

"Fossil species that can be conclusively identified as stem-relatives of stick- and leaf-insects (Phasmatodea) are extremely rare, especially for the Mesozoic era [252 to 66 million years ago]," says the study. ...

"As early as in the Early Cretaceous, some stem-Phasmatodea achieved effective leaf mimicry," the study says. "The diversification of small-sized arboreal insectivore birds and mammals might have triggered the acquisition of such primary defenses."

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period. The team found two specimens in a single layer. The first specimen was male and the second was female. The scientists also noticed something intriguing about the fossils.
...
"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.


Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
...A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler from the University of Göttingen and senior author of the study. 38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon, first author of this study from the University Wageningen.

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals. The authors revealed a New World lineage of purely North and South American species and a group of Old World origin that comprises species from Africa to New Zealand.

The biogeographic history was reconstructed by Sarah Bank, PhD student at the University of Göttingen and coauthor of the study, which resulted in further unexpected results: "The flamboyant stick insects of Madagascar, for instance, descended from a single ancestral species who colonised the island approximately 45 million years ago."

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

"Stick insects become more and more important as model organisms for evolutionary research. The new comprehensive molecular dataset won't be exhaustively analysed for quite some time and will provide exciting insights into the function of the numerous detected genes," explains Bradler with regard to future studies.

There is clearly no corroborating evidence for conclusions on the extended concept of the ToE. More to come.

Um......can anyone make any sense out of this post? How in the world does the copied text lead to nPeace's conclusion at the end?

 

[Jainarayan]

What a huge assumptions. Sorry to have to tell you... It is completely wrong.
Providing an argument in support of you belief, that can demonstrate the OP's arguments to be false is what this is about.
So far you haven't done that
Maybe because you can't.
I find when evolution believers are confronted with their own data, the easiest thing they seem to do, is hide their eyes, and make statements that are basically... strawman..

You can always make another attempt.

You completely missed the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is rather pointless to debate a strawman set up by a person that does not even understand the concept of evidence and is too afraid to learn.

 

[shunyadragon]

What a huge assumptions. Sorry to have to tell you... It is completely wrong.
Providing an argument in support of you belief, that can demonstrate the OP's arguments to be false is what this is about.
So far you haven't done that
Maybe because you can't.
I find when evolution believers are confronted with their own data, the easiest thing they seem to do, is hide their eyes, and make statements that are basically... strawman..

You can always make another attempt.

Telling people and science wrong from the perspective of a religious agenda, selective incomplete misrepresentation of the evidence, and a total lack of knowledge of the science involved. Hardly an argument worth responding to.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

The fact that the narrator said these things does not mean that is what intelligent understanding of evolution is really about. The narrator is using language, as we humans so often do, to include "motive," and of course, there is no motive at all in natural selection.

1. Nature doesn't "carefully decide" anything. Traits that produce successful offspring are likely to continue. (Successful offspring are those that survive long enough to also produce offspring).
2. Positive changes don't add up. Look back to point 1 -- if more offspring successful are produced AND if that new trait is passed on to those offspring, then that trait will very soon be prevalent. This is obvious because the next generation will contain, on a percentage basis, more of the new trait than without, and each succeeding generation will multiply that effect.
3. Some negative traits produce offspring that are simply not viable. Not surviving means not having offspring to pass on. Traits that are "negative," in the sense of producing fewer successful offspring, will very soon be very rare. Again obvious using the same reasoning as point 2, in reverse.

In other words, don't let the language of narrators lead you into misunderstanding what the science actually says. Narrators, after all, are very rarely true scientists.

 

[nPeace]

Gee, Jehovah's Witness denies evolutionary common descent....who would've guessed?

FYI, nPeace has me on ignore for merely suggesting that his being a Witness influences his views on science

I realize there is nothing that can be done to stop you from continuing with your goal. So if the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses" is stuck on your lips, maybe it's because you love them so much, and mentioning them gives you peace.

Pretty simple really. Selection is primarily driven by the environment in which the population exists. So in a cold environment, new traits that increase an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to persist and spread in the population, whereas new traits that decrease an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to be eliminated from the population. After that plays out for a period of time, you have a population that is better suited to exist in a cold climate than in a hot climate.

That's how selection generates non-random results. Again, a very simple concept.

Thanks. I hear you. The explanation is repeated thousands of times.
Now can you put that in the concept as explained in the article...
Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity.
variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection

No idea where nPeace got the idea that beneficial mutations don't exist, since we not only directly observe them, we also exploit them (domestication) and fight against them (antibiotic resistance).

That was not talking about beneficial mutations.
Read it again, and you will see... hopefully.

Of course scientists make assumptions. But the key is, they then go and test those assumptions.

Wow. I am not talking about a hypothesis.
That's different to testing assumptions and then calling the assumptions facts.
Since when is an assumption a stated fact that should be taught to classrooms of young people, as such?

 

[nPeace]

Um......can anyone make any sense out of this post? How in the world does the copied text lead to nPeace's conclusion at the end?

I don't mind explaining.
According to scientists, the fossil record, and geologic column says, the stick insect with it's camouflage ability, evolved during the time of the dinosaur, before flying birds - 126 million years ago.
According to scientists,"Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages,"
Thus... The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

Seems there is a conflict with the data, but this is only one of many examples. In other examples, including the best example used for transitional fossil, DNA comparison conflicts with fossil evidence.

 

[nPeace]

You completely missed the point.

I don't think so, but if you believe I did, how much would it take, to make the point clearer? Are you not suggesting basically, that the OP is attacking the ToE, as though it will somehow make an argument for a creator God?
I'm saying, no, that is not the case. What did I miss?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think so, but if you believe I did, how much would it take, to make the point clearer? Are you not suggesting basically, that the OP is attacking the ToE, as though it will somehow make an argument for a creator God?
I'm saying, no, that is not the case. What did I miss?

Yes, your OP is attacking evolution. Nothing new. A religious agenda and a total lack of knowledge of the sciences related to evolution.

 

[nPeace]

The fact that the narrator said these things does not mean that is what intelligent understanding of evolution is really about. The narrator is using language, as we humans so often do, to include "motive," and of course, there is no motive at all in natural selection.

1. Nature doesn't "carefully decide" anything. Traits that produce successful offspring are likely to continue. (Successful offspring are those that survive long enough to also produce offspring).

Traits that produce successful offspring?
You see right there. Your language seems no different to his.
"Traits" are passed on through heredity. They vary - good, bad, ugly.
You are only causing me to repeat...
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

2. Positive changes don't add up. Look back to point 1 -- if more offspring successful are produced AND if that new trait is passed on to those offspring, then that trait will very soon be prevalent. This is obvious because the next generation will contain, on a percentage basis, more of the new trait than without, and each succeeding generation will multiply that effect.

Remember, the cabbage for example was selected by the farmer, because it did well, and it had the features he wanted.
Left to reproduce, that cabbage will not now only produce bigger, better, best.
The good, bad, and ugly, will be part of the process.
The farmer, however, is there to again select the best, and discard the rest.
With natural selection, it doesn't care about the imperfections. It's a mindless concept.
So while there are positives, there are negatives also, and some of those negatives do stick around. We have many examples, don't we?

3. Some negative traits produce offspring that are simply not viable. Not surviving means not having offspring to pass on. Traits that are "negative," in the sense of producing fewer successful offspring, will very soon be very rare. Again obvious using the same reasoning as point 2, in reverse.

This of course happen in some cases, I agree.
However, I get the impression that, for some persons, it is applied in every case, and to every thing... like a wave of a magic wand.

In other words, don't let the language of narrators lead you into misunderstanding what the science actually says. Narrators, after all, are very rarely true scientists.

I have my ideas. It's not really the narrator's fault.
I'm not getting the natural selection concept to work as it appears to be magical in some areas... Not all. Some.

 

[Father Heathen]

This garbage was thoroughly refuted the first ten thousand times it was copied and pasted here, so what makes you think this round of mindless spam would be any different? You can't alter reality by denying it.
By the way, willful ignorance is a form of dishonesty. Dishonesty is a sin. Sounds like someone is bound for eternal damnation. Uh, oh.

 

[shunyadragon]

This garbage was thoroughly refuted the first ten thousand times it was copied and pasted here, so what makes you think this round of mindless spam would be any different? You can't alter reality by denying it.
By the way, willful ignorance is a form of dishonesty. Dishonesty is a sin. Sounds like someone is bound for eternal damnation. Uh, oh.

The wooden nose is getting longer.

 

[ecco]

"All life descended from one universal common ancestor"

Which college level, or above, textbook makes that claim?

 

[nPeace]

On the video - #1

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.

Wow. How can one miss this transition... The blow hole smoothly transitions upward, while the snout contracts and expands.
Look at the eyes. What a match.

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.