Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

No, cultural evolution in humans has mostly disconnected from genetics. There may be a small component, but it isn't strong if it is there.

But the point was the analogy: small changes accumulating over time leading to large changes with no distinct boundaries.



What is the line between French and Latin? Or between Old English and modern English?

This is the point of the analogy: that small changes in populations over time lead to large changes with no clear boundaries.

So, the question isn't what is the predecessor of humans, but what *are* the predecessors of humans. Between any predecessor and humans there will be other predecessors. There is no 'jump'.

So, we can talk about human predecessors and their relatives (evolution branches and isn't a direct line).



And, again, LCA of humans *and what other species*? The Latest Common Ancestor of humans and chimps will be different than the Latest Common Ancestor of humans and, say, cats. And that will be different than the Latest Common Ancestor between humans and robins.

The LCA of humans and chimps lived a few million years ago (around 8 million, if I recall correctly). The LCA of humans and cats would have been much farther back (I don't know when the primate and carnivore lines separated). And that between humans and birds further back than that (mammals split from reptiles before dinosaurs existed).

I understand the point of the analogy of language changes, but it's not the same thing as biologic evolution, that without the use of genetic engineering by humans. It's obvious now to me now that scientists say one thing based on what they view as evidence fitting into a theory.
I'm not saying it's impossible for the brain cells to change in accordance with the body system (inner responses) and stimuli, but that is not like mutations from plants to animals. I'd have to look at the scientifically determined lineages from the oldest organisms to the newest ones.
Thinking about this I find it interesting that the different dispositions of the twin boys in the Bible (Jacob and Esau) was seen by divine knowledge as they were developing in Rachel's womb. (Genesis 25.) So it seems that even twins may have different temperaments despite their very close genetics.
Music has changed from the 16th century to today. That is not evolution in the same sense of biological/chemical evolution. Since chimps and humans are so close genetically, not like twins, however, I find it amazing that (yes, I know, the classic creationist argument coming up) chimps are not seen to be evolving. And that God said, "Let us make man in our image." So that percent of dna difference between chimpanzees and humans may make all the difference in the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's just it. Rabbits are so smart that they no to not reveal what they are really capable of. They hide behind the illusion of "Oh just look at the cute little bunny"

Uh huh.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you understand that over very long periods of time all living things change, both genetically and in appearance? The fish of the Devonian period were very different from modern fish; if you could compare a modern mackerel, for example, with its Devonian ancestor, all you could say would be that they were both fish, in the same way that a human and a kangaroo are both mammals.

According to Fish - Wikipedia, 'There are almost 28,000 known extant species of fish', including 26,000 species of teleost fishes, as opposed to 6,495 species of mammals - Mammal - Wikipedia and between 190 and 448 species of primates - Primate - Wikipedia .

What do you think? Do you think that all those 28,000 species of fish and 26,000 species of teleost were created separately?
Alternatively, are you willing to accept that eels, herring and catfish are descended from a common ancestor but draw the line at thinking that these diverse forms of fish could share ancestors with salamanders and newts? And if you accept that eels, herrings and catfish are descended from a common ancestor, why do you object to the idea that the same is true of humans and chimpanzees?

I believe that God made the various animals as the Bible says, according to their kinds. That means that fish are not cats, and humans are not chimpanzees.
On another subject, but somewhat similar, I've been looking a little (not too much time) into Einstein's theories, also what is the makeup of an atom. And light. I find it impossible to believe light, atoms, gravity, came about without a Creator. (And that's it.)

 

[Audie]

Who are you so wise in the ways of rabbits?

You have nailed down the main reason I chose this avatar. I noticed that people responded more vigorously to posters with aggressive looking avatars. I thought this might be more relaxing.

Relax, I be a rabbit.

Ye rabbits are a timid folk
Whose weakness is their strength
To shun a gun a bun will run
To almost any length.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, I did a little more reading into this. I realize and understand that different species (is it? the proper name?) within the dog population (not sure what to call the dog bundle in a scientific term, I'll have to look and see what genus and species are) can develop, but this is because of the inherent chemical and biologic processes enabled by their makeup. To me this is not evolution

The fact is that if evolutionary processes didn't exit, then we wouldn't be able too breed a wolf into st bernards and chiuwawa's.

It's not evolution, only in the sense that it wasn't natural. A LOT of dog breeds wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. There are even some that can't even reproduce naturally.

What such breeding shows, is how fast physiology can be changed and adapted by changing selection parameters.

In nature, it's the environment that controls the selection pressures. In breeding program's, it's whatever the breeder is trying to accomplish.

Fruits filled with disgusting black seeds isn't tasty to eat, eventhough the "flesh" in between is yummy. So they breed for seedless fruit. I think it's quite obvious how seedless fruit wouldn't evolve in nature.

So the only real difference is the selection process.

No, I disagree that there is a chiuwawa "hiding" in the genetics of a wolf. That makes no sense.

I submit that "to you", this is not evolution, quite simply because you are hellbend on your belief that evolution must be wrong. You, or rather: your beliefs, can't handle the idea that species originated by accumulated biological change to ancestral species.

Sure, the different dog breeds aren't really new species, in the strict sense of the word. But that wasn't my point at all.

If someone says, for instance, that dachshunds evolved from whatever they were bred from, that is not the evolution type thing I am talking about.

Then what "evolution type thing", would you accept as an example of evolutionary processes in action?

Not sure if dachshunds can breed with longer-legged dogs and have offspring that lose the short legged characteristics, but I read somewhere that the genes to make longer legs are lost, not sure how or if that works.

Doesn't really matter to the point.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the point of the analogy of language changes, but it's not the same thing as biologic evolution, that without the use of genetic engineering by humans. It's obvious now to me now that scientists say one thing based on what they view as evidence fitting into a theory.

Nobody claimed it to be the same thing. But it shows how small changes accumulating over time can lead to large changes with no clear line of demarcation.

I'm not saying it's impossible for the brain cells to change in accordance with the body system (inner responses) and stimuli, but that is not like mutations from plants to animals. I'd have to look at the scientifically determined lineages from the oldest organisms to the newest ones.

Huh? Brain cells were not changing genetically. And that isn't the point.

Thinking about this I find it interesting that the different dispositions of the twin boys in the Bible (Jacob and Esau) was seen by divine knowledge as they were developing in Rachel's womb. (Genesis 25.) So it seems that even twins may have different temperaments despite their very close genetics.
Music has changed from the 16th century to today. That is not evolution in the same sense of biological/chemical evolution. Since chimps and humans are so close genetically, not like twins, however, I find it amazing that (yes, I know, the classic creationist argument coming up) chimps are not seen to be evolving.

And once again, chimps *are* evolving. ALL species are evolving in this sense: they change gradually over the course of generations. Some, like humans and chimps change quite rapidly. Others change more slowly.

And that God said, "Let us make man in our image." So that percent of dna difference between chimpanzees and humans may make all the difference in the world.

Yes, that change is significant. The point is that chimps and humans have a common genetic history. Both species are evolved from a previous species.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe that God made the various animals as the Bible says, according to their kinds. That means that fish are not cats, and humans are not chimpanzees.

Fish are not cats. Humans are not chimps. But they do have common ancestors.

Humans, for example, *are* vertebrates. We have a backbone. We are placental mammals: our young are born live after being carried in a uterus with a placenta, we have hair, etc.

We are also primates: we share the defining characteristics of being primates.

On another subject, but somewhat similar, I've been looking a little (not too much time) into Einstein's theories, also what is the makeup of an atom. And light. I find it impossible to believe light, atoms, gravity, came about without a Creator. (And that's it.)

OK, so you have an inability to believe. How much do you really understand about the matter?

What makes them so unusual that they cannot 'come about' through natural processes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have seen the posts and links declaring nàtural selection. I don't believe that birds, fish and gorillas, for example developed by natural selection from bacteria or unicells over billions of years. I see no proof of that, even with timetables. I don't see that timetables prove natural selection. I hope we're not going into a discussion of no proof about anything scientifically speaking, of course. I see where many scientists get their ideas about that but I don't believe that lions, gorillas, fish, plants, came about by natural selection. I will try to learn more about genuses or kinds and species.

You forgot to answer his question.

How do you think artificial selection works? And then contrast it to natural selection, which you apparantly think does not work?

So just to clear some stuff up, just what do you think "selection" is?

 

[Bear Wild]

Ye rabbits are a timid folk
Whose weakness is their strength
To shun a gun a bun will run
To almost any length.

Clearly you have not run into the Rabbit of Caerbannog!

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that selective breeding changes characteristics of an animal such as the dog.

Good. Now ask your self how that is possible.

What has happened is that humans noticed variations in the population and selected some to breed to encourage certain aspects (behavior, appearance, etc).

Now, what happens to a population when the environment changes? Does that change *also* select for certain behaviors and abilities? It may take more generations, but doesn't the simple fact that some characteristics make it more likely that breeding will happen, make it more likely the next generation will have those properties? And doesn't that mean the characteristics of the population will change over time?

The article on dachshunds brings to mind some sad eventualities as they were (are) bred. https://dachshundjournal.com/dachshunds-long-bodies/ But bred they are, often to their detriment.

Well, because we are giving an advantage to the characteristics we like. In the same way, an environment gives an advantage to those that can survive in that environment.

In another way, to create a bomb from chemicals is not natural selection. It is made and designed by man using -- "natural elements." It is also not evolution.

Nobody said it is. We don't breed explosives. We don't choose which of a family of bombs to breed for a next generation.

In the case of dachshunds I am not sure if they have lost the genes that allowed their predecessors to have longer legs.

My guess is that it isn't a loss, but a change in the control proteins for forming legs.

 

[Polymath257]

@YoursTrue, once again, what sort of thing is classified as evolution for you? I'm not saying to give a real-life example (since you don't believe it happens), but what sort of thing would be an example if you saw it?

You seem to think that breeding dogs is not evolution. Why not? Is it simply because humans are doing the selection rather than the environment?

Or do you imagine evolution to require larger changes? or faster ones?

Give an example of what you think would be an example of evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not.

How many different forms of 'fish' are there?

Do you think that no fish are able to be on land? Or that no fish can breath air? Have you ever heard of a mudskipper? You might want to look them up.

Here's another question: if you go back 60 million years, NONE of the mammal species alive today existed then. And yet they all exist today. What do you think happened in between?

Or go back 30 million years. There were species we would now classify as primates. But none of the modern species existed then. Some were similar, though.

Go back 10 million years. Many of the species then looked similar to modern species, but even still, they were not the same. There were many different primates, but no chimps, gorillas, or orangutans.

And today, we have all of these species that did not exist in the past.

Where do you think they came from? Why are the modern species similar, but still different than those in the past? Why is it that at each period of time, the species that existed looked similar, but not identical to species both before and after?

What do *you* think happened?

Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.

And yet the tadpole and the frog are the same species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Naturally you'd have to believe that somehow the many couples produced gorillas, and/or eventually human beings.

The "somehow" is not some mystery. It's very well understood. It's called evolution. The theory literally is a well tested explanation of the process by which this happens.

Otherwise it would take only two to tango, as the saying goes. Yet it takes two to tango in the human population, nothing other than humans are yet produced, are they?

Huh?
Sounds like your ignorance of the process that you are hellbend on arguing against, is showing its face again.

What you say makes no sense.
It takes many generations of many breeding pairs, because that's how evolution works.
Simple as that.

In other words, if I understand you correctly, there is no definite, distinct evidence of transference of form by genetic means since it is so blurred.

You just changed all the language in there, which is dishonest.
No, there is VERY MUCH evidence that lines between species get blurred as you "wind back" and approach the common ancestral species. The closer related the species (where "close" means a younger common ancestor), the less difference there will be between them.

For the exact same reason, your genetics will have far less difference with the genetics of your siblings, then with some random person.

OK, well, humans according to evidence, have only begun to write (something which I find fantastic) only about 5,000 years ago or so. Not long, long ago.

So? What does that have to do with biological evolution?

And, of course, that is handily deposited by evolutionists as necessary transactions. (I don't believe that, as if that was why writing was developed within the past several thousand years.)

There are a lot of reasons why writing was developed. Keeping track of business transaction surely is one. Keeping track of private property and common storage another. Documenting events and knowledge yet another. This is an interesting topic, but it has nothing to do with the topic of biological evolution.

But bobobos gave incremental birth to?? Or is it the missing CLA that gave birth to humans?

Dude...
Seriously, inform yourself how evolution works.
Familiarize yourself with the concepts of gradualism and how that works through the accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

There is a very good analogy that illustrates these concepts: language.

You are aware of how roman languages were derived overtime from the ancestral language Latin, right? Roman languages being french, italian, portugese and spanish.
Now, really think about this before smacking that reply button...

Do you think that one day, a latin speaking parent raised a spanish speaking child?
Wouldn't you agree to the idea that every child that was ever raised, spoke the same language as the parents that raised said child?

And YET: over the course of merely 2000 years, latin gradually changed into spanish, italian, french and protugese. These new languages are so vastly different that a spanish person can not have a decent conversation with a french person. In analogy to evolution, you could call them new species.

In biological speciation, pretty much the same thing happens.
Every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parents. It was also very slightly different (genetic variation / mutation). These micro difference accumulate over generations.

And that's how, over time, a new language / species is born.

You may say that is natural selection evolution

No, it's an example of how gradual change works, through accumulation of micro-change over time.
Every newborn grew up speaking the language of its parents.
Just like every newborn was of the same species as its parents.

Yet, latin became spanish and french.
Just like some primate species became chimps and humans.

The *evolution* of language is an entirely different idea

Not really, actually. Not in principle at least.
Every new generation adds some micro change to it. Some new words are invented. Some old words fall out of use. Some existing words change meaning. Other existing words change a bit in pronounciation.
At first, they are like different dialects of the first language. Over time, they become so different that they are simply called different languages. Over time, latin becomes spanish and french.

Just like over time, a primate species becomes chimps and humans.

It's the gradual process speciation.

One might say that democracy evolved and is evolving, and one might argue that it is somehow natural selection.

Sounds like you completely missed the point of the language analogy.
I hope it is better explained in this post.

But that is not how *I* see biological natural selection of evolution. The word 'evolve' can mean things like society evolving, such as from kings with absolute power to other forms of government. Perhaps social scientists would say that is natural biologic selection, but that's like saying paper magazines evolved from writings on papyrus. I hope we don't have to discuss that, because I am not talking about social evolution as far as that goes. If you're going that way, here's where I stop.

Not at all going that way.
I'm talking about how the gradual accumulation of micro-changes will inevitably result in big changes.

Oh, I see if I am understanding your correctly, that you are likening it to that. I do not.

To confronting?

What it proves to me is that men can often use elements as they wish.

No, we can not use them "as we wish".
We can't turn dogs into fish for example. Nore can't we make them evolve plastic parts. Nore can we make pigs fly.

We can only steer the selection process.
What we do in breeding programs is take existing natural evolutionary processes and use those to breed for things other then mere survival and reproduction.

Natural selection breeds for survival and reproductive success.
A breeding program breeds for "longer hair" or "shorter nose" or "bigger fruit with less seeds" or "more fur, even to the point that the animal is tripping over it"

Humans didn't "create" the chiuwawa. Instead, humans took control over the selection process in the evolutionary path of a certain group of dogs and steered its evolution in direction by breeding for specific traits. And the chiuwawa is just the end result of that.

It also proves that dead bodies deteriorate into slime, can be eaten by animals, and turn by biological processes to different parts of chemistry.

Huh? Making random comments again? No idea what this has to do with anything, nore what you are talking about.

That is not what I mean by evolution

Do you even know yourself what you mean by "evolution"?

Why don't you tell us what you mean by "evolution"?
What would you consider to be "evolution"?
What would we have to show you, for you to acknowledge it as an example of evolution?

I'm betting 100 bucks that what you'll describe, would actually falsify evolution instead. Exposing your ignorance once again.

So what I think it comes down to, perhaps, is what you think evolution is, and what I think evolution is. And possibly the two will never meet.

Because you refuse to inform yourself.

Sounds like you are flat out admitting that you're really just arguing a strawman version of evolution theory............


Seriously though.... if you say "evolution doesn't occur" and I say that it does... and you then say that what YOU mean by evolution probably isn't what I mean by evolution.... Then what's the point of discussing anything?

Don't you think it would be a good idea to first agree on the process under discussion before continuing (or even starting) the discussion?

WHAT are you arguing against???

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you mean that there is no firm line between human and pre-human.

The same that is meant when it is said that there is no firm line seperating spanish from latin.
No latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child.

Every child ever raised, spoke the language of its parents.
Every generation of a population, spoke the same language as its peers in that population.

And yet, latin turned into french and spanish.

If you go back in time generation by generation, there is no generation where you could say "HERE, before THIS generation, the spoke latin and AFTER this generation, they spoke french".

It just doesn't work like that.

Seperation between human and pre-human is the exact same.

There isn't? OK, let's discuss what is the predecessor to humans, shall we?

I think it's best to wait with that conversation until you fully comprehend what is explained above.
Unless you comprehend the nature of gradualism, any discssion about humanity's non-human ancestors, is just going to confuse you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand the point of the analogy of language changes, but it's not the same thing as biologic evolution, that without the use of genetic engineering by humans. It's obvious now to me now that scientists say one thing based on what they view as evidence fitting into a theory.
I'm not saying it's impossible for the brain cells to change in accordance with the body system (inner responses) and stimuli, but that is not like mutations from plants to animals. I'd have to look at the scientifically determined lineages from the oldest organisms to the newest ones.
Thinking about this I find it interesting that the different dispositions of the twin boys in the Bible (Jacob and Esau) was seen by divine knowledge as they were developing in Rachel's womb. (Genesis 25.) So it seems that even twins may have different temperaments despite their very close genetics.
Music has changed from the 16th century to today. That is not evolution in the same sense of biological/chemical evolution. Since chimps and humans are so close genetically, not like twins, however, I find it amazing that (yes, I know, the classic creationist argument coming up) chimps are not seen to be evolving. And that God said, "Let us make man in our image." So that percent of dna difference between chimpanzees and humans may make all the difference in the world.

It's like you're going out of your way to not get the point of the language analogy.......

I brought it up for a reason, as it seems to me that it lies at the very heart of the your misunderstanding of evolution theory. Most creationists seem to have trouble with that aspect.

That aspect being the inevitable result and nature of gradualism and accumulation of micro-changes

 

[YoursTrue]

The fact is that if evolutionary processes didn't exit, then we wouldn't be able too breed a wolf into st bernards and chiuwawa's.

It's not evolution, only in the sense that it wasn't natural. A LOT of dog breeds wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. There are even some that can't even reproduce naturally.

What such breeding shows, is how fast physiology can be changed and adapted by changing selection parameters.

In nature, it's the environment that controls the selection pressures. In breeding program's, it's whatever the breeder is trying to accomplish.

Fruits filled with disgusting black seeds isn't tasty to eat, eventhough the "flesh" in between is yummy. So they breed for seedless fruit. I think it's quite obvious how seedless fruit wouldn't evolve in nature.

So the only real difference is the selection process.

No, I disagree that there is a chiuwawa "hiding" in the genetics of a wolf. That makes no sense.

Did I say there was?

I submit that "to you", this is not evolution, quite simply because you are hellbend on your belief that evolution must be wrong. You, or rather: your beliefs, can't handle the idea that species originated by accumulated biological change to ancestral species.

Sure, the different dog breeds aren't really new species, in the strict sense of the word. But that wasn't my point at all.

Then what "evolution type thing", would you accept as an example of evolutionary processes in action?

Doesn't really matter to the point.

Yes it does matter. Because breeding does not mean that lions became camels or vice versa.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's like you're going out of your way to not get the point of the language analogy.......

I brought it up for a reason, as it seems to me that it lies at the very heart of the your misunderstanding of evolution theory. Most creationists seem to have trouble with that aspect.

That aspect being the inevitable result and nature of gradualism and accumulation of micro-changes

I just heard a very well trained doctor on Sirius radio talk about the evolution of medical processes. That is not the kind of evolution I am talking about but the word is used like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's like you're going out of your way to not get the point of the language analogy.......

I brought it up for a reason, as it seems to me that it lies at the very heart of the your misunderstanding of evolution theory. Most creationists seem to have trouble with that aspect.

That aspect being the inevitable result and nature of gradualism and accumulation of micro-changes

Natural selection is not like medical treatment said to be evolving. So sorry, I do not accept the comparison.

 

[Astrophile]

I believe that God made the various animals as the Bible says, according to their kinds. That means that fish are not cats, and humans are not chimpanzees.

Nobody is saying that fish are cats or that humans are chimpanzees; all that is being said is that cats and fish share a common ancestor that lived about 440-460 million years ago, and that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived about 8 million years ago. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support these claims, if you are willing to try to understand it, and I do not see why some people find our shared ancestry with other primates so offensive. Perhaps you would like to explain this to me.

By the way, do you think that catfish belong to a different kind from minnows?

 

[McBell]

Nobody is saying that fish are cats or that humans are chimpanzees; all that is being said is that cats and fish share a common ancestor that lived about 440-460 million years ago, and that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived about 8 million years ago. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support these claims, if you are willing to try to understand it, and I do not see why some people find our shared ancestry with other primates so offensive. Perhaps you would like to explain this to me.

By the way, do you think that catfish belong to a different kind from minnows?

Everyone knows that catfish belong to same kind as dogfish and catdog and crocoduck