Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Still ignoring the point of how gradualism and accumulation of micro-change inevitably adds up to big changes over time. And how that happens gradually to the point where you can say that every child ever raised, grew up to speak the language of those that raised said child. Or how ever individual ever born, was of the same species as its biological parents. And yet overtime, latin evolved into spanish and french, just like some primate evolved into humans and chimps.

Deal with the point please.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Gradualism / accumulation of micro-changes = big changes over time.

It is what it is.

If you take one step at a time, over time you'll inevitably walk for miles.
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1 = big number
Lots of small fish, make up for a big whale.
The continued accumulation of pennies, will eventually result in millions of dollars.


This is the nature of accumulation.

You're in extreme denial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, I believe I understand the scientific concept of biological gradualism regarding evolution of the plant and animal organisms

Your posts in this thread, suggest the opposite.

I can also understand that languages or societies evolve.

Do you understand HOW the languages evolve?
Do you comprehend the process by which latin turned into french and spanish?
Do you comprehend how during that process, no latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child? How ever child ever raised spoke the same language as those that raised it? How all members of that population spoke the same language as their peers? How there is no single generation where you can say "from now on, they no longer speak latin but spanish instead"?

And do you understand how the answers to those questions related to biological evolution, in terms of gradualism and accumulation of micro-change over generations?

Your posts suggest that no, you do not comprehend this.

But if you're going to compare that to biological evolution, and tell me it's like that, that's up to you.

Well, I can only try to explain it to you as clear as I can.
What you do with that intel, is upto you of course. It doesn't sound like you're going to take it in and try to understand it. Instead, you're just going to handwave it away and repeat your ignorant assertions concerning biology instead - eventhough they are addressed by these analogies.

I don't accept it as an apt comparison

You've repeatedly said this and I've repeatedly asked you "why not". I also asked you what you WOULD accept as a valid example of evolution. You never seem to answer those questions. Instead, you just repeat your ignorant assertions.

, except in the sense of, perhaps, accents changing gradually, and forming new words that another population of humans may not understand

It's exactly like biological evolution in the sense of gradualism and accumulation of micro-changes and how that inevitably results in speciation (be it a new species or a new language).

I am not discussing that now, although an interesting discussion in itself.

Then what ARE you discussing?
I'm trying to explain to you the very simple concept of gradualism and accumulation of changes and what it inevitably results in. This is an important concept to grasp if you are going to try and understand how evolution works. And your many statements and questions about evolution, demonstrate that you don't understand these concepts, or at least, don't understand how these concepts relate to biological evolution.

THAT is why I brought it up. Because you can't understand evolution, if you don't understand how gradualism and accumulation of micro-changes in a population, inevitably results in gradual speciation.

Which reminds me of what the Bible says when the language spoken by those building the tower of Babel was confused

That's a myth. It never happened.

The history of language is another rather detailed discussion.

Which isn't found in the bible.

Nore is the silly myth of babel relevant, because latin turning into french and spanish, is a process that unfolded over the last 2000 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not yet prepared to discuss what is or could be (a better term) an example of evolution biologically speaking. The finches of Darwin's study remained finches.

If the finches with turn into non-finches, evolution theory as presently understood would be falsified, refuted, debunked, false, wrong, in error, inaccurate, not correct.

See, this is why you should first LEARN what the science says, before trying to argue against it. Or for it, for that matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe that evolution is a species of apes that walks upright, uses tools, develops language, and becomes human. It's almost like saying the species did it by themselves by biologic magic.

1. what you believe, is irrelevant to the sciences

2. there's nothing magical about the gradual accumulation of micro-changes over generations, just like there was nothing magical about latin gradually turning into spanish and french.

Really a b-i-g leap from the accomplishments of bonobos and chimpanzees to those of humans

Not as big as you would like to believe, actually.

I don't accept that in any event

THERE YOU GO. You won't accept that in ANY event. ANY.
Exactly. Just like I said: you made up your mind and NOTHING will persuade you that you are wrong.

So really, trying to educate you or trying to show and explain you the evidence, is just a gigantic waste of time. This is also why you consistently refuse to answer questions like "what do you think evolution is?" and "what kind of thing would you accept as evolution?". Because to you, it doesn't matter. You have already decided that you won't accept evolution. No matter what it says, no matter the evidence, no matter even that you have no clue what it is all about.

This is nothing more or less then pure dogmatism fueled by willful ignorance.

I do believe that God made man in His image

And you believe that on faith dogmatically. And you don't care about all the evidence that show species evolved.

There are differences between animals of the various kinds

Just like there are differences between spanish and french.

And a vast difference between humans and other beings

No. We are a LOT more alike then we are different. Vastly more.

To hear the arguments against that is astounding, and I mention reading and writing as a key element of difference.

Which is not a big difference at all.

I saw a youtube of a cockatiel that literally bounced to a music beat, tapping its legs and moving its head in time to the music. Does that mean eventually the cockatiel as a species will evolve to produce offspring that are going to read and write music? I don't think so. One reason is that it has not been noted that birds of any kind, species, or sort, have learned to read and write music - ever. I hope I won't get the answer that there's not enough time to see if they do.

The denial mode continues............................

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so I did a little research on this. It is thought that dogs and cats have a common ancestor from which they descended, but of course, dogs and cats do not mate.

More specifically, the ancestor was a miacid.
Miacidae - Wikipedia

Thus dogs do not (and likely cannot) give birth to cats.

Not just likely. Definitely.

Other than being obvious, what is your point for this?

Of course, humans with blond hair can mate with humans of dark hair, and of course, it's up for grabs genetically as to what is produced, but so far they produce humans, similar to forced breeding, but not always the same. And yes, cats of sorts produce cats.

And your point?

Instead of breeding cats for only the last 3000 years, what would happen if we consistently bred them for 1 million? Do you see that the end result is very likely NOT what people today would see to be a cat?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, humans with blond hair can mate with humans of dark hair, and of course, it's up for grabs genetically as to what is produced, but so far they produce humans

Rule number one of the gradual nature of evolution:

Every individual ever born (of any and all species), was of the same species as its biological parents.

So you will NEVER encounter a human giving birth to a non-human, or even a sub-species of human.
Gradualism just doesn't work that way.


It must really suck to be so dogmatically dense that you can't even bring yourself to let that little fact sink in.....


This is why I keep going back to the language analogy. Your posts consistently show a willful ignorance about the nature of gradualism. This is why you are STILL discussing silly things like members of species X producing anything other then more members of species X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you say incredibly recent, I, too, find it astounding that reading and writing of music and other works of literature is a somewhat recent discovery.

First, it's not really a "discovery". Our ancestors didn't "discover" writing and music hidden under some rock or whatever. Instead, it developed from rather simple beginnings.

Secondly, it's not that astounding to me either, considering human social history. For the vast majority of human history, humans were nomads that lived from hunting and gathering. As humans moved around a lot, their only posessions were pretty much the things they were able to carry.

Once they settled down, for the first time in history a human could "own" more things then he could carry. This provided a need for keeping track of your posessions. And as culture and trade developed, the reasons for keeping track of things just piled on and on. Development of some notation system to keep track of all these things was really only a matter of time.

And as @Polymath257 said already, nothing in our biological makeup had to change for it. We've had the mental capacities and the fine motoric skills for writing systems for more then 100.000 years already. It's only after we switched from a nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle to settlements that grows its own crops, that a need for such developments arose. In fact if anything..., considering when homo sapiens started settling down in settlements, I'm in fact a bit surprised that writing didn't develop sooner then it did.

Yes, when I took music history it is an interesting invention. Yet the biology of humans permits them, unlike gorillas (or birds) to do this. That little percent difference. Yes, birds can bounce up and down to music, to me it demonstrates the glories, wonders, and abilities of creation. That includes whales teaching songs to their young.

Funny how when examples are given that show how your "theories" about humans and music are actually wrong, you just brush them aside and call them "wonders of creation" instead.

Humans in many societies are taught to eat with knives and forks rather than like dogs going to a bowl.

Dude.... utensils - also quite a recent development.
In fact, during medieval times, the fork was seen as something for drooling idiots who's backwards motoric skills made it difficult for them to grab food with their fingers.

I believe If humans were created as entirely different from animals, we would not know how to deal with them. Or take care of them. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, Adam and Eve were supposed to eat fruit, and it was not until Noah that the authority to eat meat was given.

Your religious dogmatism is showing again.

​

I am still interested in learning about species and kinds and the idea of common ancestors.

Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. Not after all your handwaving and complete and blatant ignoring the questions we asked you.

Your behaviour and approach is not at all consistent with who's someone interested in learning.
It's rather consistent with someone who's already made up his mind and who's not planning on changing his mind, no matter what evidence is presented.

 

[Polymath257]

When you say incredibly recent, I, too, find it astounding that reading and writing of music and other works of literature is a somewhat recent discovery. Yes, when I took music history it is an interesting invention.

To explain the development of writing, perhaps we should look at *when* it happened and under what circumstances it happened.

And, when we do, we find that it is associated with the first large complex human societies.

You see, for the vast majority of the time humans have been around, we have been hunter-gatherers and have lived in fairly small groups (less than a few hundred individuals per community). And that was the case until humans started doing agriculture: we learned how to grow plants and take care of animals instead of having to go out hunting and gathering.

After that, the size of communities started to grow because there were more stable food resources. But when the societies got large enough, it was the case that people no longer knew everyone else and some sort of record needed to be kept of work done, and who owed what to whom, etc.

And what we find is that the first writing grew out of such account keeping. We can actually see the progression in the archeological digs in the places where writing was first developed.

To summarize,

1. Reading and writing have NOTHING to do with the genetics. So they have NOTHING to do with our being a different species.

2. Reading and writing are recent because large societies are recent. And those are recent because agriculture is recent.

Now, when it comes to music, we do have some evidence that humans created musical instruments as long ago as 20,000 years (there is an ancient flute from about that time). It is likely that music was around before that, but there is no record of such. But whatever music existed was passed from generation to generation orally and it was NOT written down.

But we also know that several other species also use sound as a method of social interaction and pleasure, passing their constructs down the generations. So music, in that sense, isn't specific to humans. The *complexity* is, though.

The specific thing about humans that seems to separate us from other animals the most is our ability of abstract reasoning. Chimps and bonobos do seem to have a fair amount of this, but not nearly as much as humans (although chimpanzee number sense and memory is better than humans). We also have much more complex use and construction of tools.

 

[Audie]

I would guess that music has been around for
a very very long time. The most "primitive" of
recent groups certainly all do / did.

Proto-writing has also existed, example being that
Eskimos would carve an abstract symbol in their
harpoons etc, that would show ownership.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree that selective breeding changes characteristics of an animal such as the dog. 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. 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. In the case of dachshunds I am not sure if they have lost the genes that allowed their predecessors to have longer legs.

How about addressing the point? You tend to miss the point of these posts and then go off in some strange direction that takes you away from the point.

The point being that the reason human beings are able to selectively breed dogs (and cabbage and corn and on and on) is because evolution is a fact of life. If evolution didn't operate as described, artificial selection would not work. In artificial selection, human beings are just replacing the natural selection part of the equation with their own selection. But the processes involved are the same as those in natural selection. It's just a different thing doing the selecting. I really wish you had read the link I provided about the fox experiment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Naturally you don't see the value of the Bible. I do. But what makes you think that God did not engineer these things as He sees fit? Listen, I'm not contesting that a chick embryo is different from a rabbit embryo, and in some instances, looks somewhat similar. But I don't believe that life as we know it all came about as a result of evolutionary chemical/biological forces, sometimes explained as by natural selection. I believe that God is responsible for life as we know it. Even though I see and agree that chemical responses are necessary to continue life.

Because nobody has demonstrated that. Can you?

And I have to ask you again. If you don't understand evolution (and you clearly don't) how on earth did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Plus I see no evidence of genetic changes observable. That means that I have not seen any report of observable evidence of genetics of fish, for instance, moving to become something like a tortoise. Fossils appear or are unearthed, but this does not mean that life is simply a connection of chemical (biologic) responses or reactions without the orinator of life, let us use gravity as an example of a very powerful yet not truly understood force, greater than -- ourselves.

Have you investigated nested hierarchies yet???

 

[Audie]

Have you investigated nested hierarchies yet???

Key phrase: "I see no"

 

[Audie]

Because nobody has demonstrated that. Can you?

And I have to ask you again. If you don't understand evolution (and you clearly don't) how on earth did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

Well, to me it is not so much that nobody demonstrated
engineering, as that it is so plain to those even moderately
skilled in the art, that it is not engineered.

FTM, I wonder why it is that so many of our nominal respecters
or "god" see him a lesser one who cannot set up a universe that
runs itself and produces wonders without a need for constant
meddling and tinkering.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Nobody said it was. That post was about the language analogy.

It seems you are avoiding the point, at all costs. Why is that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, I believe I understand the scientific concept of biological gradualism regarding evolution of the plant and animal organisms. I can also understand that languages or societies evolve. But if you're going to compare that to biological evolution, and tell me it's like that, that's up to you. I don't accept it as an apt comparison, except in the sense of, perhaps, accents changing gradually, and forming new words that another population of humans may not understand. I am not discussing that now, although an interesting discussion in itself. Which reminds me of what the Bible says when the language spoken by those building the tower of Babel was confused. The history of language is another rather detailed discussion.

You don't understand evolution.
The people who understand evolution are telling you that it's an apt comparison.
Perhaps that means you should try to comprehend the point being made.

The Tower of Babel story is not how languages came to be. We have a very good understanding of how language developed (much of which has been explained to you) and it isn't that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry that I don't have time right now to go over responses, but
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT -- what is called the "saber-toothed tiger." (Or cat.)
Wikipedia says about its extinction: "Along with most of the Pleistocene megafauna, Smilodon became extinct 10,000 years ago in the Quaternary extinction event."
How do scientists know that? I'm not asking for dates. I'm asking how do they know those are the dates, and specifically so.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't understand evolution.
The people who understand evolution are telling you that it's an apt comparison.
Perhaps that means you should try to comprehend the point being made.

The Tower of Babel story is not how languages came to be. We have a very good understanding of how language developed (much of which has been explained to you) and it isn't that.

Evolution, as an illustration, from ancient farming equipment to modern machinery is not biological evolution. If you want to keep saying things like that are indeed comparable to biological evolution, that's where we part.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, let's be clear. You don't believe that is what we mean when we talk about evolution? Or do you mean that you mean that is not what you believe happened? Do you see the difference?

Because we can go into the evidence that this is what happened as long as we have our terminology right.


There are certainly big differences. But we have also found out that many we think of as huge differences are not, in reality, so different as you might think.

But, can you go from what we see in chimps and bonobos to an ape that is able to make a crude stone tool?

Can you go from an ape that is able to make a crude stone tool to one that can make a less crude stone tool?

I can philosophically, but not realistically. Since, as we know, nothing exists as far as I know, to support the idea of non-human apes (I hate to use that term) developing factories, electricity, metal forging, and the like. That seems light-years away from banging two sticks together.