Evolution My ToE

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nobody said anything about machinery. The analogy was about the evolution of language, which is a pretty spot on analogy.
You have repeatedly avoided directly addressing it. Why?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And humans didn't do any of that stuff until recently either. Through most of human history we did not do any of that.

The conclusion is that it isn't biology that determines those activities. It isn't a matter of evolution or not, but of something else. In other words, evolution is irrelevant to the differences you are pointing out.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

They *are* analogous: there are commonalities that allow us to understand both even though they are different types of things.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Well, for that particular time scale, it is because that is when the last ice age ended. Thi sis actually recent enough that carbon dating can be done on organic remains, but we also have dates from tree-rings, lake varves, etc that can help pin down the time.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't think it's offensive, in fact I never thought the concept of shared ancestry with other primates as offensive. I don't understand it, and in contrast, I believe that God, not evolution, made the heavens and the earth, Genesis explains according to their kinds.

If you choose to reject evolution because of what the Bible teaches, that is your business, not mine. However, what you cannot say is that the scientific evidence is opposed to evolution or that it supports a young earth, flood geology or the creation stories in the book of Genesis.

But I'm not sure about that. Now you're sure that cats and fish share a common ancestor that lived about 440-460 million years ago?

Reasonably sure; so far as I know, all of the scientific evidence supports that inference. If contradictory evidence is discovered I shall change my mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

You kind of did, yes. 2 posts ago, you said this:

...but this is because of the inherent chemical and biologic processes enabled by their makeup. To me this is not evolution

If that isn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you meant

I meant that there are certain chemical/biologic qualities that enable change. Just like abiogenesis, yes I know, a different subject but I don't think so exactly. But to say that "kinds" evolved, by that I mean fish morphing to horses, or something like that is not like that.
Clouds change in form and size, I wouldn't call that evolution. (Would you?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, for that particular time scale, it is because that is when the last ice age ended. Thi sis actually recent enough that carbon dating can be done on organic remains, but we also have dates from tree-rings, lake varves, etc that can help pin down the time.

"Along with most of the Pleistocene megafauna, Smilodon became extinct 10,000 years ago in the Quaternary extinction event."
So I can read that statement in publications like wikipedia, but where is the research and substative details showing that?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you choose to reject evolution because of what the Bible teaches, that is your business, not mine. However, what you cannot say is that the scientific evidence is opposed to evolution or that it supports a young earth, flood geology or the creation stories in the book of Genesis.

Well...looking recently at the lineage of certain kings and queens, notably the Hapsburg dynasty, and see that the misformation of some of their jaws is called the Hapsburg Jaw believed to have come about because of inbreeding. Is that evolution? Not the way I see evolution defined as kinds producing lions, donkeys, fish, bonobos and humans. Anyway, the last one with that horribly distended jaw infiltration by genetics couldn't even eat. I think it was Charles II of Spain. The Distinctive ‘Habsburg Jaw’ Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family’s Inbreeding | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
"The Spanish Habsburgs’ reign lasted two centuries, until the 38-year-old Charles II, a king whose manifold health woes and infertility scholars often attribute to severe inbreeding, died in 1700 with no immediate heir."
While it is obvious that genetics can pass on characteristics good and not-so-good as we define the qualities, there is proof more-or-less to show that inbreeding can bring not-so-good results. And again -- until I can see actual difference, I don't believe that humans resulted from breeding, in or otherwise, of whatever the common ancestor was.

 

[YoursTrue]

You kind of did, yes. 2 posts ago, you said this:

...but this is because of the inherent chemical and biologic processes enabled by their makeup. To me this is not evolution

If that isn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you meant



Breeding demonstrates the biological processes that make evolution happen.

You refusing to call those "evolution", doesn't change the fact that it is those processes that make evolution happen.

You can either deal with that or continue sticking your head in the ground.

And you forgot to answer my question: Then what "evolution type thing", would you accept as an example of evolutionary processes in action?

As I explained in part, the Hapsburg Jaw is one effect of breeding, genes mutating and continuing to the apparent detriment of an individual. You might call that evolution, but the person still remains a person. With defects. When I went to school they taught evolution as the process by which man and before that, animals came about. Period. And I had no reason to contest it. But whether you like it or not, there are those scientists that put the classic idea of evolution, which is, I suppose something like all life and life-forms coming about by chemical-biological processes without the basic elements put together and given life by a Creator. So far by breeding, hybrids don't fare too well.

 

[Polymath257]

"Along with most of the Pleistocene megafauna, Smilodon became extinct 10,000 years ago in the Quaternary extinction event."
So I can read that statement in publications like wikipedia, but where is the research and substative details showing that?

The following link has a pretty extensive list of sources for the recent extinction events, including the one that killed off the smilodon.

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia

Most of the dates have been known for quite a long time and are not a subject of current research, although the dates of specific sites will be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I meant that there are certain chemical/biologic qualities that enable change.

You mean like the ability of DNA to mutate?
Are you saying this is only present in canines??

What do you mean, exactly?

But to say that "kinds" evolved, by that I mean fish morphing to horses, or something like that is not like that.

Fish are modern animals and they don't evolve into horses.
I'll go ahead and assume you mean ancient sea-vertebrates evolving into land mammals over some 400 million years.

So why isn't it like that?

Clouds change in form and size, I wouldn't call that evolution. (Would you?)

No, I would not. Primarily because it has nothing to do with the principles and processes of biological evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I explained in part, the Hapsburg Jaw is one effect of breeding, genes mutating and continuing to the apparent detriment of an individual. You might call that evolution, but the person still remains a person. With defects. When I went to school they taught evolution as the process by which man and before that, animals came about.

Nothing here is on point to answer my question:

What WOULD you consider to be an example of evolution?

But whether you like it or not, there are those scientists that put the classic idea of evolution, which is, I suppose something like all life and life-forms coming about by chemical-biological processes without the basic elements put together and given life by a Creator.

No publishing scientists, though.
This is the case, because those "scientists" that oppose evolution do so for RELIGIOUS reasons, not scientific ones. There is no scientific argument or evidence against evolution, because all the evidence and science supports evolution.

This is why these "scientists" you speak off only "publish" in their own private "journals", after they sign a "statement of faith" in which they commit to upholding some religious myth at all costs.

None of these "papers" qualify as proper scientific papers, which is why they are never published in actual science journals. And these "scientists" know that. Which is why they don't even bother submitting them for peer review, because they KNOW the quality of their work is non-existant. Because they KNOW that they don't even remotely meet the criteria a science paper must meet.

They have no research, no data, no experiments. All they have are misrepresentations of actual science, fallacious arguments and faith based assertions.

So far by breeding, hybrids don't fare too well.

And I explained why already.
Natural selection "breeds" for survival and reproductive success.
While breeding programs, through artificial selection, breeds for specific traits and doesn't shy away of sacrificing survival and reproductive success in the process.

This is how you end up with cats and dogs that are no longer able to reproduce naturally or wouldn't be able to survive more then a couple of days in the wild.

It's becoming clearer with every post that your only real objection to biological evolution can be summed up by "I don't believe it, because I already committed to believing something else".


Dawkins calls that the argument from incredulity: "My evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it".

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Along with most of the Pleistocene megafauna, Smilodon became extinct 10,000 years ago in the Quaternary extinction event."
So I can read that statement in publications like wikipedia, but where is the research and substative details showing that?

In the References section at the bottom of the wikipedia page. They correspond with the numbers beside the statements. Also, you can search Google Scholar.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I meant that there are certain chemical/biologic qualities that enable change. Just like abiogenesis, yes I know, a different subject but I don't think so exactly. But to say that "kinds" evolved, by that I mean fish morphing to horses, or something like that is not like that.
Clouds change in form and size, I wouldn't call that evolution. (Would you?)

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
"Kinds" morphing into other creatures is NOT evolution. "Kinds" isn't even a scientific term.
Again, no creature is morphing into any other creature or giving birth to any creature that isn't the same creature as itself. That is NOT evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
"Kinds" morphing into other creatures is NOT evolution. "Kinds" isn't even a scientific term.
Again, no creature is morphing into any other creature or giving birth to any creature that isn't the same creature as itself. That is NOT evolution.

Even IF evolution were true, as you see it, what proof or evidence do you have that Neanderthals and other hominids like that interbred to the point that homo sapiens came about?

 

[metis]

Even IF evolution were true, as you see it, what proof or evidence do you have that Neanderthals and other hominids like that interbred to the point that homo sapiens came about?

We co-evolved, and because of the dna testing and at least one fossil find, that we know that Neanderthal did breed-in as a minority.

 

[Polymath257]

Even IF evolution were true, as you see it, what proof or evidence do you have that Neanderthals and other hominids like that interbred to the point that homo sapiens came about?

That isn't how H. sapiens came about. We know there was interbreeding with Neanderthals, but that was well after H. sapiens already existed (Neanderthals are a *subspecies* of H. sapiens--sort of like breeds in dogs or cats).

We can track the anatomical similarities between the different ape-like species that have existed at various times in the last million years or so. We can see the changes over time leading to more and more similarity with modern humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean like the ability of DNA to mutate?

Yes.

Are you saying this is only present in canines??

No. Obviously not.

 

[YoursTrue]

We co-evolved, and because of the dna testing and at least one fossil find, that we know that Neanderthal did breed-in as a minority.

"At least one fossil find." (Fossil find of what?) Please show me the links to this beyond assumption. Including the "dna testing." Quoting you: "We co-evolved." OK, co-evolved from what? Please submit evidence, thank you. What "dna testing"?

 

[YoursTrue]

That isn't how H. sapiens came about. We know there was interbreeding with Neanderthals, but that was well after H. sapiens already existed (Neanderthals are a *subspecies* of H. sapiens--sort of like breeds in dogs or cats).

We can track the anatomical similarities between the different ape-like species that have existed at various times in the last million years or so. We can see the changes over time leading to more and more similarity with modern humans.

I find it interesting that so far all I have is your word about this. Anatomical similarities do not prove anything except that they are similar in certain respects. I mean, they say that chimpanzees are very, very close in DNA to homo sapiens. It's just that little bit of percentage that keeps chimpanzees from becoming homo sapiens, doesn't it? Or is it that it keeps chimpanzees staying as chimpanzees? Just that little percentage point. What happened from the 98.6 and 99% to the 100% DNA that humans have? Where is the in-between animal? You think it's the Neanderthals? And if you do, do Neanderthals have 100% human DNA?