Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't you love it when people that refuse to even learn the basics of science demand to see highly technical papers?

I know that if I was given one of those papers to read that I would be spending more time looking up and trying to understand terminology than reading the actual paper. And even if I got all of the way through such a paper I would not be in any position to judge whether it is valid or not.

Indeed.

I think I have a pretty good grasp on how science is done and how evolution works. I have used evolutionary principles in genetic algoritms in a professional setting when programming optimisation modules. So I was actually required to study up on it in order to be able to complete the job.

I wouldn't even begin to read such technical papers. I just know that I wouldn't understand a word of it. Well, no... "not a word"..., I'm exaggerating. I'ld understand words like "we", "and", "or", "gene", "study"...

Joking aside... I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think I'ld be able to follow what such papers are saying. There's a reason why the authors of such papers study for years at top universities...

 

[Audie]

Do you think that you would understand the analysis?

If he would like to see it he already would have.

 

[Audie]

OK, what did sharks supposedly evolve from? I'm not sure of the way of the so-called branching explanation. I'll leave it there for the moment. The article says they are a species.

The article could not possibly say sharks are a species.

 

[Audie]

Indeed.

I think I have a pretty good grasp on how science is done and how evolution works. I have used evolutionary principles in genetic algoritms in a professional setting when programming optimisation modules. So I was actually required to study up on it in order to be able to complete the job.

I wouldn't even begin to read such technical papers. I just know that I wouldn't understand a word of it. Well, no... "not a word"..., I'm exaggerating. I'ld understand words like "we", "and", "or", "gene", "study"...

Joking aside... I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think I'ld be able to follow what such papers are saying. There's a reason why the authors of such papers study for years at top universities...

It is not all that hard to trace the evolutionary sequrnce of
fish thru amphibian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If he would like to see it he already would have.

I do believe that my question might have been just a little bit rhetorical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article could not possibly say sharks are a species.

It could have been a creationist article.

 

[YoursTrue]

Slaughter - Worship Me - slaughter - Worship e! - curve for all time with mutations - Worship me because I love you so much - here, have my kid that is actually me to torture and kill!

But isn't it in your view evolution including people's minds and desires that causes them to do bad things, and causes not so good mutations, sickness, and death? Including, of course, murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, such as war? What do you think? Isn't that "evolution"?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, so I assume you would consider wooly mammoths and mastodons to be types of elephants?

I don't know what scientists think. What do you think?

How about gomphotheres?
Gomphothere - Wikipedia

How about deinotheres?
Deinotherium - Wikipedia

Never heard of them. I'll have to look them up.

And what would you say if I said that the genetic distance between modern elephants and mastodons is larger than that between modern humans and chimps? How would that affect your views on these?

Why would it affect my views?

 

[YoursTrue]

Polymath257 - you said:
"Well, given how long ago that happened, we don't have the genetics from the relevant fish and amphibians. But we *can* and *do* compare the genetics of living amphibians and fish and yes, amphibians do, in fact, show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish." And I asked:
Again, even if that were true, I'd like to see & understand the findings. So you say amphibians do show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish. They do? Other than saying yes, I'd like to see more than the report -- but the analysis. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But isn't it in your view evolution including people's minds and desires that causes them to do bad things, and causes not so good mutations, sickness, and death? Including, of course, murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, such as war? What do you think? Isn't that "evolution"?

Not everything is explained by evolution. Some things too are consequences of evolution and not directly explained by it. Increasing complexity is not demanded by the theory, but obviously it has occurred.

Human behaviour is under the stewardship of numerous factors from biological to rearing to culture and more. No one factor explains it all even if basic behavioural traits evolved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Polymath257 - you said:
"Well, given how long ago that happened, we don't have the genetics from the relevant fish and amphibians. But we *can* and *do* compare the genetics of living amphibians and fish and yes, amphibians do, in fact, show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish." And I asked:
Again, even if that were true, I'd like to see & understand the findings. So you say amphibians do show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish. They do? Other than saying yes, I'd like to see more than the report -- but the analysis. Thanks.

Given your own admission of not understanding the material, what do you think you might get from reviewing such an analysis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But isn't it in your view evolution including people's minds and desires that causes them to do bad things, and causes not so good mutations, sickness, and death? Including, of course, murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, such as war? What do you think? Isn't that "evolution"?

Nope.

 

[tas8831]

But isn't it in your view evolution including people's minds and desires that causes them to do bad things, and causes not so good mutations, sickness, and death? Including, of course, murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, such as war? What do you think? Isn't that "evolution"?

Hmmm...
Looks like you got me...

Yes, evolution contributes to negative behaviors like murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, bad things like war and even physical problems and death.
And you are so right that evolution posits an all-knowing, all-loving benevolent creator force and thus.... oh, wait -

Sorry, I was thinking of something else - no, evolution does not claim to be controlled by an all-knowing, all-loving creator that then allows all of that bad stuff anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm...
Looks like you got me...

Yes, evolution contributes to negative behaviors like murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, bad things like war and even physical problems and death.
And you are so right that evolution posits and all-knowing, all-loving benevolent creator force and thus.... oh, wait -

Sorry, I was thinking of something else - no, evolution does not claim to be controlled by an all-knowing, all-loving creator that then allows all of that bad stuff anyway.

Just trying to understand your view. So then, according what you believe, mankind is biologically and socially prone to vicious behavior (since, according to you there is no God or Creator, and you don't like what the Bible says) and the eventual outcome is anyway, according to the theory of evolution, death.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Landshark!

Prophecy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, we have a problem (let us say a difference of opinion) when you think everything evolved. Please if you can, present the proof not just of fossil evidence, but of genetics, that fish evolved genetically to amphibian. (Thank you.)

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated that you've come to your opinion about evolution without knowing anything at all about it. You are fighting the available facts at every turn on this thread.
Which again, leads me to ask how you've drawn any conclusions about something you do not understand??

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, what did sharks supposedly evolve from? I'm not sure of the way of the so-called branching explanation. I'll leave it there for the moment. The article says they are a species.

Do you understand that your family's lineage can be mapped out in a "so-called branching explanation" that would demonstrate higher degrees of relatedness between more closely related family members and lower degrees of relatedness between more distantly related family members?

 

[tas8831]

Just trying to understand your view.

Via projecting yours onto me... interesting.

So then, according what you believe, mankind is biologically and socially prone to vicious behavior (since, according to you there is no God or Creator, and you don't like what the Bible says) and the eventual outcome is anyway, according to the theory of evolution, death.

The eventual outcome for all living things is death regardless of the how we got here.

 

[tas8831]

Well, we have a problem (let us say a difference of opinion) when you think everything evolved. Please if you can, present the proof not just of fossil evidence, but of genetics, that fish evolved genetically to amphibian. (Thank you.)

You can start here:
Living Amphibians

That is the Tree of Life Web project. That page is Living Amphibians. It provides a few citations for the group as a whole. On the phylogenetic tree you will notice a little arrow point to the left at the 'root' of the tree. Click on that, and it takes a 'step back' to all terrestrial vertebrates. That page has a bunch of information on it, like general characteristics for terrestrial vertebrates, etc., a bit of vertebrate history, then about maybe 100 citations (didn't count them, but looks like a lot). I'm sure some of them are premised on genetics.

The terrestrial vertebrate phylogenetic tree also has a little arrow point to the left at the root - click it.

That takes you to:

Sarcopterygii
The lobe-finned fishes & terrestrial vertebrates

Click on the arrow on that tree, and it takes you to :

Gnathostomata
Jawed Vertebrates

Under the picture of the hippo, you will see this:

Note the top branches - Sarcopterygii and Actinopterygii. Those are modern bony fishes (Actinopterygii) and lobe-finned fishes and terrestrial vertebrates (Sarcopterygii).
They make up the Osteichthyes, the bony fishes.

They share a branch with an extinct group (Acanthodii), tyhen they join with the Cartilaginous fishes (sharks and such), which then join the Placodermi, the armored jawed vertebrates (fish).

Feel free to look at those pages, they all have citations supporting the shown groupings, and I am sure some are genetic in nature.

 

[tas8831]

Don't you love it when people that refuse to even learn the basics of science demand to see highly technical papers?

I know that if I was given one of those papers to read that I would be spending more time looking up and trying to understand terminology than reading the actual paper. And even if I got all of the way through such a paper I would not be in any position to judge whether it is valid or not.

Not saying that this is what Yourstrue would do, but we have all seen creationists that ask for papers, or find them themselves, and either just look for a couple of quotes that they think are damning (like if the word "maybe" or the phrase "could have been" is used), or they totally botch the interpretation and then get all indignant and defensive when they are corrected...