Evolution My ToE

[metis]

If I didn't think it made a difference who said it, I wouldn't have quoted it. People are people, and scientists assailed are said to be as narrow-minded and defensive as others. As you said more or less, people are people.

Do you same the same about Christian ministers?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is mindless as described in the long run by many scientists.

As is gravity and chemistry and every other natural phenomenon...

You're not answering @Polymath257 's question.
He's asking you if you also explicitly speak about "mindless gravity" or "mindless chemistry".

They may not use the term mindless, but yes, it is mindless, without thought, without thought of consequence.

Like very other natural phenomenon.
So, do you also explicitly mention it is "mindless" when you talk about gravity, chemistry, freezing, tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcano eruptions,...?

Why is evolution such a special natural phenomenon for you which motivates you to so redundantly point out that it is just a natural phenomenon like any other?

And yes, while a nuclear bomb may be put into action by humans (with minds and thought), the forces within the bomb do not have a mind or thoughts.

How is that relevant? We're not talking about human made devices.

 

[metis]

? With any certainty?? Yet you are certain that evolution occurred as said by scientists.

Well, there are many things that we as scientists debate over, but that life forms have and continue to evolve is VERY clear. Plus, as I mentioned before, the evolution (change) of life forms is so utterly logical because all material objects appear to change over time, and genes and life forms are material objects.

With absolutely no real-time evidence of burgeoning genes and forms.

Absolutely false. Even check out Wikipedia's article on the "Theory of Evolution", which includes links to numerous scientific studies.

 

[metis]

So far, it seems to me you're making the Bible into an unreliable record.

If that were to be the case, then why would I read it a minimum of twice a day, which I previously posted? I consider your approach here to be really quite insulting, thus implying that somehow I am a lesser Christian than you are simply because I don't treat the Bible as if it's an idol.

So again -- what if any hope do you see in the Bible for the future?

It will continue to be a guide for a huge number of people as long as humanity survives. Why would I think anything different? Do you honestly believe I think it'll just be tossed by everyone into the trash bin?

So let me ask you this question: what hope do you personally have for the future of mankind?

Too hard to say, but I'm quite sure it'll be quite diverse in terms of what people actually do believe. But at some time there will be an end to humankind, but that could be billion years away for all I know.

I can tell you my hope. What about yours?

I hope people use their religious beliefs more for enlightenment than for ignorance. When any religion or denomination tells us to ignore what clearly has happened and continues to happen, then that religion/denomination should be looked at as being bogus. This is why I left the church I grew up in during my mid-20's and joined one that doesn't see science as being a threat nor treats the Bible as one might treat an idol. IOW, the Bible is not God, nor is God the Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

Also because this is a discussion centering around the ToE.

So if we were talking about gravity, the mindlessness of the action of gravity would be worthy of discussion?

 

[dad]

I'm sorry, but bare assertions of fantastical tales don't really count as arguments.



Reality cares not what you "allow".

You have no science that says birds were not here from week one. Act accordingly.

Animal: Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms, which are heterotrophic, meaning they obtain nutrition from organic sources

That's fine if you want to use the evo puritan version of the word. I understand. In that case, you err in including man. Science should have enough respect for mankind that they have a separate category, regardless of physical traits they may share.

I bet a school kid might know better then you, actually.
In any case, in a discussion about scientific knowledge, why would we care what kids think?

There is no scientific knowledge that makes man an animal in the old fashioned sense of the word.

My kid thinks that when I leave the room, I disappear from existence and then she screams like the 4-month old that she is, only to burst into laughter when I reappear from nothing again upon entering the room.

Long as she doesn't think you are a frog I guess.

I don't think the beliefs and opinions of kids matter when it comes to scientific subjects.

Not to the cult of so-called science. They delight in demeaning mankind.

I'ld think that that is because making a movie about a huge monster is a bit more exciting and impressive then similar monsters the size of turkeys.

Right. There were giants in the land long ago. That was how they were thought of. The little ones maybe were thought of more like providers of dino egg omelets.

Which is irrelevant to the point that it's wrong to say that dino's were these huge monsters as if that's some kind of argument against birds being dino descendends (and still dino's themselves). SOME dino's were huge. Many were not. Many had feathers too. Just like birds.

Yes, many were small. Not sure they were chickens though. I already allowed for the possibility of rapid evolution of some birds into dinos. So feathers are no issue.

How come millions of experts in fields like molecular biology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary biology, genetics, genomics, phylogenics, anatomy, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc all converge on those exact same "totally misunderstood" conclusions then?

They do not have the good sense to realize we were actually created in the image of God and that God died for us, and that God is coming back to this little world to live forever with us.

 

[YoursTrue]

So if we were talking about gravity, the mindlessness of the action of gravity would be worthy of discussion?

A brief enough discussion ... It seems you are saying and forgive me if I'm wrong, gravity doesn't think. Same as microbes don't think. Or...evolution doesn't think.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that were to be the case, then why would I read it a minimum of twice a day, which I previously posted? I consider your approach here to be really quite insulting, thus implying that somehow I am a lesser Christian than you are simply because I don't treat the Bible as if it's an idol.

It will continue to be a guide for a huge number of people as long as humanity survives. Why would I think anything different? Do you honestly believe I think it'll just be tossed by everyone into the trash bin?

Too hard to say, but I'm quite sure it'll be quite diverse in terms of what people actually do believe. But at some time there will be an end to humankind, but that could be billion years away for all I know.

I hope people use their religious beliefs more for enlightenment than for ignorance. When any religion or denomination tells us to ignore what clearly has happened and continues to happen, then that religion/denomination should be looked at as being bogus. This is why I left the church I grew up in during my mid-20's and joined one that doesn't see science as being a threat nor treats the Bible as one might treat an idol. IOW, the Bible is not God, nor is God the Bible.

The question is really what does the BIBLE, not evolution, say about the future of mankind, and a better question is, since you claim to be a Christian, do you believe it?

 

[YoursTrue]

If that were to be the case, then why would I read it a minimum of twice a day, which I previously posted? I consider your approach here to be really quite insulting, thus implying that somehow I am a lesser Christian than you are simply because I don't treat the Bible as if it's an idol.

It will continue to be a guide for a huge number of people as long as humanity survives. Why would I think anything different? Do you honestly believe I think it'll just be tossed by everyone into the trash bin?

Too hard to say, but I'm quite sure it'll be quite diverse in terms of what people actually do believe. But at some time there will be an end to humankind, but that could be billion years away for all I know.

I hope people use their religious beliefs more for enlightenment than for ignorance. When any religion or denomination tells us to ignore what clearly has happened and continues to happen, then that religion/denomination should be looked at as being bogus. This is why I left the church I grew up in during my mid-20's and joined one that doesn't see science as being a threat nor treats the Bible as one might treat an idol. IOW, the Bible is not God, nor is God the Bible.

Now why would you think I am insulting you just because I ask you what part of the Bible do you believe? And do you believe what it says about the future? You read the Bible. Do you believe it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, there are many things that we as scientists debate over, but that life forms have and continue to evolve is VERY clear. Plus, as I mentioned before, the evolution (change) of life forms is so utterly logical because all material objects appear to change over time, and genes and life forms are material objects.

Absolutely false. Even check out Wikipedia's article on the "Theory of Evolution", which includes links to numerous scientific studies.

Do studies prove genetic changes in the process of changing from dinosaurs to birds? If so, please provide references.

 

[Darkstorn]

Do studies prove genetic changes in the process of changing from dinosaurs to birds? If so, please provide references.

There's a bunch here:

Origin of birds - Wikipedia

Though science doesn't deal with proof, that's a purview of mathematics and logic. Instead, we have evidence, which verifies the theories.

Also, dinosaurs didn't "change into birds." Rather, birds are maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs.

/Edit: For comparison, pterosaurs(you know, flying "dinosaurs") are not actually considered dinosaurs, even though they are closely related.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's a bunch here:

Origin of birds - Wikipedia

Though science doesn't deal with proof, that's a purview of mathematics and logic. Instead, we have evidence, which verifies the theories.

Also, dinosaurs didn't "change into birds." Rather, birds are maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs.

/Edit: For comparison, pterosaurs(you know, flying "dinosaurs") are not actually considered dinosaurs, even though they are closely related.

I checked the Wikipedia link you gave me. Nothing there shows anything about genetic changes in the evolutionary process of big dinosaurs becoming birds that I can see. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe it's all conjecture about the relationships by evolution. However you want to put it scientifically, of course. If they're "closely related," where is the genetic proof, or evidence, of their close genetic relationship to -- what? I'm not speaking of feathers in fossils. I'm speaking of evidence yes, proof, of genetic evolution over slow-time. I could be wrong, so I'm willing to look at the proof in the form of evidence (not conjecture) of genetically incremental steps in the evolutionary development of the first unicellular structures evolving to -- plants, animals, fish, etc.

 

[Darkstorn]

I checked the Wikipedia link you gave me. Nothing there shows anything about genetic changes in the evolutionary process of big dinosaurs becoming birds that I can see. Maybe I missed it.

I linked directly to the references section. So yes, you did miss it. And once more, birds are dinosaurs.

Or maybe it's all conjecture about the relationships by evolution.

Or maybe everything you've said so far is conjecture.

However you want to put it scientifically, of course. If they're "closely related," where is the genetic proof, or evidence, of their close genetic relationship to -- what?

I said pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs. Birds ARE dinosaurs, and a lot farther from pterosaurs than other dinosaurs. Birds are taxonomically theropods, the same type of dinosaur as T-rex or velociraptor. You don't even need genetics to realize that birds like the cassowary or the ostrich have extremely similar bodyforms compared to velociraptors in particular. Do note: Velociraptors are not like they were portrayed in Jurassic Park: Real velociraptors were small, not much larger than a chicken, and had feathers.

But as for genetics, there were several links to genetics papers in that reference section i gave you, so maybe you didn't actually read any of it. Why do you request references if you don't plan on reading any of them? Reading just one scientific paper would take you longer than it did to reply to my post.

I'm not speaking of feathers in fossils.

Why? It's quite relevant: Feathers are a product of evolution.

I'm speaking of evidence yes, proof, of genetic evolution over slow-time.

I gave you a bunch, you didn't address any of it. So the ball is still in your court.

I could be wrong,

You are wrong, as evidenced by the references i gave you.

so I'm willing to look at the proof in the form of evidence (not conjecture) of genetically incremental steps in the evolutionary development of the first unicellular structures evolving to -- plants, animals, fish, etc.

You haven't even looked at the evidence that shows birds are dinosaurs, and now you're suddenly moving the goal posts. Okay, let's play along:

Evolution - Wikipedia

Notice: I am once again linking directly to the references section. You demanded references, i gave them. Now when are you going to address that which you requested? Or is it all a silly game? Because i can tell you right now:

Your argument sounds like a silly game to me and i'm not wasting my time until you address those references.

/E: The way you keep using the word "proof" doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence in your ability to be convincing in a scientific argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

I linked directly to the references section. So yes, you did miss it. And once more, birds are dinosaurs.



Or maybe everything you've said so far is conjecture.



I said pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs. Birds ARE dinosaurs, and a lot farther from pterosaurs than other dinosaurs. Birds are taxonomically theropods, the same type of dinosaur as T-rex or velociraptor. You don't even need genetics to realize that birds like the cassowary or the ostrich have extremely similar bodyforms compared to velociraptors in particular. Do note: Velociraptors are not like they were portrayed in Jurassic Park: Real velociraptors were small, not much larger than a chicken, and had feathers.

But as for genetics, there were several links to genetics papers in that reference section i gave you, so maybe you didn't actually read any of it. Why do you request references if you don't plan on reading any of them? Reading just one scientific paper would take you longer than it did to reply to my post.



Why? It's quite relevant: Feathers are a product of evolution.



I gave you a bunch, you didn't address any of it. So the ball is still in your court.



You are wrong, as evidenced by the references i gave you.



You haven't even looked at the evidence that shows birds are dinosaurs, and now you're suddenly moving the goal posts. Okay, let's play along:

Evolution - Wikipedia

Notice: I am once again linking directly to the references section. You demanded references, i gave them. Now when are you going to address that which you requested? Or is it all a silly game? Because i can tell you right now:

Your argument sounds like a silly game to me and i'm not wasting my time until you address those references.

/E: The way you keep using the word "proof" doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence in your ability to be convincing in a scientific argument.

Show me one reference that shows the genetic changes as these organisms evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

I linked directly to the references section. So yes, you did miss it. And once more, birds are dinosaurs.



Or maybe everything you've said so far is conjecture.



I said pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs. Birds ARE dinosaurs, and a lot farther from pterosaurs than other dinosaurs. Birds are taxonomically theropods, the same type of dinosaur as T-rex or velociraptor. You don't even need genetics to realize that birds like the cassowary or the ostrich have extremely similar bodyforms compared to velociraptors in particular. Do note: Velociraptors are not like they were portrayed in Jurassic Park: Real velociraptors were small, not much larger than a chicken, and had feathers.

But as for genetics, there were several links to genetics papers in that reference section i gave you, so maybe you didn't actually read any of it. Why do you request references if you don't plan on reading any of them? Reading just one scientific paper would take you longer than it did to reply to my post.



Why? It's quite relevant: Feathers are a product of evolution.



I gave you a bunch, you didn't address any of it. So the ball is still in your court.



You are wrong, as evidenced by the references i gave you.



You haven't even looked at the evidence that shows birds are dinosaurs, and now you're suddenly moving the goal posts. Okay, let's play along:

Evolution - Wikipedia

Notice: I am once again linking directly to the references section. You demanded references, i gave them. Now when are you going to address that which you requested? Or is it all a silly game? Because i can tell you right now:

Your argument sounds like a silly game to me and i'm not wasting my time until you address those references.

/E: The way you keep using the word "proof" doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence in your ability to be convincing in a scientific argument.

What I saw in the article you referenced is

I linked directly to the references section. So yes, you did miss it. And once more, birds are dinosaurs.



Or maybe everything you've said so far is conjecture.



I said pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs. Birds ARE dinosaurs, and a lot farther from pterosaurs than other dinosaurs. Birds are taxonomically theropods, the same type of dinosaur as T-rex or velociraptor. You don't even need genetics to realize that birds like the cassowary or the ostrich have extremely similar bodyforms compared to velociraptors in particular. Do note: Velociraptors are not like they were portrayed in Jurassic Park: Real velociraptors were small, not much larger than a chicken, and had feathers.

But as for genetics, there were several links to genetics papers in that reference section i gave you, so maybe you didn't actually read any of it. Why do you request references if you don't plan on reading any of them? Reading just one scientific paper would take you longer than it did to reply to my post.



Why? It's quite relevant: Feathers are a product of evolution.



I gave you a bunch, you didn't address any of it. So the ball is still in your court.



You are wrong, as evidenced by the references i gave you.



You haven't even looked at the evidence that shows birds are dinosaurs, and now you're suddenly moving the goal posts. Okay, let's play along:

Evolution - Wikipedia

Notice: I am once again linking directly to the references section. You demanded references, i gave them. Now when are you going to address that which you requested? Or is it all a silly game? Because i can tell you right now:

Your argument sounds like a silly game to me and i'm not wasting my time until you address those references.

/E: The way you keep using the word "proof" doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence in your ability to be convincing in a scientific argument.

Again, here is one summary of the "evidence" presented therein "Although the origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology, only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds, suggesting descent from other types of archosaurian reptiles." Suggesting descent. Suggesting descent. No proof. Just... Suggestions.

 

[Darkstorn]

So all you do have is conjecture and games. Your last "argument" is literally a semantic one.

I'd say "hilarious" but I am gonna say "sad" instead.

You still haven't addressed the references, which you yourself requested, and you present an argument that is based on word usage...

Two can play that game: the same argument also says "only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds." If that's your strongest argument against their origin, then this is a joke.

And i"m still not here to play games.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no science that says birds were not here from week one. Act accordingly.

Except we have. The science dates the evolution of birds to around 150 million years ago.
Which means that for the vast majority of earth's history, there were no birds, since life is at least 3.8 billion years old.

You may disagree with those dates if your fundamentalist beliefs compell you to do so off course, but you can't say that there is no science that says this.

You disagree with the science, but the science still says it.

That's fine if you want to use the evo puritan version of the word.

That has nothing to do with evolution or where creatures come from or anything. It's simply a definition that can account for all animals.

If you wish to offer an alternative definition that in your opinion accounts for all animals while also excluding humans, then by my guest.

I understand. In that case, you err in including man.

I don't see how it's an error. It's a perfectly reasonable definition. It's not defined like that for "the purpose" of including humans. It's defined like that for the purpose of including all animals, because that's what a definition is for: the describe the total set of things within it's scope.

It just so happens that you can't define "animal" (or "mammal", or "primate", or ...) so that it includes all animals (and mammals and primates) while it excludes humans.

Maybe, just maybe, that is the case because humans indeed actually are animals (and mammals and primates).

Science should have enough respect for mankind that they have a separate category, regardless of physical traits they may share.

Putting stuff into well defined logical and rational categories has nothing to do with respect and everything with making sense of things and organizing information.

Perhaps the problem exists only in your head. Try not to be so "offended" when you are classified as a mammal just because you are part of a species that has hair and mammary glands...

There is no scientific knowledge that makes man an animal in the old fashioned sense of the word.

When discussing a topic of biology, I think it's only fair to use biological definitions instead of colloquial uses of terms. Words can have multiple meanings and the context in which they are used usually determine which meaning is being used.

When one deliberatly uses terms ambigously, it usually means that that person either is ignorant of the topic and therefor unaware of his mistake, or he is being deliberatly intellectually dishonest for the purpose of muddying the waters. I'm confident in claiming that you are the latter kind, since in your last quote you speak of "the old fashioned sense of the world", which seems to be an implicit admission that other and modern meanings of this word exist and that I'm using the word to mean one of those things. You seem to be aware of this. You seem to understand this.

Yet, you go on, without properly and directly admitting to it, to use the word in an ambigous way.

Yep. I'm gonna call it a deliberate attempt at being intellectually dishonest. It's what the evidence support and I'm gonna go with the evidence.

Long as she doesn't think you are a frog I guess.

I don't think that at all nore have I every said anything remotely like it.

So now you go a step further... from ill-conceiled intellectual dishonesty, you are now crossing over to plain lying through your teeth and bearing false witness.

I thought your religion was supposed to make you more moral?
It doesn't seem to be working.

Not to the cult of so-called science. They delight in demeaning mankind.

So far, the only demeaning here is coming from you, what with all the lying, dishonesty and condescending arrogance and what-not....

Once more, I don't think that when it comes to scientific subjects, we should care much about what kids think.

When you have a lump and an oncologist tells you it's cancer, but your kid thinks it's just a pimple... which one will you be going with? Will you believe the kid over the oncologist? Somehow, I doubt it.

Right. There were giants in the land long ago. That was how they were thought of. The little ones maybe were thought of more like providers of dino egg omelets.

Which is irrelevant to the point that most weren't huge, as you incorrectly claimed, got corrected on and then started to spew off in this "well that's how people think of them" nonsense - in a rather pathetic attempt to avoid at all costs having to admit that you were wrong about something.

Yes, many were small. Not sure they were chickens though. I already allowed for the possibility of rapid evolution of some birds into dinos.

Birds didn't evolve into dino's. Dino's evolved into birds. Bird are subspecies of dino's, not the other way round.

And dino's already had feathers before birds existed.

So feathers are no issue.

Because the non-bird dino ancestors of birds, already had them.

They do not have the good sense to realize we were actually created in the image of God and that God died for us, and that God is coming back to this little world to live forever with us.

So really, your "rebuttal" to millions of years worth of scientific study (the sum of all the years of study during the carreers of all individual scientists working in those fields) of which the knowledge culminated in 200 years worth of thousands upon thousands of scientific publications, each detailing lines of evidence, amounts to............................ "nu-hu! clearly god did it!!!"


Lol.

Good argument you got there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they're "closely related," where is the genetic proof, or evidence, of their close genetic relationship to -- what?

Comparative anatomy.
Comparative genomics.
Phylogenetics.

I'm not speaking of feathers in fossils. I'm speaking of evidence yes, proof, of genetic evolution over slow-time.

The dino-bird lineage is just one of many examples.
The actual central process that "powers" all of it, is not going to get "proven" by zooming in on just one example.

The totality of the picture is what "proves" it.
The process of evolution underlines all of it. It makes predictions about what we should and shouldn't see.
Generic predictions also, which apply universally.

Things like how 2 species more closely related should share more ERV's then more distant related creatures. And how the phylogenic relationships obtained from tracing ERV's should match those from other genetic markers, which again should match the geographic spread of species found in fossils, which should match relationships observed through comparative anatomy etc etc etc.

The dino-bird relationship is just one such lineage that matches these predictions.
All others do to.

That's the explanatory power of evolution. Only studying one single example is not going to give you an idea of how big the picture is and how well understood and supported this process really is.

So in what sense does the dino-bird lineage support evolution?
Well... in the sense that first, it matches all the generic as well as specific predictions AND it contradicts none.
And this is true for every lineage we've studied, every fossil we've found and every genome we've sequenced.

It all matches the same family tree.

When multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer... that's explanatory power.

I could be wrong, so I'm willing to look at the proof in the form of evidence (not conjecture) of genetically incremental steps in the evolutionary development of the first unicellular structures evolving to -- plants, animals, fish, etc.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you are asking, as I suspect, that we give you a complete list of the set of subsequent mutations that occured and were selected for to show how single celled structures diverged into animals and plants... a process that literally took billions of years, then sorry, no, that's not gonna happen. Mainly because it is impossible to figure out, nore does anything in evolution predict that we should be able to figure that out.

This is a typical non-argument that creationists make. And the point they all seem to miss, is that in a nutshell: events of the past leave evidence that can be studied in the present.

Consider a burned down house. Forensics go and investigate and given enough data, they'll be able to tell you exact how and where the fire started, how it spread etc. No, they can't give you a complete list of every molecule that made up the house and demonstrate the order in which those molecules burned. But they will be able to give you a big picture, and that picture will be a model of the process of the burning and it will be based on evidence and it will be testable.

That is essentially what paleontology is all about. The gathering of data to fill the big picture of the history of the process of evolution. This assumes that evolution occurs and is a thing, yes. Just like the forensics in the burned down house assumes that burning occurs and is a thing.

But it's not an assumption based on nothing, or faith if you wish. No. "Burning" (or "biological evolution") is itself a mechanism that is well understand, again based on evidence and experimentation.

We know that evolution / burning occurs. We can test it, observe it, replicate it.
Because we know how it works, we know what kind of stuff it does AND what kind of evidence it leaves behind. Because we understand what kind of evidence it leaves behind, we can recognise that evidence when we find it in the world.


So, in short: I think your question is malformed and exposed an ignorance on the topic. That, or I didn't quite get what exactly you were asking in which case, I'll have to ask you to reformulate in clearer terms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I saw in the article you referenced is

Again, here is one summary of the "evidence" presented therein "Although the origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology, only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds, suggesting descent from other types of archosaurian reptiles." Suggesting descent. Suggesting descent. No proof. Just... Suggestions.

It's scientific language.

An apple falling from a tree suggests a force pulling it down.
It doesn't "prove" gravity. It suggests gravity.

If this is your "objection" to evolution theory, then your "objection" isn't with biology. It is instead with ALL of science. That, or the english language.

 

[Polymath257]

A brief enough discussion ... It seems you are saying and forgive me if I'm wrong, gravity doesn't think. Same as microbes don't think. Or...evolution doesn't think.

Right. And now we can continue on to the evidence and ignore the side issues.