Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

I want to thank you for this interesting example of how science works. You have sited how the genetic studies help to support evolutionary theory. They say clearly in the genetic study that the "estimated" age is suggestive that the pattern occurred after dinosaurs. Then you supplied a finding of the fossil record that showed the estimated age was incorrect and that the pattern for stick insects began at least while the dinosaurs existed. Thus we find the genetic pattern for evolution which will no be modified by the fossil record supporting evolution. Exactly how science works.

This is what makes science so effective at explaining our would is that it is not absolutism and welcomes change to get better answers. You have provided a very good example of the power of the theory of evolution. It keeps improving as new information is found. Very nice.

The alternative - biblical account or an imaginative "intelligent design" (To bad the intelligent designer did not design out cancer - well unless that intelligent designer likes to see suffering)
So how does your view on how life originated explain the dinosaurs and plant mimicking better. Help me find where in the bible this is specifically addressed. I could not find it.

I have no idea what you just said. Honest to God.

 

[nPeace]

Nice video still waiting for your clear evidence to disprove the information presented.

You disagree that the evidence is subjective opinion and conjecture?

 

[nPeace]

No evidence provided here. Where is your evidence.

Evidence for what? That you are duped into believing a ridiculous claim? Or that pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is used to support the ToE? Or other?

 

[nPeace]

What myths are accepted in science? Science only accepts things with supporting evidence.
Creationism isn't accepted because it's pure myth. There is no supporting evidence for any of its claims. Science is a method for evaluating evidence. If there's no empirical evidence to evaluate science has nothing to work with.

...and I'm slow?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

The same way that a sieve, which has no ability to make conscious decisions itself, can sort smaller items from larger items.

It's a proposition that is so simple and demonstrable that it is literally a tautology:

"If mutations produce differences that make it more/less likely to survive and produce offspring, the carrier of that mutation mutation will be more/less likely to produce offspring".

It's THAT simple.

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

What is troubling you about this? I fail to understand your objection here.

See above. If positive changes are more likely to survive, positive changes add up.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

What does any of this have to do with negative traits being selected against?

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it.

Personal remarks are irrelevant to science. Stick to the claims.

They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

Perhaps because "assumption" and "guess" are no the same thing, and perhaps because getting hung up on semantics rather than facts is, at best, a distraction.

 

[blü 2]

Distractions, distractions. No end to them. Some seem to like going in circles, on threads... and don't seem to mind repeating that process multiple times.

Ah, you think it was done by magic!

Why didn't you just say so?

 

[Mock Turtle]

...and I'm slow?

You are not even in the race!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you are saying natural selection drives the adaptation,, I agree.

Again you just miss the truth. New generations are very much like their forebears, but not identical to them. You are not identical to your parents, but in most important ways, you almost are. The processes that maintain your life are just about exactly the same as theirs.

However, very minor differences, caused by nothing but small variations in genetic makeup, can provide real benefits. For example, the production of enzymes that can metabolize lactose gives a lot of people, north of the equator, a much enlarged menu to choose nourishment from. 80% of people south of the equator are lactose intolerant, while only 20% north of the equator are. So dairy, including all cheeses (yum yum) are on the diet of many in the north, few in the south.

Natural selection doesn't drive adaptation. Small changes just happen, but when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for, and will thus form an increasing part of the population, until the population is better adapted to the environment it inhabits.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have no idea what you just said. Honest to God.

Science knowledge grows with new discoveries. The genetic information shows the expected genetic links consistent with the theory of evolution. From this they make a prediction of how far back in time this would have been predicted to have started. Fossil evidence then shows this prediction to be to short and gives physical evidence of when this genetic lineage would have already existed. The fossil evidence modifies the predictions of the genetic information and allows for new understanding of time frames. Rather than be contradictory they are complementary in understanding evolution. Each new evidence modifies and strengthens the theory of evolution.

Alternative - an old book that does not explain how life came about with evidence only magic. Or the imagination of the intelligent designer. Both without evidence relying on opinion. Explain what evidence there is contained in the bible for the genetic changes or the fossils.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

Evolution theory provides an explanation of the mechanism by which evolution factually happens.
Life sharing ancestry is a genetic fact. A fact in need of an explanation.

Evolution theory provides that explanation.
The theory of evolution is not the claim that life shares ancestry. The model rather provides the mechanism of, in a nutshell, descent with modification followed by selection as an explanation of the facts of evolution. One of which is, that through genetics we know that life shares ancestry.

Evolution theory is the answer to the question "how did that happen?".

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

I already don't agree with your opening premise...
Common ancestry of life is not a theory. It's a genetic fact. A fact that supports and is explained by the actual theory of evolution, which is about the mechanism by which evolution occurs.


Just like how the theory of gravity, is not the claim that things with mass attract one another. That is rather a fact. The theory of gravity, attempts to explain that fact: why does this occur?

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

It does the same, in the sense that there is *a filter* shaped by *some parameters* which discards some genes and keeps others for the next generation.

It is the same, in the sense that there are criteria in place which make certain genes more likely to end up in the next generation while some other genes are less likely to end up in the next generation.

It is not the same, in the sense of the contents of these criteria.
Natural selection is all about survival and finding a breeding mate, while beating the competition.
Artificial selection is all about whever-criteria the breeder has put in place.

The concept, the underlying generic logic/mechanism, is the exact same in both cases.

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

Yep. And in artificial selection, the "positive" changes would be deemed "positive" in context of the goal the breeder is working towards.

So if you want long-haired dogs, you'll form breeding pairs with those individuals that have the longest hair and not use those with shorter hair.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

It has no "arbitray" goals that are put in place by a third party.
It has no goals, in the sense that there is no intended outcome etc.

But in context of the mechanics of biological evolution, there is quite a clear goal from the perspective of the individual though: survive and reproduce. And those best "equipped", will have most success in achieving that goal.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

The individuals indeed don't "want" to evolve, nore are they even aware of their species evolving as it's a long gradual process that will be unnoticeable over the course of 2-3 generations.
But individuals DO *want* to survive and reproduce. That's what they strive for. And those who are genetically best equipped to do so, will most likely be the ones doing so.

Natural selection is thus an inevitable outcome of systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources.

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?

Beneficial mutations happen. What are you talking about "without"....

The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

Hence why we don't call it natural selection, but artificial selection.
That both processes carry a different name, should be your first clue as to their being a difference between both processes.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress,

And in my experience.... people who think that are, for the most part, evolution-denying creationists.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection.

Did someone say otherwise?
I don't think I've ever heared a single biologist claim that NS is "all-powerfull" or that it produces "perfection".

If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect.

Exactly. This is how we end up with things like spines that aren't really fit for bipedalism, which results in the majority of humans having to deal with lower-backpains at some point in their lives, with much higher frequency thereof at older ages. It doesn't need to be perfect indeed. Good enough, is good enough.

I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it

Depends what the supposed "assumptions and guesses" are.
Usually though, when creationists / evolution-deniers try to point out such "assumptions and guesses", these accusations tend to be rooted in sheer ignorance or strawmen.

Like you in the beginning of this post, implying common ancestry of life as being an assumption or guess. It's not. It's a very valid, verifiable, conclusion from fully sequenced genomes.

They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

Those are quite different types of assumptions you were previously alluding to.
Also not all assumptions are unreasonable. So like I said: it really depends on what one is talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why can't we argue over the Theory of Gravity for a change?

Don't you mean "intelligent falling" instead? ;-)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Create a thread, or we can continue on the thread specifically create for that purpose.
Wow. The amount of strawman arguments you see when evolution believers can't even refute clear evidence against their beloved false doctrine.
How could they when the evidence can't be refuted... because it's fact.

A bunch of strawmen and arguments from incredulity, doesn't make for valid refutations of a subject you don't even understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it interesting that evolution deniers will make up so much rubbish, nit-pick areas of science they are clueless about, misrepresent those areas and think they scored a goal against overwhelming evidence just to justify a delusion to themselves

It's akin to a soccer player scoring an own goal and then exploding in joyfull celebration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for what? That you are duped into believing a ridiculous claim? Or that pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is used to support the ToE? Or other?

"Evidence" for your beliefs? Yes. Other evidence . . . not so much. There is a reason that scientific evidence is very well defined. And this is the definition for all sciences, not just evolution:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

All one has to ask when a bit of empirical evidence is given to you are two questions. First, is the idea testable. And rather than saying 'no' too quickly it is best to ask those that understand the concept. They can inform you if you do not know of any tests. Second, does the observation support the concept? If yes then it is scientific evidence for the idea.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics. Sheesh.

A long post, but since you start right away with a statement that is 100% incorrect, how good can it get after that?

 

[tas8831]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

And so you will be dishonest again?

Shocking.

Todd Wood, YEC, PhD, had people like you in mind when he wrote this, bolding mine:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept.

I understand natural selection quite well, thank you.

What I don't understand is exactly what you're struggling with. Are you struggling to understand how selection can be both a result and a process?

No. The narrator failed to fill in a vital detail, imo. See my response to Valjean.

Do you mean when you said "Useful implies that it's what something or someone wants, or considers desirable"?

If so, something can be "useful" regardless of how it arises. When bacteria acquire a mutation that confers resistance to an antibiotic, it's "useful" even though it arose randomly. Likewise, if a scientist manipulated the bacteria's genome to make them resistant to the antibiotic, it's just as "useful" to the bacteria. Understand? The "usefulness" of a mutation/trait is determined by the effect it has on the organism, not by how it arose.

So you accept that if the geologic column, and the fossil record tells you a date must be correct - cannot be wrong, and you later measure using genetics, in finding a node to fit your "specimen", for building your phylogenetic tree, and the dates are tens of millions of years out, then something is wrong with your entire geologic column, or your entire "measuring rod"?

First of all, you need to understand that in science, nothing is absolute. All results are subject to revision if new information should warrant it.

And yes, if there is disagreement between two methods, one of them is obviously off. The scientists then go out and collect more data and conduct more tests to try and resolve the issue. That's how science works.

 

[dad]

Selection is primarily driven by the environment in which the population exists.

That has no bearing on the creation issue. Adam and all animals would have seen that adapting happened. That does not mean they came to exist BY adaptation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has no bearing on the creation issue. Adam and all animals would have seen that adapting happened. That does not mean they came to exist BY adaptation.

You are somewhat right since the creation story is a myth.

 

[viole]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

I think it all boils down to the following: where would you put your money? Modern science and technology? Or what a bunch of bronze age goat herders wrote?

You seem to prefer the latter. Is that so?

Ciao

- viole