Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. We can discuss the phylogenetic tree, and tiktaalik.
What would you like to discuss about them?

Einstein once said "Instanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results".

I've lost count how many times I brought phylogenetic trees and tiktaalik, with explanations, to your attention. All I got from you was handwaving, dodging and arguing strawmen. Only to then repeat the same nonsense as if I never said anything.

Tell me, why would I try again? Why would it be different this time?

In any case, you should know by now what the deal is with tiktaalik and phylogenetic trees, as these things have been explained and brought to your attention plenty of times already over the past few weeks / months. I know, because I was one of the people that did that. @Subduction Zone , @tas8831 and @Polymath257 did the same.

If you wish to finally properly address these points, be my guest.

But don't expect me to repeat those points for the bazillionth time, since chances are rather huge that you'll just ignore it again, just like you have in the past.

If you demonstrate an honest attemtp at dealing with the points, I'll happily engage you.

Until then, I see no point in doing so.

People have explained to you the significance of the tiktaalik find and phylogenetic trees countless times already. The fact that you are asking me once more to repeat it, just goes to show how much attention you were paying the previous dozen or so times.

I suggest you do a little search on the forum for the terms "tiktaalik" and "phylogenetic tree", in case you REALLY need to have your memory refreshed.

Then you can come back here and state your business.
Then we'll see how sincere you are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is only here to say evolution is a scientific fact, so if you don't have anything in science, to say otherwise, just shut up.

We've all given you plenty of science to work with.
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Off course, if you don't understand, and refuse to understand or to educate yourself, the concept of scientific evidence, you might have missed it.

That is like a scientist walking around the community of scientist, as though he is wearing a badge, and saying, "Big Bang theory is the accepted theory, so since your theories don't hold up, and are not replacing it, you might as well just go sit in a corner, and keep quiet."

Well, they wouldn't be wrong.

Big bang theory is the accepted theory in science for a good reason. That reason is explanatory power and supporting evidence.

If someone disagrees and thinks they can come up with a better model, by all means: go for it. But if all you have is handwaving and fallacious arguments, don't expect anybody to listen. The only thing you can expect at that point, is idd people telling you to go sit in a corner and keep quite, until you can do better then just makie bare assertions.

All the while refusing to discuss the problems, contradictions, and gaping holes in the theory.

I know of no scientist who's unwilling to discuss or even acknowledge problems or contradictions.

That kind of attitude, imo, does not make for any kind of debate.

Science is not done through "debate".

If @shunyadragon wants to debate, then he must be willing to consider the problems that people raise

If they are actually problems, off course.
If the "problems" that are raised, are actually nothing but fallacies and strawmen... then all one has to do is point it out.
The "objections" that creationists tend to raise against established science, is always of exactly that category: fallacies and misinformation.

Sounds like you are butthurt that people don't wish to cater to your scientific ignorance.
Well... tough luck.

Otherwise, there is no debate... just someone hopping on the forum and saying, "What other scientific theory is there?"

Once more: science isn't done through debate.
It is done through proposing testable ideas, then actually testing them and see if the results hold up or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know this post is aimed at two other specific posters, but...

Interested in knowing...
@Jose Fly & @Subduction Zone what do you think of a theory that is supported only by circumstantial evidence alone,

The evidence isn't circumstantial. We have observed both micro and macro-evolution occurring.

where there is no direct evidence,

See above.

and the only evidence that can be observable,

Hold on, you just said that there was no direct evidence? Now you're saying that there IS observable evidence?

Which is it?

is not testable?

Why would you need to test something that is observable? The point of testing is that you test for something you CAN'T observe.

How confident are you in it, and why?

Very confident, because every piece of available evidence supports the theory and no evidence contradicts it. It also provides a sufficient and convincing explanation for biodiversity that is consistent with what is observed,

Why do you have confidence in the methodologies that are all subjective,

They are not "all subjective". The fact that all life shared common genetic inheritance is not subjective. The fact that life reproduces with variation is not subjective. The fact that the fossil record displays nested hierarchies is not subjective.

and based on opinions of researchers?

It isn't. It's the facts that matter.

Are you fully convinced?

What's the difference between being convinced and being "fully" convinced?

Why?

See above.

What do you consider the most convincing evidence?

Common genetic inheritance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The phrase religious agenda seem to be the only thing that rolls off your lips when you are faced with science peer reviewed journals that are against your biased opinions..

Please. You haven't posted a single peer reviewed paper in favor for ID. And the reason is simply: such papers DO NOT EXIST.

Also, you might want to google the term "cdesign proponentsists". It will show you just how "honest" the ID community is.

As it stands. There is no objective verifiable evidence for UCA...

False.

Every grand scale phylogentic tree generated from fully sequenced genomes, is such evidence.
The geographic distribution of species matching these trees, further confirms it by an independent line of evidence.
Comparative anatomy matches those trees also.


Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on that same answer.

That's explanatory power for ya.

Denying it, doesn't make it go away.
Misunderstanding it, doesn't make it invalid.
Misrepresenting it, doesn't make it inaccurate.

It is what it is - regardless of your a priori fundamentalist religious dogmatic faith based beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problems I see with your agreement with the conclusions you accept for evolution is that other than similarity of genes among the different kinds or species, you have no real evidence in action or not in action.

How many times must it be repeated that it's not about mere "similarity", but rather about the pattern of DNA matches?

And how those exact patterns are seen not just in comparative genetics, but also in other independent fields of inquiry like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc?

The only support it seems you use is genetic similarity

It rather seems that that is the only part of it that you allow to sink through to your brain, while completely ignoring everything else as well as the implications it brings.

Tell me, when a DNA test is done to determine if a child is your biological child, do you think that it is just "guesswork" on the part of the labs based only on some vague "genetic similarities"?

It seems like that would necessarily have to be what you believe.... unless you hold contradictory ideas in your head.

[qutoe]
There are no evidences of any organism evolving[/quote]



You mean, aside from all the direct observations of speciation events?
Aside for the multiple independent lines of evidence all converging on the same conclusion of common ancestry?

, such as dinosaurs morphing eventually after a looong time to be a bird

Birds ARE dinosaurs.
You can't come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" that includes ALL dinosaurs yet excludes birds.
In the same way, you can't come up with a generic definition of "mammal" that includes ALL mammals yet excludes humans.

Just because a dinosaur may have had feathers doesn't mean birds came by means of dinosaurs that evolved over millions, is it, of years. No observable genetic support then or now for this type of postulation. You may say that is how it happened, but it may not be so. Some scientists do feel that there is an be irreducible complexity to that which is supposed to have emerged from who knows what.

"irreduciçble complexity" is a PRATT that is nothing more then a gigantic argument from ignorance.
Frankly it's embarassing that it's still being brought up. Even the loons that conjured up the idea have all but abbandonned it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rest are associated with the Discovery Institute and have not published their claims in peer reviewed literature.

Also interesting to note here...

cdesign proponentsists like to cry about "discrimination" or whatever in scientific circles, that journals dishonestly "refuse" to publish their papers because of some mysterious "bias" or whatever.

However, this is yet another lie on their part.
When you go ask the editors of such journals how many creationist / ID papers they have received for peer review / publication over the years... the answer is ZERO.

Creationists like to claim that journals categorically and dishonestly "refuse" to publish their stuff. The truth is that they never even tried to get anything published. And it's not hard to figure out why....

People like Behe, who actually has relevant credentials / studies to write such papers and understands how the process of publication works, KNOW VERY WELL how they stuff they come up with doesn't qualify as proper science. They know very well how it won't stand up to scrutiny. How it doesn't meet the requirements that a science paper should meet.

They know this, because they KNOW that they are full of sh*t.
The only place where they can get their nonsense published is on their own websites and in non-scientific mediiums.

They are liars from beginning to end.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for bringing it forward.
Now match the two statements.

The two statements match with only a slight change in wording. Own up to it, and do not dodge what you stated.

 

[shunyadragon]

I realize that. I wasn't talking about the foundation of flight.
An airplane that flies is based on practical application put in action, including physics. That's different from the idea (theory) that a unicell or more appeared from whatever scientists say it or they may have come from. That you say a plane flying is comparable to the assumption of a unicell or many unicells emerging is ridiculous. Even if it's a "peer reviewed" assumption. Have a good evening.

Science is the basic research in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and the toolbox Math, and not applied technology based on science. The basic science makes the same assumptions for ALL sciences including those that involve evolution. This is why by far most sciences in the basic sciences accept the science of evolution. The few, very very few, that reject evolution do so base on a religious agenda, as acknowledged by AIG and the Discovery Institute.

The elephant in the room question. Why is it that only the scientists associated with AIG and the Discovery Institute with a religious agenda reject evolution? In all my search I only found one scientist that claims to be non-religious, and not a Christian that rejects evolution.

The Pew research polls indicate that only about 2% of scientists reject evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, allow me to say that the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution. So what's the hypothesis about skin color changing from dark-skinned chimpanzees, is it, to light-skinned persons? Which came first? A dark-skinned human from Africa shedding the hair, or a light-skinned person evolving in some persons' minds as the more recent "superior" 'race'? Frankly, Darwin seemed like a thoughtful individual, however, as we know eugenics took off after things moved along (culturally, that is...), and many, MANY people who were influential clung to that theory of racial superiority. And still do. Yes, it is clearly related to the theory of racial evolution. The graphs and pictures of what is supposed to be evolution from chimpanzees to those looking like Greek and European royalty shows the thought process behind that. Scientific thought is changing about that, and scientists are saying something like, well, the early humans weren't that dumb after all, turns out. On the other hand, here's an interesting article if you care to read it. Doesn't take long.
Humans are Fundamentally Stupid Creatures

By the way?!?! No, the contemporary science does not advocate the concept of superior race. I fyo believe so please cite a reliable reference that confirms as the consensus to any significant extent. Who are these MANY people?

The reference you cited is not a scientific reference justifying the concept of race. It is an editorial commentary, though not bad demonstrating the problems of the contemporary world.

 

[YoursTrue]

That wasn't my point. My point was that computers demonstrate the reliability of the scientific method, not specifically evolution.

It was not a good comparison. The scientific method put materials together harnessing wind power after great thought and experimentation by humans. The airplane did not evolve or come about on its own as you believe evolution did (or does). The invention of the airplane required human thought and skill.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was not a good comparison. The scientific method put materials together harnessing wind power after great thought and experimentation by humans. The airplane did not evolve or come about on its own as you believe evolution did (or does). The invention of the airplane required human thought and skill.

Again, you're completely missing the point of my argument. I didn't compare the scientific method to evolution. My point is simply that the scientific method produces reliable results. Please read my posts more carefully.

 

[nPeace]

You should not use "circumstantial" as a derogative term. Some of the most reliable evidence that we have is circumstantial and some of the poorest evidence is direct. Eyewitness evidence is actually weaker than DNA evidence which is circumstantial. I am fine with the evidence for evolution. It is so strong that one there is no response to it from creationists. Most do not even want to know what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.

And what makes you think that the evidence is not testable? That seems to be a rather odd claim to me.

I don't understand.
How can a person use "circumstantial" in a derogatory way?
Perhaps explain how I am using it different to this.
"...overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth"

What I am asking when I say 'cannot be tested'... let me clarify.
I am referring to experimentation and observation. So since we cannot observe this process as claimed by Darwinist, how can it be tested using the scientific method?

Just so you know, in your response, if at any time you find I say something that is you don't find to be right, feel free at anytime to say what you believe to be right. I will respond after.
This can prevent you having to wait, just in case I am away for some time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I am asking when I say 'cannot be tested'... let me clarify.
I am referring to experimentation and observation. So since we cannot observe this process as claimed by Darwinist, how can it be tested using the scientific method?

Again, we can and have observed it directly, multiple times.

We can also test it by comparing similarities in DNA and fossil morphology, and by making successful predictions about both. To say "if X and Y evolved from common ancestor Z, we would expect to find form Z with traits A, B and C in strata layer D", then digging in strata layer D and finding a fossil of form Z with features A, B and C is a successful test of common ancestry.

Saying "X and Y are predicted to be closely related by common ancestry, diverging around point Z, therefore we would expect to find similarities in divergent point Z between the genetic code of X and Y" and then finding divergent point Z in X and Y is a successful test of common ancestry.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is the basic research and not applied technology based on science. The basic science makes the same assumptions for ALL sciences including those that involve evolution. This is why by far most sciences in the basic sciences accept the science of evolution. The few, very very few, that reject evolution do so base on a religious agenda, as acknowledged by AIG and the Discovery Institute.

The elephant in the room question. Why is it that only the scientists associated with AIG and the Discovery Institute with a religious agenda reject evolution? In all my search I only found one scientist that claims to be non-religious, and not a Christian that rejects evolution.

The Pew research polls indicate that only about 2% of scientists reject evolution.

So? Shall we go back to peer review?
If my doctor believes in evolution, I'll still go to her when I need someone knowledgeable in that branch of science. She may recommend something based on her knowledge, as well as the "general knowledge" (consensus) of doctors. But, as you probably know, they have various viewpoints and will often recommend what is the majority opinion of treatment. Yet can be wrong.
Surveys of various sorts show various things, as in elections, "testing out" can prove right or wrong, while some people will still support the unsupportable, even though they have their reasons.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, we can and have observed it directly, multiple times.

We can also test it by comparing similarities in DNA and fossil morphology, and by making successful predictions about both. To say "if X and Y evolved from common ancestor Z, we would expect to find form Z with traits A, B and C in strata layer D", then digging in strata layer D and finding a fossil of form Z with features A, B and C is a successful test of common ancestry.

Saying "X and Y are predicted to be closely related by common ancestry, diverging around point Z, therefore we would expect to find similarities in divergent point Z between the genetic code of X and Y" and then finding divergent point Z in X and Y is a successful test of common ancestry.

In reply, I would like to say that when other evidence is uncovered, I see different hypotheses as to the evolutionary lineage are presented. I find it interesting, despite conjectural views, that the missing link of the relative from which humans supposedly evolved has never been found. It's somewhere out of the genetic or fossil picture, has not been certified, either in concrete terms OR imagination. The pictures in textbooks and otherwise show that humans emerged from beings that look like chimpanzees, gorillas. And of course, we have the various suggestions as to how the different skin colors of humans came about. Along with that, what skin "color" is the latest in the evolution scale?

 

[nPeace]

I know this post is aimed at two other specific posters, but...

But what, @ImmortalFlame
No butts allowed. Just joking. So put a smile on your face and take that frown off.

Anyway, there is a reason I did not put sixty names in my post. I don't want to be bombarded with a hail of posts that I would feel obligated to respond to... and I narrowed it down to two posters who 1) have been most active on this thread, and 2) Jose Fly has been more than tolerant of my "Presumptuous arrogance to take it upon myself to question, attack, and deny the "sciences". so I prefer to talk to him, where I know I will get answers that I can respond to without feeling like someone is screaming, "How dare you?"
He may say it, but I can take his blows.
So, sorry. You're are not included in this... besides this is more than a thousand posts, so you had ample time to respond before.

No offense, but I hope you understand, i want to take my time, and not feel rushed, or overwhelmed.
Maybe we will meet on another occasion... maybe, but i suspect it won't be on this topic, because I made this thread to come to a conclusion on the theory of evolution.
It would be on record that it has been thoroughly discussed with me. Rather than just hearing people say it has.

So. thanks for the input, but...
Take care.

The evidence isn't circumstantial. We have observed both micro and macro-evolution occurring.


See above.


Hold on, you just said that there was no direct evidence? Now you're saying that there IS observable evidence?

Which is it?


Why would you need to test something that is observable? The point of testing is that you test for something you CAN'T observe.


Very confident, because every piece of available evidence supports the theory and no evidence contradicts it. It also provides a sufficient and convincing explanation for biodiversity that is consistent with what is observed,


They are not "all subjective". The fact that all life shared common genetic inheritance is not subjective. The fact that life reproduces with variation is not subjective. The fact that the fossil record displays nested hierarchies is not subjective.


It isn't. It's the facts that matter.


What's the difference between being convinced and being "fully" convinced?


See above.


Common genetic inheritance.

I'll keep this for the record.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I am asking when I say 'cannot be tested'... let me clarify.
I am referring to experimentation and observation. So since we cannot observe this process as claimed by Darwinist, how can it be tested using the scientific method?

Because the theory, the model, of the process makes testable predictions.
Predictions concerning what data we should and should not be able to find.

For example, if "hair" is a trait that evolved in the lineage of mammals, then we should not be able to find any frogs or fish or birds with "hair". And we don't.

If chimps are our closest cousins, then we should share more ERV's with chimps then we do with cats or dogs. And we do.

If mammals evolved in the past X million years, we should not find mammal fossils in geological layers older then that. And we don't.

Or "if land crawlers evolved out of sealife some 375 million years ago, we should be able to find transitionals that show features of BOTH sealife as well as landcrawles in rock of that age which at the time was in or near shallow waters". Which is an actual prediction that was made. That rock was identified on a geological map. And couple weeks into the dig, Tiktaalik was found. By prediction.

etc etc etc etc.

These kinds of predictions can be about details, or they can be about big big picture stuff. Big picture stuff would be things like phylogenetic trees based on comparative genomics and those trees needing to correspond and make sense to things like geographic distribution of species.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In reply, I would like to say that when other evidence is uncovered, I see different hypotheses as to the evolutionary lineage are presented.

Of course. Unraveling billions of years of genetic lineage is complicated. How far back can you go back in your family history before things become murky and it becomes difficult to precisely distinguish what relative you're looking at and their exact relation to you? To suppose that scientists should be able to magically know the exact specifics of evolutionary ancestry is unreasonable. Regardless, the picture that they have managed to put together so far is extremely compelling and well substantiated.

I find it interesting, despite conjectural views, that the missing link of the relative from which humans supposedly evolved has never been found.

What "missing link"? We have found hundreds of evolutionary ancestors - which one do you propose should be the missing link?

The pictures in textbooks and otherwise show that humans emerged from beings that look like chimpanzees, gorillas.

But they weren't. Humans and chimpanzees/gorillas share a common ancestor.

And of course, we have the various suggestions as to how the different skin colors of humans came about.

Competing ideas about the specifics doesn't diminish the overall picture. Again, scientists aren't psychics, and to expect them to know everything up front is unreasonable.

Along with that, what skin "color" is the latest in the evolution scale?

I'm not sure, but I think east-Asian and Caucasian are the most recent skin colours to evolve, though I have no idea which came sooner.

 

[nPeace]

Again, we can and have observed it directly, multiple times.

We can also test it by comparing similarities in DNA and fossil morphology, and by making successful predictions about both. To say "if X and Y evolved from common ancestor Z, we would expect to find form Z with traits A, B and C in strata layer D", then digging in strata layer D and finding a fossil of form Z with features A, B and C is a successful test of common ancestry.

Saying "X and Y are predicted to be closely related by common ancestry, diverging around point Z, therefore we would expect to find similarities in divergent point Z between the genetic code of X and Y" and then finding divergent point Z in X and Y is a successful test of common ancestry.

When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But what, @ImmortalFlame
No butts allowed. Just joking. So put a smile on your face and take that frown off.

Anyway, there is a reason I did not put sixty names in my post. I don't want to be bombarded with a hail of posts that I would feel obligated to respond to... and I narrowed it down to two posters who 1) have been most active on this thread, and 2) Jose Fly has been more than tolerant of my "Presumptuous arrogance to take it upon myself to question, attack, and deny the "sciences". so I prefer to talk to him, where I know I will get answers that I can respond to without feeling like someone is screaming, "How dare you?"
He may say it, but I can take his blows.
So, sorry. You're are not included in this... besides this is more than a thousand posts, so you had ample time to respond before.

No offense, but I hope you understand, i want to take my time, and not feel rushed, or overwhelmed.
Maybe we will meet on another occasion... maybe, but i suspect it won't be on this topic, because I made this thread to come to a conclusion on the theory of evolution.
It would be on record that it has been thoroughly discussed with me. Rather than just hearing people say it has.

So. thanks for the input, but...
Take care.


I'll keep this for the record.

Okee doke.