How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

I will settle for an unbroken chain of corpses/skeletons/fossils from Adam to me in order to accept creation and Genesis. It should be super easy, seeing as how it was only a few thousand years ago. Heck, I'd settle for every 3rd one in the line, as that would only be about 100.

The DNA should help, too bad you can't go back far enough. And then some like to a bonobo or gorilla? Too bad it just isn't there to examine.

 

[YoursTrue]

The point is that they evolved.

No, that's not the point. Humans can produce populations after a while among each other, of persons with predominantly short legs, or darker skin That is not what I consider evolution. If you do, ok, that's the way you look at evolution, ok, that's how you see evolution. I do not. That is simple genetics, but as we said, humans remain humans and viruses remain viruses. Even though their replication can change, they still remain within the boundaries.

 

[shunyadragon]

But you can’t quote a single specific example of me denying a scientific reference can you?

All of them including the list of basic texts on evolution previously provided in high school and freshman college level in English. There have numerous previous threads on evolution withmany scientific references provided.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that's not the point. Humans can produce populations after a while among each other, of persons with predominantly short legs, or darker skin That is not what I consider evolution. If you do, ok, that's the way you look at evolution, ok, that's how you see evolution. I do not. That is simple genetics, but as we said, humans remain humans and viruses remain viruses. Even though their replication can change, they still remain within the boundaries.

But humans didn't *produce* those changes. Those changes happened without human intervention.

What humans did was *select* which changes to breed; which changes would be in the next generation.

And that is *precisely* what happens with natural selection.

And yes, living things stay inside of their type. For example, whales are still mammals. They descended from mammals and are still mammals. Technically, they are still the same 'type' as their ancestors that lived on the land.

 

[Polymath257]

Still nothing about the cave painting and dating? In other words, you are going to allow the dating process by those telling you of the cave painting make up your mind for you, and you offer no understanding of your own. No insult intended, just saying what I see. I am amazed that I have seen links and information from those in the field, but no explanations with verification of real proof by so many. Well anyway, if anything has been proved to me, it's that.

I was waiting to see if you agreed with my post #225.

Do you agree with what I posted there?

 

[leroy]

All of them including the list of basic texts on evolution previously provided in high school and freshman college level in English. There have numerous previous threads on evolution withmany scientific references provided.

Yes yes, but you can't find a single case where I Denied a scientific reference

 

[tas8831]

The DNA should help, too bad you can't go back far enough. And then some like to a bonobo or gorilla? Too bad it just isn't there to examine.

If you understood how genetic analyses operate, which you do not, then you would not have written that.
Or do you really think that you just, with that one flippant post, disproved the basis of successful commercial ventures like Ancestry.com?
Of course you don't - you have no idea how such things work.

HINT: you do not need DNA from the ancestors to conclude shared ancestry between extant taxa.


A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"We overcome this deficiency by sequencing 54 nuclear gene regions from DNA samples representing ∼90% of the diversity present in living primates. We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages."

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes yes, but you can't find a single case where I Denied a scientific reference

If it is the case that you do not deny any of scientific references and the texts referenced concerning evolution than you accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis as the knowledge sciences related to the beginnings and evolution of life including humans.

Is this the case? Do you accept a version of Theistic evolution without qualification as science describes it?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is it you say was "only a few thousand years ago"?

No, six thousand.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, please can you give that reference again?

Sooo sorry, but the bare facts are not there. You say they are -- but they are not. Viruses mutate, but so far they don't become anything but viruses. How Viruses Mutate and Create New Variants | Tufts Now
If you have info that they mutate into something other than a virus, please do provide info, I think you said you gave it, but I hope you can give it to me again, I apologize since I tend to answer the last post first. I'll try not to answer you until I see the information you provide that viruses evolve to become something other than a virus. (Thanks.)

Please note your response in a previous post of mine that gave a detailed response to your question.

hmm, well you understand this, I suppose. (?) I do not. And so I bid you adieu. I ask you no more questions. Thanks.

Your responses above also reflect your failure to educate yourself and understand science so that you can give an intelligent response.

 

[leroy]

If it is the case that you do not deny any of scientific references and the texts referenced concerning evolution than you accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis as the knowledge sciences related to the beginnings and evolution of life including humans.

Is this the case? Do you accept a version of Theistic evolution without qualification as science describes it?

II don't have a problem with science.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.


Any disagreement from your part?

 

[shunyadragon]

II don't have a problem with science.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.


Any disagreement from your part?

Yes, you have a problem with science as repeatedly stated before, science knows how evolution happened based on the objective verifiable evidence and over 150 years of scientific research.

Science knows how evolution happened naturally, which is the conclusion of all the references and texts, which you deny. Theistic evolutionists consider the process 'Creation determined by God' in terms of natural laws and processes. Secular naturalists consider it simply the result of natural laws and processes.

Then it is a matter of fact that you admit you deny and do not accept the scientific references and texts provided throughout all the references, which clearly demonstrated how evolution happened based on natural laws and processes. You, of course, deny these conclusions based on your religious agenda.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

II don't have a problem with science.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.


Any disagreement from your part?

I see a problem.

Evolution occurs through natural selection. How have you missed that?

 

[shunyadragon]

I see a problem.

Evolution occurs through natural selection. How have you missed that?

. . . which is the conclusion of all the scientific references and texts, which @leroy rejects.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that's not the point. Humans can produce populations after a while among each other, of persons with predominantly short legs, or darker skin That is not what I consider evolution. If you do, ok, that's the way you look at evolution, ok, that's how you see evolution. I do not. That is simple genetics, but as we said, humans remain humans and viruses remain viruses. Even though their replication can change, they still remain within the boundaries.

You mix a lot of concepts that you clearly do not understand.

Interbreeding is not evolution. That is a source of genetic diversity. Evolution occurs when some selection acts on the results of that interbreeding.

Once again, and I am sure not the last time, no one expects that viral reproduction, human reproduction or any reproduction will lead to offspring that magically are different species than their progenitors. The evolution of new taxa is a chain of reproduction and selection over long periods of time. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that you generally refuse to acknowledge and offer no valid alternative interpretation when you do acknowledge it.

 

[Yazata]

I don't have a problem with science.

I do, when appeals to "science" are used to justify arguments from authority by people whose authority I don't entirely trust. It's not like everything said in the name of science is absolutely and unequivocably true. It's not like the general public is somehow obligated to unquestioningly and uncritically believe everything said in the name of science.

I get worried when "science" is used to justify authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism.

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

I think that it does for evolution, at least in its broad outlines. At least a heuristic into which observations are poured (fossils, comparative anatomy, genomic evidence) and explanatory hypotheses about selective advantage extracted. That's the role that natural selection plays in biological thought.

Biologists feel that they possess the broad outlines of how evolution works, if not the smaller details which remain hypothetical. Perhaps natural selection is best thought of as a hypothesis-generator. Maybe some of those hypotheses can be verified, while others are harder. But verifying some of the hypotheses that natural selection cranks out doesn't really tell us that all the hypotheses that it generates must somehow be true.

I'm more inclined to agree with you regarding abiogenesis. To move from fundamental organic chemistry to even the simplest cell is a huge leap. Basic cellular anatomy, energy metabolism, protein synthesis, the origin of the genetic code all need to be explained. It seemingly requires that the leap be broken down into a series of smaller steps, but there's no universal agreement on what those steps were or what order they occurred. How these already hypothetical steps were realized involves another bout of hypothesizing about mechanisms. This is where experiments can be performed to determine whether the proposed mechanism will work in conditions hypothesized (!) to have existed on the early Earth. So it turns into guesses piled upon guesses, piled upon more guesses, which results in speculation, not something that can legitimately be called knowledge.

I do think that this is the direction in which an answer to the origin of life question may or may not be forthcoming in the future. (Humans may never really know.) But it's way premature to say that we know now.

We know these events happened, but we don't know how they happened.

I agree with that. There are lots and lots of guesses and speculations and hypotheses, but not knowledge exactly. The remaining questions haven't all been answered in some undisputable way.

Any disagreement from your part?

I agree with what you said in that particular post. Seems unobjectionable to me.

 

[tas8831]

I get worried when "science" is used to justify authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism.

what is this "science" you are referring to?

I'm more inclined to agree with you regarding abiogenesis. To move from fundamental organic chemistry to even the simplest cell is a huge leap. Basic cellular anatomy, energy metabolism, protein synthesis, the origin of the genetic code all need to be explained.

Do you think that a cell is part of abiogenesis?

So it turns into guesses piled upon guesses, piled upon more guesses, which results in speculation, not something that can legitimately be called knowledge.

So please tell me which of these are guesses upon guesses:

2020

Hao, J., Knoll, A.H., Huang, F., Hazen, R.M., and Daniel, I. (2020) Cycling phosphorus on the Archean Earth: Part I. Continental weathering and riverine transport of phosphorus, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 273, 70-84.

Hao, J., Knoll, A.H., Huang, F., Schieber, J., Hazen, R.M., and Daniel, I. (2020) Cycling phosphorus on the Archean Earth: Part II. Phosphorus limitation on primary production in Archean ecosystems, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 280, 360-377.

Rampe, E.B., Bristow, T.F., Morris, R.V., Morrison, S.M., Achilles, C.N., Ming, D.W., Vaniman, D.T., Blake, D.F., Tu, V.M., Chipera, S.J., Yen, A.S., Peretyazhko, T.S., Downs, R.T., Hazen, R.M., Treiman, A.H., Grotzinger, J.P., Castle, N., Craig, P.I., Des Marais, D.J., Thorpe, M.T., Walroth, R.C., Downs, G.W., Fraeman, A.A., Siebach, A.L., Gellert, R., McAdam, A.C., Sutter, B., and Salvatore, M.R. (2020) Mineralogy of Vera Rubin Ridge from the Mars Science Laboratory CheMin instrument. Journal of Geophysical Research – Planets, 125, e2019JE006306.

Johnson, S., Graham, H., Des Marais, D.J., and Hazen, R.M. (2020) Detecting life on Earth and the limits of analogy. In Planetary Astrobiology (V. Meadows et al., eds.), pp. 121–150. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, DOI: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816540068-ch005.

Castle, N., Treiman, A.H., Achilles, C., Blake, D., Bristow, T., Chipera, S., Craig, P., Downs, G., Downs, R., Hazen, R., Ming, D., Morrison, S., Morookian, J., Rampe, E., Tu, V., Vaniman, D., Walroth, R., Wilson, M. (2020) Detection and Quantification of Minor Phases in CheMin X-Ray Diffraction Results from Mars. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, in press.

Morris, R.V., Rampe, E.B., Vaniman, D.T., Christiffersen, R., Yen, A.S., Morrison, S.M., Ming, D.M., Achilles, C.N., Fraeman, A.A., Le, L., Tu, V.M., Ott, J.P., Treiman, A.H., Hogancamp, J.V., Graff, T.G., Adams, M., Hamilton, J.C., Mertzman, S.A., Bristow, T.F., Blake, D.F., Castle, N., Chipera, S.J., Craig, P.I., Des Marais, D.J., Dowms, G., Downs, R.T., Hazen, R.M., Morookian, J.-M., and Thorpe, M. (2020) Hydrothermal precipitation of sanidine (adularia) having full Al,Si structural disorder and specular hematite at Maunakea Volcano (Hawai’i) and Gale Crater (Mars). Journal of Geophysical Research – Planets, 125, e2019JE006324. Error - Cookies Turned Off

Rampe, E.B., D. F. Blake, T. F. Bristow, D. W. Ming, D. T. Vaniman, R. V. Morris, C. N. Achilles, S. J. Chipera, S. M. Morrison, V. M. Tu, A. S. Yen, N. Castle, G. W. Downs, R. T. Downs, J. P. Grotzinger, R. M. Hazen, A. H. Treiman, T. S. Peretyazhko, D. J. Des Marais, R. C. Walroth, P. I. Craig, J. A. Crisp, B. Lafuente, J. M. Morookian, P. C. Sarrazin, M. T. Thorpe, J. C. Bridges, L. A. Edgar, C. M. Fedo, C. Freissinet, R. Gellert, P. R. Mahaffy, H. E. Newsom, J. R. Johnson, L. C. Kah, K. L. Siebach, J. Schieber, V. Z. Sun, A. R. Vasavada, C. Webster, D. Wellington, R. C. Wiens, and the MSL Science Team, Mineralogy and geochemistry of sedimentary rocks and aeolian sediments in Gale crater, Mars: a review after six Earth years of exploration with Curiosity. Geochemistry (Chemie der Erde), 80, 12605.

Achilles, C.N, Rampe, E.B., Downs, R.T., Bristow, T.F., Ming, D.W., Morris, R.V., Vaniman, D.T., Blake, D.F., Yen, A.S., McAdam, A.C., Sutter, B., Fedo, C.M., Gwizd, S., Thompson, L.M., Gellert, R., Morrison, S.M., Treiman, A.H., Crisp, J.A., Gabriel, T.S.J., Chipera, S.J., Hazen, R.M., Craig, P.I., Thorpe, M.T., Des Marais, D.J., Grotzinger, J.P., Tu, V.M., Downs, G.W., Peretyazhko, T.S., Walroth, R.C., Sarrazin, P., and Morookian, J.M. (2020) Evidence for Multiple Diagenetic Episodes in Ancient Fluvial-Lacustrine Sedimentary Rocks in Gale Crater, Mars. Journal of Geophysical Research – Planets, 125, e2019JE006295. Error - Cookies Turned Off

Fornaro, T., Brucato, J.R., Poggiali, G., Corazzi, M.A., Biczysko, M., Jaber, M., Foustoukos, D., Hazen, R.M., and Steele, A. (2020) UV Irradiation and near infrared characterization of laboratory Mars soil analog samples. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences. UV Irradiation and Near Infrared Characterization of Laboratory Mars Soil Analog Samples ​

That is just from 2020. He and his collaborators have been at it for 20 years. You spectacularly mischaracterize the state of the research.

There are lots and lots of guesses and speculations and hypotheses, but not knowledge exactly. The remaining questions haven't all been answered in some undisputable way.

Are any answers undisputable? And the disputes legitimate, or just people throwing out their prejudices and unwarranted doubts?

 

[metis]

My point is and has always been that science doesn't have an explanation on how abiogenesis or evolution occurs.

We know with certainty that evolution occurs but abiogenesis is only a hypotheses.

 

[Polymath257]

What is it you say was "only a few thousand years ago"?

According to *your* theory, that is the time scale from Adam to people today.

To show this is what happened, we need skeletons from every single generation along with photos showing the births, right?

 

[We Never Know]

But humans didn't *produce* those changes. Those changes happened without human intervention.

What humans did was *select* which changes to breed; which changes would be in the next generation.

And that is *precisely* what happens with natural selection.

And yes, living things stay inside of their type. For example, whales are still mammals. They descended from mammals and are still mammals. Technically, they are still the same 'type' as their ancestors that lived on the land.

"yes, living things stay inside of their type. For example, whales are still mammals. They descended from mammals and are still mammals."

Technically that holds truth and not truth.

Something that wasn't a mammal became a mammal. It didn't stay within its type/group.

Anyways I think their arguement is something like this.....for example

You have a group of a specie and within that group overtime 30% get a mutation that allows them to survive at hotter temps and with less water. Over time its gets hotter and hotter with less water. Those with the mutation will survive fine(and their offspring with the mutation) while the others without the mutation eventually die off.
I think their arguement is yet those 30% didn't evolve to be a different species, they stayed the same species and used adaption.

That's what I'm getting out of it. In my opinion the millions of years time frame with multiple mutations per generation doesn't compute to them.