I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I was responding to this post.
I'm explaining why the interpretations are in error.
The conclusions are based on what many scientists think, which includes speculations and assumptions.

I gave examples of how these ideas can be wrong, and how an alternative explanation fits.
Does that answer your question, or are you still wondering?
Knowing you, I'm sure the wondering hasn't ended.

You never have justified your accusation of "assumptions" or even state what they were. And yes, many ideas start out as speculations. But a big part of the scientific method is testing one's hypotheses. After an idea has been properly tested and confirmed countless times it is no longer a speculation. I know. You are probably jealous since the Bible is just assumption and speculation at best. It even tells people not to test it.

Now why wouldn't someone want one's beliefs tested? The only reason that I can think of would be fears that one is wrong. Scientists are much braver than theists. If they are wrong they want to know it. That is why they publish in the manner that they do. Their articles essentially say "Here is what I believe. Here is a detailed account of how I came to those beliefs. Here are the tests that I ran and the details of them". Other scientists then read his work. See if it holds up. And often repeat his work to see if it is valid. They try to prove him wrong. Do you have anything that comes even close to that?

 

[nPeace]

That doesn't really make sense. You were asked to describe how scientists' interpretations of the fossil record are in error, and you replied by saying "Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other" and then copying material about convergent evolution and a "boredpanda" article about organisms that look alike but aren't genetically related.

Yet now we both agree that "they look similar, therefore they are related" is not an assumption or argument that evolutionary biologists make.

So I'm still not sure what your point is.


Not really.


"Maybe the gods just made it that way" is kind of an "alternative explanation" for everything, isn't it?


Yup, still wondering.

Keeping with RF's rules, I cannot quote too much from this article, but we can take it in bits.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the inner ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal.

Is there mention of resemblance, as one piece of evidence? Do you disagree with this bit? Is it wrong, or correct, so far?

 

[Jose Fly]

Keeping with RF's rules, I cannot quote too much from this article, but we can take it in bits.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the inner ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal.

I hope you appreciate how that site was created for general, non-scientist, audiences and is just intended to give readers an elementary level sense of the subject.

IOW, it's like going to a Bible website for kids and saying "Is this really all there is to Christianity?"

So when the Berkeley site says "Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives", they're making a vague reference to the concept of derived traits. But because it's a site for general audiences, they don't get into that level of detail.

Does that makes sense?

Is there mention of resemblance, as one piece of evidence? Do you disagree with this bit? Is it wrong, or correct, so far?

It's more detailed than mere "resemblance". Do you remember our earlier discussion about genetic similarities and how it's not just "they're similar", and is about specific types of similarities?

 

[nPeace]

I hope you appreciate how that site was created for general, non-scientist, audiences and is just intended to give readers an elementary level sense of the subject.

IOW, it's like going to a Bible website for kids and saying "Is this really all there is to Christianity?"

So when the Berkeley site says "Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives", they're making a vague reference to the concept of derived traits. But because it's a site for general audiences, they don't get into that level of detail.

Does that makes sense?


It's more detailed than mere "resemblance". Do you remember our earlier discussion about genetic similarities and how it's not just "they're similar", and is about specific types of similarities?

You didn't answer my question.
Do you disagree with the article? Is it not correct?
The article says more than I quoted.
I'm taking off bits, remember.
No need to jump the gun.
Are you in a hurry?
If so, take care.

 

[Jose Fly]

You didn't answer my question.
Do you disagree with the article? Is it not correct?

To repeat, they're correct in that they're giving a general, layperson level overview. But if we're going to talk about the actual work of actual paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, then we're going to have to get into much more detail and specifics.

Understand?

 

[nPeace]

To repeat, they're correct in that they're giving a general, layperson level overview. But if we're going to talk about the actual work of actual paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, then we're going to have to get into much more detail and specifics.

Understand?

So scientists do not use comparisons as evidence, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

So scientists do not use comparisons as evidence, right?

Of course they do. The concept I'm trying to help you understand is that the "comparisons" are much, much more than "they're similar, therefore they're related".

I thought we'd already agreed to that (you called the above quote a strawman). So to clarify, are we in agreement that scientists don't simply look at specimens, say "they're similar", and from that conclude that they're related?

 

[nPeace]

Of course they do. The concept I'm trying to help you understand is that the "comparisons" are much, much more than "they're similar, therefore they're related".

I already know that, so what is your point?

I thought we'd already agreed to that (you called the above quote a strawman). So to clarify, are we in agreement that scientists don't simply look at specimens, say "they're similar", and from that conclude that they're related?

What makes you create that strawman, when everybody knows that nobody in existence even suggested that?

 

[Jose Fly]

I already know that, so what is your point?

Good. So now we're back to the original issue posed to you.....what specific errors and inappropriate assumptions do you see in paleontologists' interpretations of the fossil record?

What makes you create that strawman, when everybody knows that nobody in existence even suggested that?

Again, I'm glad we agree that "they're similar, therefore they're related" is not an assumption paleontologists make.

Since you linked to the Berkeley page about whales, let's take a look at the actual work of actual scientists (rather than websites for beginners).

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales | PNAS

What specific errors and/or inappropriate assumptions do you see in that paper (if any)?

 

[nPeace]

Good. So now we're back to the original issue posed to you.....what specific errors and inappropriate assumptions do you see in paleontologists' interpretations of the fossil record?


Again, I'm glad we agree that "they're similar, therefore they're related" is not something paleontologists do.

Since you linked to the Berkeley page about whales, let's take a look at the actual work of actual scientists (rather than websites for beginners).

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales | PNAS

What specific errors and/or inappropriate assumptions do you see in that paper (if any)?

You are missing the point. Asking me or anyone for specific errors, is like asking why I think a hypothesis is a bad idea.
In other words, it's like asking me why I think a model scientists speculate to be correct is not correct.
That doesn't make sense.

Did the moon form from debris spun off of the earth, millions of years ago?
No.
Why What's wrong with that idea?
It's speculation?
What specific errors, can you point out?

 

[Jose Fly]

You are missing the point. Asking me or anyone for specific errors, is like asking why I think a hypothesis is a bad idea.
In other words, it's like asking me why I think a model scientists speculate to be correct is not correct.
That doesn't make sense.

So let's take a step back. Do you have opinions about the way paleontologists interpret the fossil record? If so, what are they?

Did the moon form from debris spun off of the earth, millions of years ago?

No.
Why What's wrong with that idea?
It's speculation?
What specific errors, can you point out?

Except I provided you waaaaaaaay more than that (see the paper in my previous post).

 

[nPeace]

So let's take a step back. Do you have opinions about the way paleontologists interpret the fossil record? If so, what are they?

Thank you.
I think interpretations do not belong to one group of people who choose to believe their conclusion is based on the correct interpretation.
The other interpretations can easily be dismissed because the majority say that's it.
I will remember Ignaz Semmelweis in this life.

Except I provided you waaaaaaaay more than that (see the paper in my previous post).

I saw the paper as no differnt to the previous ones on the so-called transitional - Archaeopteryx.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you.
I think interpretations do not belong to one group of people who choose to believe their conclusion is based on the correct interpretation.

Sure...all data requires interpretation. Do you agree that not all interpretations are equally valid?

The other interpretations can easily be dismissed because the majority say that's it.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Can you elaborate?

I will remember Ignaz Semmelweis in this life.

I'm not familiar with that person.

I saw the paper as no differnt to the previous ones on the so-called transitional - Archaeopteryx.

How so?

 

[nPeace]

Sure...all data requires interpretation. Do you agree that not all interpretations are equally valid?

That raises another question, which only circles around to the first. Who determines what a valid interpretation is?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Can you elaborate?

Maybe later. This is my last brief post for the day.

I'm not familiar with that person.

Okay.

How so?

To answer that question, I would have to go all the way back to the first idea - over 150 years ago, to the idea of all life coming from one common ancestor.
I don't know if that idea still stands, since they found that the tree is really a bush, or web.
The last I heard, the belief is that LUCA is from one of the many "branches"
I haven't looked at that information in a while now, so it's sketchy.

However, we don't want to go through that again, after our long hauls through the threads "The Watchmaker" and "Evolution My Toe".
At least I don't want to go that road again.
You however, seem to. Do you?

Have a good evening.

 

[Jose Fly]

That raises another question, which only circles around to the first. Who determines what a valid interpretation is?

I would say in most cases it's a matter of expertise combined with the interpretation being in line with the data. That's why courts rely on "expert witnesses" to testify about specific subjects, such as genetics.

So for example if the prosecution calls a geneticist as an expert witness and he testifies about how the genetic test results show that the defendant was indeed at a crime scene, and in response the defense calls in a televangelist who has zero education or experience in genetics and he argues "God just made it all look that way", I doubt there's a judge or jury in the country that would see those as equally valid interpretations.

To answer that question, I would have to go all the way back to the first idea - over 150 years ago, to the idea of all life coming from one common ancestor.
I don't know if that idea still stands, since they found that the tree is really a bush, or web.
The last I heard, the belief is that LUCA is from one of the many "branches"
I haven't looked at that information in a while now, so it's sketchy.

There are a few evolutionary biologists advocating the idea that all life on earth is descended from a common metapopulation of single-celled organisms that were regularly swapping genes. However, most still hold to the notion that all life is descended from a single population of single-celled organisms.

It's a subtle difference that doesn't really change the theory of universal common ancestry.

However, we don't want to go through that again, after our long hauls through the threads "The Watchmaker" and "Evolution My Toe".
At least I don't want to go that road again.
You however, seem to. Do you?

So you're willing to say that paleontologists and evolutionary biologists make errors, unwarranted assumptions, and the like in their work, but you're not willing to actually look at their work and describe where they do so?

That makes me wonder what you're expecting here. Do you think things are so just because you say they are? Do you think your assertions and claims about paleontology and evolutionary biology carry any weight, such that there's no need for you to back them up?

 

[YoursTrue]

That doesn't really make sense. You were asked to describe how scientists' interpretations of the fossil record are in error, and you replied by saying "Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other" and then copying material about convergent evolution and a "boredpanda" article about organisms that look alike but aren't genetically related.

Yet now we both agree that "they look similar, therefore they are related" is not an assumption or argument that evolutionary biologists make.

So I'm still not sure what your point is.


Not really.


"Maybe the gods just made it that way" is kind of an "alternative explanation" for everything, isn't it?


Yup, still wondering.

The problem is that despite scientific ponderings, it--evolution of the Darwinian kind-- is all speculation insofar as : what distinct form evolved to another distinct form, such as fishes to mammals. And the in-betweens. The intermediary forms said to be leading to mammals are-- you guessed it...all s.p.e.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n offered by... scientists who believe in the Darwinian presumption of natural selection of the theory of evolution and desire to fit in pieces of fossils and forms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that despite scientific ponderings, it--evolution of the Darwinian kind-- is all speculation insofar as : what distinct form evolved to another distinct form, such as fishes to mammals. And the in-betweens. The intermediary forms said to be leading to mammals are-- you guessed it...all s.p.e.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n offered by... scientists who believe in the Darwinian presumption of natural selection of the theory of evolution and desire to fit in pieces of fossils and forms.

Sorry, but what you said is laughably wrong. Worse yet you just made an accusation of the worst sort. That puts a huge burden of proof upon you.

Let's see your evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

That's interesting.
You are asking @YoursTrue to explain why an interpretation is wrong?
Didn't she explain it's based on speculation? Isn't that enough?
You don't think an interpretation is correct because it's the one that's acceptable to some, do you?
You aren't saying their interpretation cannot be wrong, or they aren't mistaken, are you?

The alternative has been mentioned already.
Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other.

Convergent evolution
One of the most fascinating phenomena in nature is called convergent evolution, a process through which creatures (and plants) that are either unrelated or only distantly related evolve to fill the same ecological niche and consequently, the result is that both animals often end up looking alike, despite having very little shared ancestry.

Look Similar But Are Genetically Incompatible
For a really long time, biologists tried to unwrap the evolutionary history of various animals to figure out how they are related to one another. They have taken a seemingly logical course — to classify animals according to their morphological characteristics and fossil records. Thus, many similarly looking animals were presumed to have come from the same ancestors. However, scientists eventually realized that this sort of classification is not always accurate. Many morphological traits, such as, having wings or thumbs, may evolve multiple times, resulting in species that have similar traits but share a different evolutionary history. Things have changed with the recent advancement of molecular technologies. Scientists are now able to perform genetic analyses instead of relying on traditional morphological and fossil data. This has posed some rather interesting results and completely changed the way we look at some animals.

So looking at a snout, blowhole, tail, ear-bone, jawbone, etc, of fossils, and comparing them with other fossils with similar traits, does not mean the conclusions drawn are correct, and not speculative, or assumed.

Like this...

These breads could have been baked in the same oven, with the same ingredients, and by the same baker, but no one assumes that needs to be the case.
That could be a wrong assumption.

Genetics has its own drawbacks, which doesn't make those interpretations accurate either.
There is more, if that's not enough.

Genesis says the "baker" "baked" things according to their kinds.
Hence, they produce - not evolve - according to their kinds. Of course, they adapt, because they were made to. (Genesis 1:11-28)

You think that the only evidence for evolution is that some creatures look alike? You're kidding, right?

It would be more akin to saying that the bread products that look alike have the same chemical residue that could only have come from being baked in a particular oven, and that chemical residue came from being cleaned, so it didn't produce that residue before, and after that use it was cleaned again, so it didn't produce that residue after.

Also, please tell me what drawbacks there are that render the genetic investigation of evolution inaccurate.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is that despite scientific ponderings, it--evolution of the Darwinian kind-- is all speculation insofar as : what distinct form evolved to another distinct form, such as fishes to mammals. And the in-betweens. The intermediary forms said to be leading to mammals are-- you guessed it...all s.p.e.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n offered by... scientists who believe in the Darwinian presumption of natural selection of the theory of evolution and desire to fit in pieces of fossils and forms.

Things are not so just because you say they are.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go online and make baseless assertions.

 

[nPeace]

I would say in most cases it's a matter of expertise combined with the interpretation being in line with the data.

"Expertise combined with the interpretation being in line with the data".
That's circular B.
You came back to the interpretation being correct based on who says it is.

That's why courts rely on "expert witnesses" to testify about specific subjects, such as genetics.

Hmmm. When I mention witnesses, I get told witness testimony is unreliable.
Is that because the witnesses in the Bible are not "experts" but backward liars? That's confusing.

So for example if the prosecution calls a geneticist as an expert witness and he testifies about how the genetic test results show that the defendant was indeed at a crime scene, and in response the defense calls in a televangelist who has zero education or experience in genetics and he argues "God just made it all look that way", I doubt there's a judge or jury in the country that would see those as equally valid interpretations.

Well, I think that's another misrepresentation of what anyone has ever said.
...but again, I am seeing circular reasoning, and maybe the geneticist is an unreliable witness too.

There are a few evolutionary biologists advocating the idea that all life on earth is descended from a common metapopulation of single-celled organisms that were regularly swapping genes. However, most still hold to the notion that all life is descended from a single population of single-celled organisms.

It's a subtle difference that doesn't really change the theory of universal common ancestry.

Most are right. Right?

So you're willing to say that paleontologists and evolutionary biologists make errors, unwarranted assumptions, and the like in their work, but you're not willing to actually look at their work and describe where they do so?

That makes me wonder what you're expecting here. Do you think things are so just because you say they are? Do you think your assertions and claims about paleontology and evolutionary biology carry any weight, such that there's no need for you to back them up?

First, I didn't say they make errors, but they speculate, and yes, speculations and assumptions do lead to wrong conclusions.
Second, I did use papers that show that there are assumptions made, and there are interpretations, which can be wrong.

Actually, I did spend quite a lot of time pointing these out, and as usual, they were ignored, like when certain people avoid answering a simple question, because they don't want to admit that assumptions are made, and these assumptions are not necessarily correct... i.e. can be wrong.

Thirdly, nobody spends any time showing why they dismiss an intelligent designer, and why design does not require an intelligent designer.

So I am not obligated to 1) repeat myself, or 2) explain anything.