Is evolution as crooked as Hillary?

[Kirran]

It's an example, are you denying the process of selective breeding? I guess you breed a smaller and smaller wolf, picking the ugliest ones until you get a pug.

That's not cross-breeding. Cross-breeding is crossing different breeds, species or varieties together to produce a hybrid. It's a selective pressure acting upon a population to take advantage of existing genetic variation and new mutations, resulting in a new average to the population. This is what we observe in bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, it's what we observe in speciation events with fruit flies in the US, it's what we observe in cane toads adapting to Australia, it's what we observe across thousands upon thousands of examples, and refer to as evolution.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution theory says over millions of years humans evolved from single cell organisms, which is just wild speculation.

But it's not speculation. It's a conclusion based on a great deal of evidence.
Why would you think it wild speculation?
Personal incredulity?

 

[Kemosloby]

That's not cross-breeding. Cross-breeding is crossing different breeds, species or varieties together to produce a hybrid. It's a selective pressure acting upon a population to take advantage of existing genetic variation and new mutations, resulting in a new average to the population. This is what we observe in bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, it's what we observe in speciation events with fruit flies in the US, it's what we observe in cane toads adapting to Australia, it's what we observe across thousands upon thousands of examples, and refer to as evolution.

You've changed the meaning of evolution, Evolution is a much broader category than natural selection, selective breeding or cross breeding. I don't deny those things, but it's not evolution. Evolution stretches the meaning to unproven ideas such as mankind evolved from a monkey.

 

[Kemosloby]

But it's not speculation. It's a conclusion based on a great deal of evidence.
Why would think it wild speculation?
Personal incredulity?

If science wants to make a mouse they breed two mice. They can claim all their evolution speculations but can't make a mouse out of anything but two mice.

 

[Kirran]

You've changed the meaning of evolution, Evolution is a much broader category than natural selection, selective breeding or cross breeding. I don't deny those things, but it's not evolution. Evolution stretches the meaning to unproven ideas such as mankind evolved from a monkey.

As a biologist, I don't think I have. Evolution is the expression of those exact processes (five, actually - mutation, migration, natural selection, non-random mating and genetic drift) and the fact that your personal incredulity kicks in when we reach a certain timescale doesn't change anything.

 

[Kemosloby]

As a biologist, I don't think I have. Evolution is the expression of those exact processes (five, actually - mutation, migration, natural selection, non-random mating and genetic drift) and the fact that your personal incredulity kicks in when we reach a certain timescale doesn't change anything.

Imagination must kick in at a certain timescale, but you as a "scientist" are perfectly fine with that.

 

[Kirran]

Imagination must kick in at a certain timescale, but you as a "scientist" are perfectly fine with that.

Must it? Why?

 

[Valjean]

If science wants to make a mouse they breed two mice. They can claim all their evolution speculations but can't make a mouse out of anything but two mice.

Knowledge and technology don't march in lockstep.

 

[Kemosloby]

Knowledge and technology don't march in lockstep.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. So you need some proof before I accept your "knowledge".

 

[Kemosloby]

Must it? Why?

Because nobody has ever seen someone make a mouse from an amoeba. You could just as easily speculate the world was started whole, with a complete system of life and death already in place. Though It is a touching story the we clawed our way to the top from our humble beginnings as plankton or something.

 

[Valjean]

False equivalency.
Just because we don't yet have the technology to do something doesn't mean we don't understand the steps involved.

 

[Kemosloby]

False equivalency.
Just because we don't yet have the technology to do something doesn't mean we don't understand the steps involved.

You think you understand the steps involved, but have no proof they ever occured. You can't even simulate it in a controlled environment.

 

[Kirran]

Because nobody has ever seen someone make a mouse from an amoeba. You could just as easily speculate the world was started whole, with a complete system of life and death already in place. Though It is a touching story the we clawed our way to the top from our humble beginnings as plankton or something.

Any particular narrative of clawing and humility is just imagination. The facts are that as things stand we have immense amounts of evidence for the plausibility of the common descent of all life forms, with all differences being due to selective pressures acting upon variation produced by genetic mutation. With some randomness thrown in, although this is a very small factor.

 

[Valjean]

Because nobody has ever seen someone make a mouse from an amoeba. You could just as easily speculate the world was started whole, with a complete system of life and death already in place. Though It is a touching story the we clawed our way to the top from our humble beginnings as plankton or something.

Selectively breeding a mouse from an amoeba in the lab -- recreating the natural process -- could take almost as many generations as it did in Nature.
Why would anyone bother with a demonstration project that would take a million years and trillions of dollars and yield no new or useful knowledge?
Scientists rarely "experiment" if it's just for show and no new knowledge is expected to come of it.

 

[Kemosloby]

Any particular narrative of clawing and humility is just imagination. The facts are that as things stand we have immense amounts of evidence for the plausibility of the common descent of all life forms, with all differences being due to selective pressures acting upon variation produced by genetic mutation. With some randomness thrown in, although this is a very small factor.

Yeah ok...let me know you can make a mole out of your mountain of evidence.

 

[Kemosloby]

Selectively breeding a mouse from an amoeba in the lab -- recreating the natural process -- could take almost as many generations as it did in Nature.
Why would anyone bother with a demonstration project that would take a million years and trillions of dollars and yield no new or useful knowledge?
Scientists rarely "experiment" if it's just for show and no new knowledge is expected to come of it.

How about a dog from a cat?

 

[Valjean]

You think you understand the steps involved, but have no proof they ever occured. You can't even simulate it in a controlled environment.

We have no proof of continental drift, ice ages or dinosaurs, either, but we have enough evidence supporting them that it would be silly to posit an alternative with no supporting evidence whatever.

We can observe living examples of the steps involved. We can observe the mechanisms and recreate them in the lab, and we have the fossil and genetic records.

 

[Valjean]

How about a dog from a cat?

Again, what would be the point? It would just be an expensive, time consuming demonstration product. We already know the basic mechanisms involved. Research is concentrating on better understanding their details.

 

[Kemosloby]

We have no proof of continental drift, ice ages or dinosaurs, either, but we have enough evidence supporting them that it would be silly to posit an alternative with no supporting evidence whatever.

We can observe living examples of the steps involved. We can observe the mechanisms and recreate them in the lab, and we have the fossil and genetic records.

"Evidence" thumpers. Can't prove anything but they'll thump you with their "evidence".

 

[Valjean]

Now you're just blathering, Kemosloby,