Isn't this cute?

[Polymath257]

Other than the personal testimonies and experiences of billions of people. The circumstantial evidence is far beyond the circumstantial evidence for a godless universe. People who have seen the soul leave someone or experienced other spiritual visions, ect, can certainly be dismissed if you have an agenda that causes you not to want to accept them, but I find the overwhelming number of these experiences to be impossible to dismiss by your hand waving.

Except those billions of people can't seem to agree on any specifics. That suggests it isn't a reality, but a cultural myth that people imagine when they have certain types of experiences.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you ever hear how silly that sounds?
People have lived in every kind of environment on earth and no one has formed gills by living near the water and diving a lot, or wings if needed to fly to a water source or even a tail for a third hand, which I think would come in very handy at times. This is how silly evolution theory is. If it really worked, we would have literal X-Men running around by now.

So you are essentially saying you don't understand how evolution works. if you think it would produce X-men and gills on humans, you are simply admitting you haven't taken the time to learn anything about it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you are essentially saying you don't understand how evolution works. if you think it would produce X-men and gills on humans, you are simply admitting you haven't taken the time to learn anything about it.

You just told me the only reason we don't go back to being tree swingers is that we haven't lived in the trees long enough yet.
Why would we not then develop other special abilities to match whatever environment we live in?
Just throw in a few million years and we are told anything can happen. It's all through popular culture. Why do you think superhero movies are so popular? We think we will become gods eventually.

 

[Polymath257]

You just told me the only reason we don't go back to being tree swingers is that we haven't lived in the trees long enough yet.

Precisely. Expect changes like that to take a million years or more.

Why would we not then develop other special abilities to match whatever environment we live in?

We would, in a few million years. Natural selection is not a fast process.

Just throw in a few million years and we are told anything can happen. It's all through popular culture. Why do you think superhero movies are so popular? We think we will become gods eventually.

Just like languages can change dramatically over time, so can populations of living things. But, just like we don't expect Latin to change into Spanish in a century, we don't expect larger evolutionary changes to happen in less than a million years.

And, in fact, the changes in language are, in many ways, a good analogy to what happens in evolution (not perfect, but good). Just like there was no 'first Spanish speaker', there was no 'first human'. Just like languages change slightly from generation to generation while still being comprehensible for a few generations, so also do species change gradually over time maintaining similarities over shorter periods.

I would bet you would not be able to read Old English at all. And Chaucer in the original would be a challenge. Yet they are both called 'English' even though they are effectively different languages. The same happens for species. Where *we* want to place boundaries in our classification is our choice. The reality is there is continuous change and nature doesn't have to match our categories.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Precisely. Expect changes like that to take a million years or more.



We would, in a few million years. Natural selection is not a fast process.


Just like languages can change dramatically over time, so can populations of living things. But, just like we don't expect Latin to change into Spanish in a century, we don't expect larger evolutionary changes to happen in less than a million years.

And, in fact, the changes in language are, in many ways, a good analogy to what happens in evolution (not perfect, but good). Just like there was no 'first Spanish speaker', there was no 'first human'. Just like languages change slightly from generation to generation while still being comprehensible for a few generations, so also do species change gradually over time maintaining similarities over shorter periods.

I would bet you would not be able to read Old English at all. And Chaucer in the original would be a challenge. Yet they are both called 'English' even though they are effectively different languages. The same happens for species. Where *we* want to place boundaries in our classification is our choice. The reality is there is continuous change and nature doesn't have to match our categories.

Language has nothing to do with the subject.
And thanks for the laugh.
Actually small adaptations happen in fairly small time periods. Think about your skin getting tanned by the sun. People born in higher climates develop more lung capacity. People in some climates can ingest dairy better etc.
But if your theory was correct, we could go on to all become huge brained geniuses or go back to being poop throwing tree swingers, and it's pretty much a toss-up which would happen, being driven by random causation.

 

[Polymath257]

Language has nothing to do with the subject.
And thanks for the laugh.

Like I said, it is an analogy. And it does give a fair number of good similarities.

Actually small adaptations happen in fairly small time periods. Think about your skin getting tanned by the sun. People born in higher climates develop more lung capacity. People in some climates can ingest dairy better etc.

Once again, those are NOT genetic changes to the individual. Evolution is about the genetic changes.

But if your theory was correct, we could go on to all become huge brained geniuses or go back to being poop throwing tree swingers, and it's pretty much a toss-up which would happen, being driven by random causation.

Wrong in so many ways. It is driven by the environment. And it depends on which mutations actually occur (and thereby which mutations *can* occur).

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand the theory that you are criticizing. Which means you are only arguing against a strawman and not the *actual* theory.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wrong in so many ways. It is driven by the environment. And it depends on which mutations actually occur

So now the mutations aren't random anymore?

 

[Polymath257]

So now the mutations aren't random anymore?

They are random with respect to survival, yes. But they happen by known chemistry and physics.

A mutation is simply a change in the DNA. That is all. Some base in the DNA, AGTC changes to another. Some changes are a bit more likely than others, but that is what a mutation is.

The effect of a mutation is that some protein is slightly different. It may have a slightly different strength of binding something (if it is an enzyme), or a slightly different strength (if it is structural), or it may allow something through the cell membrane a bit faster or slower.

But what *that* means is that some developmental process might go slightly longer or shorter. Which means a bone may be longer or shorter, or the skull might have slightly different properties.

The most important proteins for evolution are those that control a wide range of other developmental processes. A slight change in these can change the way an organism look quite dramatically.

And, by the way, NONE of this is speculative. ALL is verified in the lab on actual organisms.

So, the mutations that occur are random.

But which individuals survive to pass on the changed gene is NOT random. It is determined by the environment. And that means some mutations are more likely to exist in the *next* generation than others. And *that* is natural selection.

So large scale changes are driven mostly by the environment acting on the available mutations. And there are *always* mutations from parents to children. Most of those mutations are neutral with respect to survival. Some are bad and the child dies. Others are beneficial and the child lives. That is evolution: a change in genes over generations, leading to changes in the population.

Evolution is NOT about X-men or individual adaptation. it is not about changing skin because you spent the day in the sun. It is NOT about being able to breath better because you exercised. THOSE changes are not genetic. So they are not evolution. Evolution is about changes in the genes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, the mutations that occur are random.

But which individuals survive to pass on the changed gene is NOT random. It is determined by the environment. And that means some mutations are more likely to exist in the *next* generation than others. And *that* is natural selection.

So, you have no idea whether you will get a mutation that can be selected to make us better tree swingers or a mutation that will be selected to make us smarter. It can't be deleted or selected by the environment if it never occurs or doesn't take due to genetic drift. it's still random.

 

[Polymath257]

So, you have no idea whether you will get a mutation that can be selected to make us better tree swingers or a mutation that will be selected to make us smarter. It can't be deleted or selected by the environment if it never occurs or doesn't take due to genetic drift. it's still random.

Correct. We don't know which mutations will show up.

But every child has about 100 mutations compared to their parents. And, in a population, there are variations in many different directions. That is what allows the environment to select which variants are more adapted.

Evolution doesn't happen in individuals. It happens in populations over the course of generations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who said that all mammals must be related? That is an assumption, not a probable fact. Many different creatures are mammals....Australia has several that are difficult for scientists to figure out....especially the monotremes.


Adaptation does not create new “kinds”....it creates new varieties within a “kind”.....real evidence has proven that.

The phantom “common ancestors” have never been identified......and there must be millions of them.....so, where are they? It is asserted that they “must have” existed, but we never see them named. Science assumes that some creatures are part of an evolutionary process, but they cannot prove that a “chain” of evolution has ever existed.......and they happily tell us that there is no “proof” for any of their assumptions......sounds like a snow job to me....smoke and mirrors....the power of suggestion.


The “rate of change” is also an assumption. Adaptation has never been seen to go outside of a single species. Suggesting that change can lead to new creatures is not provable......it is a hypothesis, not a fact......defined as.....”a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”.....but you’d never know this judging by the zealous defence of different aspects of this theory, as if it’s not contestable. It is clearly contestable. Empty protests really change nothing.

Suggestions and assertions are not facts and never will be.


Indeed....gotta love nature......and that motivates gratitude for its Creator for me.
Who do you thank? “Mother Nature”?
Wrong parent IMO.

As you well know already, "kinds" isn't a scientific term and is irrelevant to a discussion on evolution.

I'm guessing you haven't looked up "ring species" yet, after all this time still?

Plenty of common ancestors have been found, you just choose to pretend they're something other than what they are, because well, your religious beliefs and all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I was thinking, if I were looking through a microscope at things (cells? Even viruses) moving, and the total organism changing to another form, duplicating itself as the theory of evolution goes such as neanderthals mixing with another presumed sort and moving into homo sapiens, I'd believe it. But as we have seen, there is no evidence of any sort like that to prove the theory of evolution. The "Unknown Common Ancestor" of humans and chimps has never been found.
Viruses remain viruses so far.

That would falsify evolution.

As you've been told countless times by now.

You. Don't. Understand. Evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hi, Dan. Can you please show or explain the evidence you declare?

I've given it to you countless times. So has Dan and many other posters far more educated than I am.
Why didn't you read it any of those times, and why are you still asking for it???

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are a wide variety of mammals in the world, from Ardvarks to Zebras......to relate them all to a common ancestor is beyond the capability of science to even imagine, let alone trying to establish through "evidence", that any of it actually happened with any certainty.

The only thing science is certain of is that evolution must be true no matter how many holes they have to fill with supposition and conjecture. I have never seen the power of suggestion more beautifully executed....no wonder the advertising world relies on it......and the intelligent minds that have been convinced of this nonsense with so little in the way of real concrete evidence is staggering....but I guess not unexpected when egos are in the forefront of it all. The hallowed halls of Academia would ring with laughter and derision at any who dared to question "the science".....but the trouble is, there is no real science......its like the Emperors new clothes. You are all walking around naked.....

Adaptation takes place as a survival mechanism that is inbuilt in all living things.....a new environment or a new food source is a trigger for this to take place....but it never alters the organism to the point of taking it out of its taxonomy.
Darwin's finches were still finches, not some new species of bird. The iguanas were still recognizable as iguanas though they were adapted to marine life....they did not turn into a new species of lizard. The tortoises were still tortoises but different to their mainland cousins. There is no evidence for adaptation ever being responsible for amoebas to dinosaurs.....that is science's fairy story.


LOL....if there were no assumptions...there would be no "evolution" of the "macro" kind even possible. Why? Because they are devoid of all proof that what they "believed" to have taken place in the dim dark past, ever did.
They assume that it "must have".....because they have no other explanation......certainly not the existence of an all powerful Intelligent Designer.
But all mention of that possibility and some of them can't help themselves.....

hurling insults is all they know how to do.


As I said....you are giving credit to the wrong parent....but wouldn't Mother Nature have to have the same attributes as the real Creator. Do you think that this earth with all its wondrous lifeforms, was created for him/her...or us?

Can this possibly be an accident of nature, with no intelligent direction.....?


I left the dark side over 50 years ago......no way I will ever wander back there again..... When you are blind, you cannot see the light unless God opens your eyes.....that is my hope for you.....

Same old talking points from you that have been addressed ad nauseam and a pile arguments from incredulity.

You really need some new material.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The explanation was just given. It's what they are taught in college, so they incorporate whatever evidence they find into that worldview. And of those who do question it, how many have the courage to come out and stand against the tide? If they do they are ostracized and possibly lose their job.
But there are those who have spoken out.

Anyone who could produce evidence that falsified the theory of evolution would become famous and most likely win the Nobel Prize. It would turn a lot of science on its head.
Maybe ask yourself why nobody has managed to do that in over 150+ years? How come creationists have failed so miserably at that? Also maybe ask yourself why all the evidence discovered in those last 150+ has always confirmed and added to the body of evidence in favour of evolution, but never, ever against it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Seems pretty obvious (not spin). You believe the reason the worlds life scientists have agreed on evolution and common ancestry is because they just mindlessly went along with whatever they were taught in college.

That makes me wonder....have you ever taken any higher level (i.e., graduate level) biology, genetics, or evolutionary biology courses?

I was wondering the same. Anytime I see someone try to paint graduate or post-graduate level education as "indoctrination," my back goes up because that is absolutely not my experience with higher level education. In fact, that is where I learned to think critically, logically and analytically, and how to read, understand and carry out scientific research, just for starters. Basically, the opposite of what I learned when I was a Christian.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course...it's a self perpetuating cycle.
The same goes for many subjects, really. The cultures trend is inevitably going to come through the teachers lessons. Ever notice how liberals love to hate on any teacher that bucks the trend even in just certain areas?

What do "liberals" have to do with the discussion? No need to inject politics into something that isn't remotely political.

You haven't attended a post-secondary educational institution, have you?

 

[Polymath257]

If you can be a monkey, maybe some of us came from angels. Idk

maybe the two are not mutually exclusive?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The majority of people in science used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe.

Uh, nope.

 

[Polymath257]

I was wondering the same. Anytime I see someone try to paint graduate or post-graduate level education as "indoctrination," my back goes up because that is absolutely not my experience with higher level education. In fact, that is where I learned to think critically, logically and analytically, and how to read, understand and carry out scientific research, just for starters. Basically, the opposite of what I learned when I was a Christian.

I think the problem is that the vast majority of people ultimately take almost everything they learn on faith. They *never* learn to look at the details and test their beliefs with them. They *never* learn to think critically, logically, and analytically. it is simply not a skill they have ever really needed and have not been trained to use.

And, if you don't think critically, all education can look like indoctrination. it can look like simply the clash of different interpretations by people who don't really know anything.

But part of this is also the denial that there can be experts in such subjects whose understanding is really better and whose opinion is more likely to be correct. if it is *all* indoctrination of the sort they get in church, then it is all a matter of interpretation by experts that cannot know what they claim. Just because that is what happens in their religion.