Proof of evolution -at last-

[Dan From Smithville]

Hold on now! No sweeping generalizations, please.
Your judgement about me is wrong… I base my pov on evolution regarding the empirical evidence, not on suppositions.

Which means, I actually believe quite a lot of the evidence, of how species change, ie., evolve, over time.

But the specific phenotype characteristics that posits these species within their respective family level of taxa, I.e., what separates the felidae from the canidae…I see no relationship at all. Such assertions are based on inference, not solid evidence. The first in these families, were created. Their descendants then gradually evolved into more species.

When scientists include terms such as “probably”, “could have”, or “likely”, those are suppositions… those scientists have left science, and entered the realm of philosophy.

Good question!

What is the barrier preventing a shared ancestry between taxonomic families? If the barrier works at that level, then why does it not work on say, speciation?

So the shared characteristics of Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera indicating shared ancestry are all an illusion? That is at the level of the order above families. If you look at the basic body plan of insects, it is shared through the entire class. So what exactly was created? The basic insect that evolved into many orders, families, genera and species? That is what the evidence indicates. Still looking for that barrier that is preventing evolution of higher level taxa?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it’s not ‘twaddle.’ I just showed that Aldous Huxley used this excuse as a reason. Voltaire, whom some consider the “father of modern atheism,” did too.

Citing old references of people who lack the contemporary knowledge of science is as worthless as a three dollar bill in Las Vegas. Voltaire and Huxley were not scientists

But I didn’t mean to imply it’s the only reason people adopt to reject the Bible.


The counsel for Christians, in the Greek Scriptures (NT), exceeds almost everyone’s .
That’s what I was referencing.

Your implication is ancient tribal scripture is more reliable than contemporary science. Ancient scripture in ALL the religions of the world lacks science. It is not only the NT that you are pushing, but the ancient Creation myths of Genesis and the Pentateuch, based on more ancient texts from the Middle East. Nothing that relates today to the contemporary high school level of science which you flunk out.

The most ancient Greek scriptures are NOT even close to being dated near the life of Jesus, and the versions vary showing redaction, changes and revisions.

 

[Ella S.]

Ok, we have this:

Then we have this:

Stated like it’s a fact, i.e., that it’s verified.

Please explain…. exactly how has this claim been tested? (Let alone factual.)

Amazing how this claim has turned into a belief.

Abiogenesis is a fairly complex model but different hypotheses within it have been tested. This includes concepts like the formation of proto-cells through naturalistic processes, the formation of RNA and DNA through the chemical evolution of complex protein chains, the natural production of said complex protein chains, etc.

There are several facts (as in, reliably documented observations) that indicate abiogenesis. Actually, the big problem in science right now is that there are too many ways that life could have arisen through abiogenesis given our data that it's hard to narrow down which way actually happened. Potentially, all of them did. It's an incredibly well-established model.

I don't believe anything. I leave some room for doubt in everything that I conclude and I try to remain open to being proven wrong. Currently, abiogenesis is the best-evidenced and most likely description of how life arose on our planet given our current data.

Truth is often defined as what the facts indicate. Since the facts point towards abiogenesis, we can regard abiogenesis as at least constituting the best verisimilitude if not outright true.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Abiogenesis is a fairly complex model but different hypotheses within it have been tested. This includes concepts like the formation of proto-cells through naturalistic processes, the formation of RNA and DNA through the chemical evolution of complex protein chains, the natural production of said complex protein chains, etc.

There are several facts (as in, reliably documented observations) that indicate abiogenesis. Actually, the big problem in science right now is that there are too many ways that life could have arisen through abiogenesis given our data that it's hard to narrow down which way actually happened. Potentially, all of them did. It's an incredibly well-established model.

I don't believe anything. I leave some room for doubt in everything that I conclude and I try to remain open to being proven wrong. Currently, abiogenesis is the best-evidenced and most likely description of how life arose on our planet given our current data.

Truth is often defined as what the facts indicate. Since the facts point towards abiogenesis, we can regard abiogenesis as at least constituting the best verisimilitude if not outright true.

Creos don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Pointless to feed them a hypothesis.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What is the barrier preventing a shared ancestry between taxonomic families? If the barrier works at that level, then why does it not work on say, speciation?

So the shared characteristics of Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera indicating shared ancestry are all an illusion? That is at the level of the order above families. If you look at the basic body plan of insects, it is shared through the entire class. So what exactly was created? The basic insect that evolved into many orders, families, genera and species? That is what the evidence indicates. Still looking for that barrier that is preventing evolution of higher level taxa?

Good point. I meant to add “possibly at the Family level for most.” If you can recall, I’ve said that before.

As you well know, within taxonomy many organisms have been changed from one classification to another; the entire system is in a constant state of flux.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good point. I meant to add “possibly at the Family level for most.” If you can recall, I’ve said that before.

As you well know, within taxonomy many organisms have been changed from one classification to another; the entire system is in a constant state of flux.

\Stating 'possibly at the family level at most' not only does not make sense in science, but still represents a rejection of the evolutionary relationship of all life on earth based on an ancient religious agenda without science, which is the overwhelming conclusion of science based on the objective verifiable evidence.'

In the science of evolution 'possibly' does no work. It has been established that all life on earth is related through evolution. This is represented through contemporary Classification. It is obvious that all science does change over time based on the 'objective verifiable evidence.'

The Taxonomy of life is subject change, in recent history it changes are based on new discoveries and research. For example what was one species of Trex may be three species. Other changes are based on new research in Genetics, which has established the evolutionary relationship over Taxonomy by simpjy classification by the physical resemblance. The basic system of classification based on the relationship of all life has changed less than you think.

No, nothing has changed your rejection of the evolutionary relationship of all life on earth is based on an ancient religious agenda and not science.

The bottom line is the Taxonomy of life on earth is based on genetic evolutionary relationships ifrst, and physical similarities second.

 

[tas8831]

H… I base my pov on evolution regarding the empirical evidence, not on suppositions.

Like in your pro-flood posts of yore?

Which means, I actually believe quite a lot of the evidence, of how species change, ie., evolve, over time.

But the specific phenotype characteristics that posits these species within their respective family level of taxa, I.e., what separates the felidae from the canidae…I see no relationship at all.

You have it upside down.

Higher taxonomic groupings are produced via multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is the observed pattern, not a specific event. The characters that separate felids and canids are accrued over time.

As you are all evidence-oriented, I have to wonder what evidence you use to formulate your POV - I don't think it was actually assessing the published evidence.

Evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria) inferred from mitochondrial genomes
"We assembled 51 new mitogenomes from 13 families, and aligned them with available mitogenomes by selecting only those showing more than 1% of nucleotide divergence and excluding those suspected to be of low-quality or from misidentified taxa. Our final alignment included 220 taxa representing 2,442 mitogenomes. Our analyses led to a robust resolution of suprafamilial and intrafamilial relationships. "

What relationship can you not see?

 

[tas8831]

Because of its standards on sexual morality, i.e., ‘have sex only with your spouse, and keep it there.’ Not saying that this applies to you; but it does to many.

Many Christians, yes.

Some of the most profoundly Christian, according to their public statements.

Donny Trump.

Newt Gingrich.

Ted Nugent.

Jesse Watters.

Dinesh D'Souza

Josh Duggar


And then there is this:


Evangelicals are the least faithful when it comes to spouses, survey suggests

Now do who is more likely to engage in insurrection and join political cults.

 

[tas8831]

That is ridiculous. It is just a variation in that "You just want to sin" twaddle.

...If any thing, biblical morality does not meet my minimum standards.

Its funny - dating myself here, but when AOL was new, I used to go to chat rooms a bit. One time I was in some sort of Christian chat and this one dude Instant Messaged me and asked what I would do if I found out my child was a homosexual. I replied "beat him, of course". As I was typing "Of course I am joking", Johnny Jesus-lover writes "Me too! See, we are not that different on some issues" or words to that effect.
Same guy also wrote that of it were not for his 'fear of God' that he would be raping and robbing all over the place. Nice.
I agree with Penn Gillette - I have engaged in exactly the amount of rape and robbery and murder that I have wanted to in my life - zero.
Johnny Jesus-lover would have a different answer, I suppose.

 

[ppp]

Its funny - dating myself here, but when AOL was new, I used to go to chat rooms a bit. One time I was in some sort of Christian chat and this one dude Instant Messaged me and asked what I would do if I found out my child was a homosexual. I replied "beat him, of course". As I was typing "Of course I am joking", Johnny Jesus-lover writes "Me too! See, we are not that different on some issues" or words to that effect.
Same guy also wrote that of it were not for his 'fear of God' that he would be raping and robbing all over the place. Nice.
I agree with Penn Gillette - I have engaged in exactly the amount of rape and robbery and murder that I have wanted to in my life - zero.
Johnny Jesus-lover would have a different answer, I suppose.

Yeah. I had those conversations back in the 90s too. I was largely unaware of the atheist movement till a year or so before Kitzmiller v Dover. I mostly got involved because my goddaughter's* school was trying to push creationism in the science class. Before that, I could count the people I had had any sort of in depth conversations on one hand.

First time I heard someone say that without their fear of god they would be raping and robbing, I just stood up and left. And that was a guy at work trying to shill his religion.


*yes, the irony.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

\Stating 'possibly at the family level at most'

I didn’t say that. (Interesting how changing one word makes such a difference.)

In the science of evolution 'possibly' does no work.

My thoughts exactly.
But tell that to the authors of many peer-reviewed publications, lol.

The literature is rife with the language of suppositions.

I can supply reams of examples.

And you get on me for using it…that’s rich !

It has been established that all life on earth is related through evolution.

“Established”? No, sorry.

 

[rational experiences]

When a human is a human as a human born a human by human sex their title is a human or the human.

As diverse human has to be seen in physical living today now present as human status as a human ....
For another human to talk about them.

So a human says to another human they were human created that way as they are the human or a human.

It's not that your subjective name calling ever defined them.

Why I've never liked so called intelligent humans who use words to belittle another human. In fact I thought your behaviour really human nasty.

So humans said as I've seen nasty too many times I will say God being all conditions natural created them that way.

As if I give hierarchy above Nasty human behaviour maybe I can save the hurt or even death given to humans for being different. When not any criminal murderer who normally was put to death in human law.

So I learnt scientists as humans got included once in human law as being human's criminal murderer as they changed holy dusts not converting into fission and changed the nature of biology and consciousness.

On earth living with dusts remaining holy.

Into the status changed.

As it owns no identity as dusts shouldn't be in any state of fission. Is the humans science answer actually.

Since then I learnt that men of science putting dust into the state of fission caused new life attack so began studying new human changes body and mind right in front of their view.

And even tried to own a thesis why.

Which by thesis puts the whole of biology into that thesis also as dust should not be in fission.

If you themed when dust was in fission and then thought biology there isn't any.

How I learnt why once humans said scientists were life murderers. And I believe it's real.

As I learnt some humans really think very Nasty thoughts about just other humans.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn’t say that. (Interesting how changing one word makes such a difference.)

My thoughts exactly.
But tell that to the authors of many peer-reviewed publications, lol.

The literature is rife with the language of suppositions.

I can supply reams of examples.

And you get on me for using it…that’s rich !
“Established”? No, sorry.

As usual the above is riff with egregious falsehood.

This confirms that your religious agenda is firmly grounded in ancient religious text wihout any knowledge of science, and intentional ignorance to pursue any knowledge of the sciences of evolution

Absolutely NO, The published peer reviewed scientific literature is NOT riff with possibilities that question the evolutionary relationship of all life on earth reflected in the current Taxonomic classification. I challenge you to come up with the references that claim this as a possibility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good point. I meant to add “possibly at the Family level for most.” If you can recall, I’ve said that before.

As you well know, within taxonomy many organisms have been changed from one classification to another; the entire system is in a constant state of flux.

So, you don't know of any barrier to a lineage evolving characters so different from their ancestors that they no longer can be seen within the same group as their ancestors. So what is the evidence you are using to draw your conclusion that it is now "merely possible" that evolution did not occur for even one group of organisms and they must have been fully formed as that group without benefit of the evolutionary process?

A taxonomy is an hypothesis. That they are not immutably stable and constantly subject to testing is a basal concept of taxonomy. New evidence, new methods, new understanding and new technology is developed and applied to test existing taxonomies to determine if they are the best fit or explanation for the observations.

I know of a beetle taxonomist from the 19th Century who did some marvelous work for the time. His described genera are still accepted in many cases. But a number of the species he described within those genera have been moved or synonymized with descriptions of previously recognized species. His generic concepts were sound, but his species concepts were less stable. This was later recognized as understanding, techniques and greater information became available.

The organisms did not change and do not change through taxonomy. The understanding of them and their relationship to related organisms did. These were tested and reassigned to more appropriate groups and given appropriate designations.

That testing, discussion, arguments and reassignment of species within a taxa is a recognized part of the science. That action is not evidence against the evolution of populations of organisms. Those changes are proposed on the evidence and rational evaluation of that evidence. And in relation to existing taxonomies.

Two different species of beetle are not changed from one group or another arbitrarily or by the whim of the taxonomist. Their characters and biology are examined. Hypothesis are formulated and tested. If the testing determines they belong to the same family, then that is where they are placed. Based on the evidence.

It doesn't look like you are objecting to evolution based on any evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, you don't know of any barrier to a lineage evolving characters so different from their ancestors that they no longer can be seen within the same group as their ancestors.

Essy….there are no unchallenged ancestors for Calymenidae. But really, I could claim that for the entire Order of trilobites.

Anomalocarididae is another.

Taxonomy puts them in the Class, Dinocaridida… Dinocaridida - Wikipedia

(Notice, in the first paragraph alone, there are three suppositions:
“proposed”,
“suggested”, and
“most likely”.
These words are what *beliefs* are based on.)

I could say the Felidae Family, due to their retractable claws…there are many species which appear in the fossil record with novel features.

Species of the Class Mammalia appear abruptly; in fact their appearance is referred to as a radiation.

There have been a few radiations throughout life’s history, but I’m sure most biologists, tied to naturalism, claim there are obvious precursors.

That’s why l started with trilobites.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Essy….there are no unchallenged ancestors for Calymenidae. But really, I could claim that for the entire Order of trilobites.

Anomalocarididae is another.

Taxonomy puts them in the Class, Dinocaridida… Dinocaridida - Wikipedia

(Notice, in the first paragraph alone, there are three suppositions:
“proposed”,
“suggested”, and
“most likely”.
These words are what *beliefs* are based on.)

I could say the Felidae Family, due to their retractable claws…there are many species which appear in the fossil record with novel features.

Species of the Class Mammalia appear abruptly; in fact their appearance is referred to as a radiation.

There have been a few radiations throughout life’s history, but I’m sure most biologists, tied to naturalism, claim there are obvious precursors.

That’s why l started with trilobites.

What you have done is highlight more gaps in our knowledge. What are you claiming is the default for these gaps this time?

These are not examples of a barrier that I asked you about. What are they besides examples from the fossil record with gaps in their known ancestry.

It just looks like you are diverting the argument and the goal posts to another field. I am staying put and asking for your answer to my questions. Not a discussion of the irrelevant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Essy….there are no unchallenged ancestors for Calymenidae. But really, I could claim that for the entire Order of trilobites.

Anomalocarididae is another.

Taxonomy puts them in the Class, Dinocaridida… Dinocaridida - Wikipedia

(Notice, in the first paragraph alone, there are three suppositions:
“proposed”,
“suggested”, and
“most likely”.
These words are what *beliefs* are based on.)

I could say the Felidae Family, due to their retractable claws…there are many species which appear in the fossil record with novel features.

Species of the Class Mammalia appear abruptly; in fact their appearance is referred to as a radiation.

There have been a few radiations throughout life’s history, but I’m sure most biologists, tied to naturalism, claim there are obvious precursors.

That’s why l started with trilobites.

Are you really hanging your hat on those three words as the bestest, greatest, most goodest evidence you have for alluding to taxonomy being a belief system. Really? I find Wikipedia to actually be a pretty good general source, but I note that those are their words and not those from a scientific reference. Regardless of that, I don't accept or condone your allusions regarding how they are indicative of a belief system. They are reasonable terms to apply and indicate that we do not have enough evidence to say anything more definitively. You just yanked them out of context.

 

[Astrophile]

It doesn't matter any more what some say about the disconnect between evolution and abiogenesis. You can't possibly believe evolution without looking at the start of so-called life on earth.

Why not? Would it make any difference to the theory if the first Hadean or Early Archaean life-forms were created by a god and they then evolved by a natural process of descent with modification during the following 3500-4000 million years?

 

[Valjean]

Why not? Would it make any difference to the theory if the first Hadean or Early Archaean life-forms were created by a god and they then evolved by a natural process of descent with modification during the following 3500-4000 million years?

Such an appeal to magic would upend the whole of science.
There is no reason to propose any magical alternative. Natural processes seem quite sufficient.
Magic neither clarifies nor explains anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? Would it make any difference to the theory if the first Hadean or Early Archaean life-forms were created by a god and they then evolved by a natural process of descent with modification during the following 3500-4000 million years?

I don't believe the theory anymore. Do I believe in genetics insofar as skin color, eyes and hair, things like by that? Yes.