The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[ppp]

So you believe I think whales live for millions of years.

Either you have trouble with cognition, or you are deliberately creating a straw man of what I said. Either way, I am rapidly becoming bored with your bs.

 

[metis]

Let me be clear.

No.

Yep, perfection" and "science" certainly ain't synonymous terms as science is always a work in progress.

 

[ppp]

Yep, perfection" and "science" certainly ain't synonymous terms as science is always a work in progress.

Whoops. I thought you were cla dking again trying to respin things

 

[metis]

Whoops. I thought you were cla dking again trying to respin things

I'll forgive you this time!

Take care.

 

[cladking]

Let me be clear.

No.

Thank you for responding to one of the topics anyway.

I might point out that just gainsaying something is a pretty weak retort. Maybe you could cite a scientific study of biologists from the '50's and more recently about their beliefs in "evolution".

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion that goes no, yes, no, yes, etc.

 

[cladking]

Either you have trouble with cognition, or you are deliberately creating a straw man of what I said. Either way, I am rapidly becoming bored with your bs.

You said the oldest "whale" wasn't the great grandfather of the youngest.

Don't you read your own posts or keep up with the conversation?

 

[ppp]

I might point out that just gainsaying something is a pretty weak retort.

I find it amusing that you are trying to take me to task for "gainsaying" your evidenced claim.

 

[ppp]

You said the oldest "whale" wasn't the great grandfather of the youngest.

Don't you read your own posts or keep up with the conversation?

Feel free to provide a citation to that post.

 

[Valjean]

And AGAIN you failed to read it.

I said many scientists believe evolution is a march toward perfection. When I was young a great percentage of scientists believed this but the concept is becoming dated.

I've never met any one in the biological field that believed in a march toward perfection. The concept runs counter to both experience and the mechanics of the theory.
Evolution has to work with what it has, and how something can adapt/evolve is severely constrained by the anatomy and physiology you have to work with. Evolution is not progressive.
Evolution can both increase or decrease complexity, and usually produces "good enough" rather than optimum designs.
Selection, not perfection - Understanding Evolution

I NEVER believed in evolution. I never believed that there is a goal until such time as somebody invents a goal and a means to achieve it. Otherwise I think Vonnegut was closer to the reality in "Galapagos". The Bible is closer to reality in the nature of the change in species.

A goal? Evolution has no goal. There is no purpose or intention to it.

Galapagos?: Good book. Interesting concept -- which I largely agree with -- but not as good as some of his other novels, IMHO. Vonnegut and Twain are my favorite authors.

 

[cladking]

Galapagos?: Good book. Interesting concept -- which I largely agree with -- but not as good as some of his other novels, IMHO. Vonnegut and Twain are my favorite authors.

Then you have excellent taste.

I could almost add Kilgore Trout to the list; ...so it goes.

I've never met any one in the biological field that believed in a march toward perfection. The concept runs counter to both experience and the mechanics of the theory.
Evolution has to work with what it has, and how something can adapt/evolve is severely constrained by the anatomy and physiology you have to work with. Evolution is not progressive.
Evolution can both increase or decrease complexity, and usually produces "good enough" rather than optimum designs.

Change "evolution" to "change in species' and I agree. Except even today writers often suggest that niches are heading toward some sort of perfection.

Certainly, it would be possible for us to define "perfection" and work toward it. I doubt we'd make much progress with current technology. I more strongly doubt that there'd be much agreement on the nature of perfection and peoples' willingness to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you have excellent taste.

I could almost add Kilgore Trout to the list; ...so it goes.



Change "evolution" to "change in species' and I agree. Except even today writers often suggest that niches are heading toward some sort of perfection.

Certainly, it would be possible for us to define "perfection" and work toward it. I doubt we'd make much progress with current technology. I more strongly doubt that there'd be much agreement on the nature of perfection and peoples' willingness to do it.

The only "goal" that evolution seems to have is to adapt to most fully use the resources in one's environment. The problem for life is that environments change quite often. So as a result new species are always arising. Climate change is a worry, not because the environment is changing. As I said that happens all of the time. But if the environment changes too quickly species cannot evolve and they die out. That is the worry of climate change.

And though some do not like it, there is endless evidence for evolution. If one wants to observe microevolution over time one must choose an appropriate species. The slow continuous evolution of coccolithophores can be observed in chalk beds. The same can be observed of diatoms. The changes are small so of course they are "still" coccolithophores and diatoms, but anyone that expects to find a "change of kinds" does not understand evolution in the first place.

 

[cladking]

The only "goal" that evolution seems to have is to adapt to most fully use the resources in one's environment. The problem for life is that environments change quite often. So as a result new species are always arising. Climate change is a worry, not because the environment is changing. As I said that happens all of the time. But if the environment changes too quickly species cannot evolve and they die out. That is the worry of climate change.

And though some do not like it, there is endless evidence for evolution. If one wants to observe microevolution over time one must choose an appropriate species. The slow continuous evolution of coccolithophores can be observed in chalk beds. The same can be observed of diatoms. The changes are small so of course they are "still" coccolithophores and diatoms, but anyone that expects to find a "change of kinds" does not understand evolution in the first place.

This is very convenient that it's impossible to experiment to show there is a significant gradual change in species. It's not that I don't sympathize but it's still not at all scientific to simply assume such changes occur but are invisible. it is not scientific to suggest the missing links in the fossil "record" exist but haven't been found. Of course the fossil; record is very spotty because few individual fossilize and then even fewer are found but I wager that all the evidence makes more sense if there are no missing links because most change in species are very sudden just like all changes in life and most observable changes in species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very convenient that it's impossible to experiment to show there is a significant gradual change in species. It's not that I don't sympathize but it's still not at all scientific to simply assume such changes occur but are invisible. it is not scientific to suggest the missing links in the fossil "record" exist but haven't been found. Of course the fossil; record is very spotty because few individual fossilize and then even fewer are found but I wager that all the evidence makes more sense if there are no missing links because most change in species are very sudden just like all changes in life and most observable changes in species.

Who said it is impossible to experiment? One can run "experiments" using the fossil record. The scientific method consists of forming hypotheses and testing them and that is exactly what scientists do.

Many creationists do not like the theory of evolution because it goes against their religious beliefs. That is fine. The way to fight it is to develop one's own ideas that are supported even better by the evidence than evolution is. It is not fought by making false claims about evolution.

Do you have any scientific evidence for your beliefs? Do you even know what scientific evidence is? You first need a hypothesis that can be refuted by testing. So what reasonable test based upon your own ideas merits could possibly refute it? If you have such an idea you are on your way.

 

[gnostic]

This is very convenient that it's impossible to experiment to show there is a significant gradual change in species. It's not that I don't sympathize but it's still not at all scientific to simply assume such changes occur but are invisible. it is not scientific to suggest the missing links in the fossil "record" exist but haven't been found. Of course the fossil; record is very spotty because few individual fossilize and then even fewer are found but I wager that all the evidence makes more sense if there are no missing links because most change in species are very sudden just like all changes in life and most observable changes in species.

You still don’t understand understand that the Scientific Method involved in

1. formulation of hypothesis - which is developing “falsifiable” explanatory models, predictive models & logic models (eg mathematical equations which are proofs), as well as instructions of how one would test these models - and then
2. testing the hypothesis & analyzing the tests - these tests involve observations of the evidence (eg discovery of evidence in fieldwork, and lab experiments), and such observations should provide information (DATA) about the evidence; these data would include the following:
   • detection & observations (like using devices that can both detect & measure, eg multimeters, oscilloscopes, mass spectrometers, MRI scanners, radio telescopes, radar gun, etc);
   • quantitative measurement (like counting, eg for the purposes of statistical analysis, probabilities, etc);
   • measurements (I have already listed some devices that can detect & measure, so no need for more examples );
   • comparing evidence against each other, analyzing them;
   • observing the properties of the evidence, should also provide more data, etc

The testing (observations and analysis of the tests) should provide information for scientists to determine if the hypothesis is scientific or not, and if the hypothesis is probable (verified) or improbable (refuted).

And you are wrong, cladking.

You can do experiments on fossils. Examples of experiments, measuring the age of fossils through radiometric methods or thermoluminescence methods, DNA testings & analysis, are all techniques in experimental testing.

You have a very narrow view of what experiments are. You also have narrow views on observations and scientific evidence are.

You have warped bias against observations, because I often see use anti-science taunts about scientists using the “look and see” as evidence...but you keep ignoring that experiments are observations too, hence they are also “look and see” evidence.

Your repeated demand for experiments but what examples of evidence that @TagliatelliMonster, @metis, @Dan From Smithville, @Valjean and others have shown you, are the results from experiments.

Those photos that TagliatelliMonster that compare fossils, which you have dismissively rejected, testing their individual age will show that are not related by few generations, but by hundreds tens of thousands of generations.

And testing ages, are “experiments”. And using different methods of testings, using different isotopes in radiometric testings, to test not only the fossils but also the ages of rocks and minerals, are also “experiments”. The DNA testing are “experiments”.

Like I said, you have a very narrow view of what constitutes as “experiment”.

And you have a narrow view on Evolution that are based on your ignorance of not understanding the biology. And you thinking Evolution involved in the “purpose” and “goal” and the pursuit of “perfection” in species, showing that you are misunderstanding Evolution, and it is also misleading, more strawman.

When have any scientists mentioning speciation involved in “perfection”? Do you care to cite your scientific sources about perfection?

And btw, you keep asking for evidence and for experiments from others, but you haven’t shown any experiments of “sudden changes”. Zilch. That’s just double standard when you don’t present any experiments, yourself.

 

[cladking]

Who said it is impossible to experiment? One can run "experiments" using the fossil record.

But no matter how many times I've challenged believers in Evolution to show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" I get nothing or I get the same irrelevancies about "ring species" or "peppered moths".

 

[Subduction Zone]

But no matter how many times I've challenged believers in Evolution to show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" I get nothing or I get the same irrelevancies about "ring species" or "peppered moths".

You have been shown them. The problem is that you appear to have a faulty concept of what an experiment is. I could show you examples using the fossil record, but you have already stated that you do not understand how that is an experiment. But a real life example is the Long Term E.coli experiment.

What is wrong with this as an example?

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

The Bible is closer to reality in the nature of the change in species.

The Bible say nothing about nature's changes, not about the animals and plants, and not about the impacts that the environment can have on organisms that affect changes.

Where is this closer to "reality in nature" in the Bible?

Turning lifeless dust into living adult (male) human? Is that the reality you are talking about?

That's not nature, it's not reality. Transforming dust into a human, is nothing more than ancient fantasy with no understanding of dust or of human biology.

And then that Genesis' vague uses of "kind". There are also no descriptions of Genesis meant by "kind".

Fishes living in seas, and birds with wings can fly, explain nothing. And it certainly don't explain what kind of birds are fowls or how they differed from pelicans or pigeons or eagles.

And what of those birds that cannot fly? Ostriches and emus cannot fly, even if they do have wings, but they are known for their abilities to run. And then there are birds cannot swim, can walk somewhat clumsily but can't run, but they are excellent swimmers - the penguins.

And then there are creature with wings that can fly, but they aren't birds. Like bats are mammals, not birds. And bee, wasps, flies, mosquitos are insects with wings, which arthropods, which are invertebrates with exoskeletal shells of some kinds; these flying insects are not birds.

Are Genesis' "kinds" the reality that you are talking about?

Genesis' description of animals - birds, land animals and fishes are so general, and extremely limited that the authors clearly don't have much about biology and don't know much about nature.

So for you to say that Genesis is "reality in the nature of the change in species" than science of evolution, is about the lamest claim you have ever made.

So I'll ask again, where this great insight the the Bible have in biology about species? Do you care to cite the passages?

Or are you going to make more excuses and run, which is your usual tactics, when people ask you direct questions, to explain yourself or present facts?

 

[gnostic]

But no matter how many times I've challenged believers in Evolution to show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" I get nothing or I get the same irrelevancies about "ring species" or "peppered moths".

You have challenge people to show a single "experiment" about "
"gradual changes" in species?

People have, but as you usually do, you dismiss them.

But when have you ever present a single "experiment" of "sudden change" of species?

Is one thing for you keep demanding, and people do give, but when ask you to present them to support your claims, you either ignore them or you make some sorts of excuses to evade from reciprocating.

I get it, you are anti-science...but if you are going to make demands from others, it would be fair that you present some yourself.

So where are your abundance of "experiments" to support your claims that have organisms change suddenly?

Do you even have one?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No you did not. A picture of four fossils is not evidence of gradual change.

You asked fossil evidence. You received it.
I predicted you would handwave it away. You handwaved it away.

It merely shows the first is the great grandfather of the fourth.

It shows the gradual progression through time of how feet became flippers.
You an either deal with the fact that the transitional fossils that evolution predicts actually exist, or you can continue sticking your head in the sand.

I predict you'll choose the latter.

I do not dispute whales came from land animals, I dispute that the changes were gradual

If they were gradual, then transitional fossils from various time periods with millions of years in between should exist that exhibit stages from the original form to the present one.

That is exactly what those fossils are.

AND that they were driven by "survival of the fittest'.

1. "survival of the fittest" is not actually a thing in evolution, but a sensational / popular media catch phrase

2. natural selection is supported through observation of extant life, not by studying fossils - eventhough the traits of fossils can be explained with natural selection in mind (like "flippers are more usefull in the water then feet").

The problem here is clear: you are quite ignorant on what evolution actually says and even more about how the evidence supports it.

I dispute they were driven by some perverse need for each species to be "perfect"

And in response to what are you disputing that? Because that's not what natural selection is about.

as is a common belief even among scientists.

Nope.

Life is consciousness

Only those living things with a nervous system and a brain.
If you claim that bacteria, for example, are "conscious", then you are using a definition of "conscious" that isn't used by the rest of the world.

and every consciousness is "fit".

Obviously false. But I'm guessing you are once again using another definition of "fit" then the rest of the world is using - evolutionary biologists in particular.

Without understanding this you can not understand how and why species change.

I have no interest in understanding whatever strawman you are arguing.

I'm sorry reality is so complicated and science made some poor choices in the 19th century.

Evolution is actually quite simple when understood correctly.
You should try it sometime.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This simply does prove that whales gradually changed as a result of "survival of the fittest".

Moving the goalposts.
You asked for fossil evidence of gradualism. Those transitionals provide exactly that.

The "fossil record" strongly implies that species change suddenly.

That's like saying that if you have a picture of Tom Cruise's face as a baby and then another picture as a 20-year old, another picture as a 50-year old and then a last one when he's 90...
That this means that he "aged suddenly" 4 times overnight. Once from baby to adult, then from adult to middle-aged and then from middle aged to an elder. All "suddenly" and "overnight".
Not gradually day by day at all, where the pictures are snapshots of this gradual aging process at different times with many years in between.

This is how stupid your "argument" here is.

Some event eradicated individuals not in the ocean.

Nope. There are land descendants that share that land ancestor with whales.
It's so mega obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's quite hilarious actually.

All individuals are fit and the evidence plus logic show this. God/ nature do not do much experimenting creating weak individuals. It is inefficient. It is not logical and God/ nature is logic manifest.

What god?