Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Is evolution a fact?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 80 of 116
 [ 2311 posts ] 
Is evolution a fact?
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3389Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

hackenslash wrote:My last debate was with an academic-level philosopher that's often cited in the apologetics literature, and he ran away like a little girl. Got the stones, liar?


I would love a link to this.

SpecialFrog wrote:Note that Bernhard has already agreed that horizontal gene transfer can increase genetic information (according to his unspecified definition). Prior to this agreement he had stated that such an increase would demonstrate evolution but changed his mind afterwards.


He also said if he were shown a whale with legs, he would accept evolution. He also wanted "direct ancestral transitional" fossils and evidence that telomeres fused. All were provided, all were dismissed without thought.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:24 am
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2434Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
hackenslash wrote:My last debate was with an academic-level philosopher that's often cited in the apologetics literature, and he ran away like a little girl. Got the stones, liar?


I would love a link to this.


No can do, I'm afraid. It was on the now-extinct Dawkins forum.

TBH, it wasn't that good.
Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:52 am
Bernhard.visscherPosts: 1099Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:15 am

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

hackenslash wrote:Setup request has been sent to admins.

Edit: You're about to find out what a commitment a formal debate is. I should also point out that I won't be nearly as forgiving as Aron would have been.

That's all the trash talk I can be bothered with. Good luck.



Post is made I have seen it.. Waiting for your opener.

I don't ask you to be forgiving, i am not at all worried if you are not forgiving. I would advise you to hold topic. Just a little FYI. It would behoove you as well to in a sense forget about this thread and the presupposition you have made of me. It will cloud your ability to debate, I want your "a" game because if you don't bring your a game I will have to hear excuses From the other evolutionists. Remember you are representing evolution, not just offering your opinion.


By the looks of things I have seven days to respond. I would consider it gentlemanly if you have 3 or 4 pieces of evidence not many articles, videos, as I consider every evolutionary scientist Darwin to Dawkins an argument from authority. Consider this: I accept their science, but not their conclusions.
But if you wish to provide many evidences at once it is your prerogative.

I pray you and I receive an openmind, not to necessarily accept the opponents argument but to understand it. I simply debate to increase understanding, winning is not a goal for me. Far as I am concerned I have already won at life, my Father owns the universe. So to win is not my goal... My goal is simply to increase understanding, mainly my own but if others increase because they are willing to rationally gauge the arguments then that is bonus,

So I hope you do bring your "a" game, in fact I pray for it. I hope you pause to consider your answers, I hope I do as well. Also if I sense duplicity on your part, or in any way disingenuous.. It is expected. I understand the urgency this evolution has to be accepted by atheists so I do understand why atheists do whatever it takes to claim evolution is a fact.

Remember if evolution is false.. God exists. An atheist cannot accept that premise of God existing so evolution must be true. So again I understand the urgency.

I have been in many debates, mainly online like this thread, but others as well. I have been kicked out of my church, my former ministers call me satan, former friends don't talk to me, older friends yell at me.muslims email me death threats. I continue because I understand what truth is. This is just the theist side of things. They are frustrated with me because I knock down their ridiculous arguments for their church... But that is not the same as arguments for God.. Hence I will always be a theist.. God help me. So understand your frustrations will simply be classified with them. Also understand from this, that I am not simply a Christian because I was born into it, or simply believe what I have been told. I have been reborn, blessed by the one who made me, given wisdom that I will only be able to understand with time, I am relatively young (32) hence I still have a bit of a sarcastic streak and the like, I will try to minimize, but I do like the humour.. I hope you can handle it if it comes out.

All things said, the goal is to increase understanding. So let us reason you and I.
Atheism will never posses the knowledge God does not exist. Bernhard visscher
Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:33 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Yes yes, you believe the circumference of your testicles is vast.

This thread has outlived its utility. Onward to the debate forum!


Edit:

Apparently there are other conversations in this thread, so... Unlocked.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:40 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2434Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Thanks for re-opening. I couldn't care much less, but it does give me a chance to address a couple of points now that my commitment to the debate thread is fulfilled.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:I consider every evolutionary scientist Darwin to Dawkins an argument from authority.


That's because you don't know what an argument from authority actually is. Argumentum ad verecundiam, to give it its proper Latin moniker, is a form of the genetic fallacy, in which a conclusion is drawn about an argument based purely on the source. Properly, though, an argumentum ad verecundiam is only committed when the authority in question is not a valid authority in the field. For example, if I said, 'Richard Dawkins says that stars burn hydrogen, so it must be true', that would be a fallacious argument from authority, because Richard isn't an astrophysicist. If, however, I said 'Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that stars don't burn hydrogen, so I'll take his word for it', that wouldn't be a fallacious argument from authority, because Tyson IS an astrophysicist, a genuine expert in the field, and therefore a valid authority.

When Dawkins talks about evolutionary theory, he's a bona fide expert in the field, so no verecundiam is committed.

Interestingly, you yourself have committed the root genetic fallacy above in your statement about Darwin and Dawkins.

Consider this: I accept their science, but not their conclusions.


That's an oxymoron. The conclusions are as much the science as any of the rest of it.

this evolution has to be accepted by atheists


No it doesn't.

Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.


And this is as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice. Evolution could be blown out of the water, and it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that your fantasy is just that. In this case, your logical fallacy is the false dichotomy.
Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:14 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 187Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Bernhard.visscher wrote:
Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.


:shock:

I thought that kind of thinking was a myth - a story to be trotted out when children asked; "Was does a false dichotomy look like?".

There is no rational discourse to be had with such a person. Good luck, Hackenslash. :(
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:16 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1212Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.

Did a living, breathing person with a brain actually just type this out?

Bernhard.visscher wrote: An atheist cannot accept that premise of God existing so evolution must be true.

God existing as a premise? No, I cannot accept that. As a conclusion to a deductively valid and sound argument, yes I can accept that.

There are god-concepts I would like to be true. For example, there are some truly horribly people in this world who get away with it. The late Kim Jong Il was such a person. I would like for there to be a Just god that could assure he still receives punishment for his crimes against the Korean people. Not eternal torture, but punishment nevertheless. I could get behind such a god, a truly just god.

As it happens, I just don't believe a god exists because I have seen no persuasive evidence for it. But there are, in fact, god-concepts I would like to be true. So that's that stupid argument of yours out the window.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:30 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rumraket wrote:
Bernhard.visscher wrote:Remember if evolution is false.. God exists.

Did a living, breathing person with a brain actually just type this out?

Probably, but we can't prove it, we can only assign it a very high probability based on available evidence, which according to Bernhard is the same as having no evidence.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:38 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:Using your analogy, couldn't a reindeer be the CA? Mammals (e.g. bats, reindeer, whales) can fly, swim, and walk on legs, so could a reindeer split into two populations: R and H? Say population H climbs cliffs to find food. They gradually evolve wing-like structures to move place to place faster, or using their rear legs for weapons, or so they can catch faster prey. They become smaller so they are able to fly. Millions of years from now, they are still "CA". They are still mammals. They may be called something other than reindeer, so is it possible this could happen to the present-day reindeer?


Inferno wrote:No, this could not conceivably happen.
There are a couple of laws according to which evolution happens.

I point you to the "Falsifying Phylogeny" playlist, specifically this video. At 10:09, a few laws are listed and explain why certain things can not happen if evolution is true. (Like a Crocoduck. If evolution is true, that can't ever happen.) The second important video in that series is the first, starting at roughly 08:30.


From 10:09, the few laws included the following:

Monophyly (clade)

The problem with this “law” is how could you possibly falsify it? Nothing was ever observed or ever demonstrated. For example, if you cannot fit a subgenera into the same monophyletic tree, use convergent evolution (rescue device) to explain the similarities. Instead of the genus as monophyletic, mark the genus as polyphyletic.
See about the 12 subgenera of Appalachian crayfish:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0046105

How do the clades par with the fossil record? Not so good for the higher primates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Norell+ ... x8dmTIM%3A

When the clades and fossil records don’t match, just blame incompleteness (rescue device) of the fossil record and draw dotted lines for the ad-hoc ghost lineages to match the order.

It’s completely subjective, and cannot be falsified whatsoever.



Evo Devo

Evo Devo is another rescuing device in of itself to explain away contradicting data between molecular biology (DNA and proteins) and paleontology (Darwin’s Tree).

Consider eyes for a moment. Humans and other vertebrates have camera like eyes with a single lens. Arthropods see through compound eyes. Octopuses and squids, not related to humans, have the camera-like lens. But the octopuses and squids close relatives’ clams and scallops have three types of eyes: camera, compound, and mirror type.

Since the evidence doesn’t coincide with evolution, evo-devo to the rescue. Since all animals share the same genetic material, it came from one sophisticated common ancestor with all the tools necessary in building different eye types. Genes just waiting for millions of years to be developed, although should have been weeded out by the other law of evolution: natural selection. But, there is another ad-hoc explanation for that as well called conserved sequence. When laws are broken, just make another one; just as long it doesn’t falsify evolution.


Principle of Gradualism

It’s a law except when it isn’t. Again, another unobservable ad-hoc rescuing device called Punctuated Equilibrium does the job. It explains away the missing links in the fossil record.


Evolutionary Economics

Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:

“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”

Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution6.htm

Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... tus_BW.jpg

and evolve into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... don_BW.jpg

I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.


Punctuated Equilibrium

“Why don’t we see constant changes”? This was a rescuing device for the lack of gradual Darwinian evolution found in the fossil record. This lack of evidence is the actual evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is slow and gradual except when it isn’t.

Punctuated Equilibrium happens when natural selection isn’t.

“A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence. Punctuational effects occur at more than twice the rate in plants and fungi than in animals, but the proportion of total divergence attributable to punctuational change does not vary among these groups. Punctuational changes cause departures from a clock-like tempo of evolution, suggesting that they should be accounted for in deriving dates from phylogenies. Punctuational episodes of evolution may play a larger role in promoting evolutionary divergence than has previously been appreciated.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5796/119.abstract

“For some biologists, “punctuated equilibrium” is a radical idea. The term was coined in the 1970s to describe an uneven pace of evolution in the fossil record. But because it posits that evolution happens in bursts, punctuated equilibrium goes against the notion that evolution inches forward in tiny steps guided by natural selection. Now evolutionary biologists have shown that evolution in the genome also has fast and slow speeds, and that natural selection isn’t always governing genetic change.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/20 ... ato-rhythm

Since both the fossil record (ad-hoc incompleteness) and genes (ad hoc evo-devo) don’t match gradualism (ad hoc punctuated equilibrium), then force direct observations into evolution-only fables to make it appear factual.


Natural Selection

“How did animals know what they needed to evolve?”
Natural selection is a conservative process. (Edward Blyth and William Paley) It either maintains what exists or gets rid of it. It cannot generate new organs and new genetic information. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about natural selection.


Biodiversity

“Evolution says everything gets bigger and better”
Biodiversity is a huge variation of genes within its species. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about biodiversity.


Dollos Law of Irreversibility

“It’s not evolution; it’s de-evolution”.
It’s irreversible except when it is reversible.

Genetic study of house dust mites demonstrates reversible evolution:
"In evolutionary biology, Dollo's law states that evolution is unidirectional and irreversible. But this "law" is not universally accepted and is the topic of heated debate among biologists. Now a research team has used a large-scale genetic study of the lowly house dust mite to uncover an example of reversible evolution that appears to violate Dollo's law.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093424.htm

You might as well let AronRa know to update his “facts” and “laws” of evolution.

Evolution is a flexible term and can adapt to anything. It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, atavism, incompleteness, conserved trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, neo-lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified

If science was a newspaper, evolution would be the funnies!
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:11 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed: Apologies for taking this long to reply, it's a busy week.

First a quick word about laws, theories and facts.
A fact is a point of data that's not being disputed or cannot be disputed. For example, it is a fact that the DNA of humans and chimps is more similar than the DNA of humans and crayfish. It is also a fact that pencils (on earth, without zero-G simulation) drop when let go.

A law is something that describes a set of facts. Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe how planets act when orbiting a star. Darwin's laws explain how new species arise.

A theory is an explanation of all the relevant facts and theories. In almost all cases the current theory is partially correct and needs only slight adjustment to fit new facts. Sometimes a theory needs to be discarded completely.

To dispute a fact you would have to show that something doesn't actually occur: Pens float away, human DNA is more similar to ants, etc.
To dispute a law you would either have to show how particular facts are wrong or how new facts don't fit the relevant law.
To dispute a theory... well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. ;)

Monophyly (clade)

The problem with this “law” is how could you possibly falsify it? Nothing was ever observed or ever demonstrated. For example, if you cannot fit a subgenera into the same monophyletic tree, use convergent evolution (rescue device) to explain the similarities. Instead of the genus as monophyletic, mark the genus as polyphyletic.
See about the 12 subgenera of Appalachian crayfish:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0046105

How do the clades par with the fossil record? Not so good for the higher primates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Norell+ ... x8dmTIM%3A

When the clades and fossil records don’t match, just blame incompleteness (rescue device) of the fossil record and draw dotted lines for the ad-hoc ghost lineages to match the order.

It’s completely subjective, and cannot be falsified whatsoever.


There are several mistakes here alone. As I explained, a law is merely an explanation of several facts. As such, "monophyly" is simply what we observe in nature.

Take the well-known example of "fish". What exactly is a "fish"? Is a fish everything that's in the menu under "seafood"? Then we'd have to count lobsters as fish (they're arthropods) and sharks as fish as well, even though the latter are clearly chordates.

Or do we count everything as fish as any "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits"? But then we'd have to count Dolphins as fish even though they're clearly mammals!

Not even creationists deny this: We had an old (Linnean) system of classification and that system failed us. It was based on superficial similarities, not on deep-seated ones.

I'll try to make this as clear as possible: The following is a comparison of 17 pairs of celebrities. Some of them look incredibly alike. They're not (closely) related however.
If you claim Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lawrence are sisters or something similar you'd be wrong. They look similar but they're actually paraphyletic.

On the other hand this is Jennifer Lawrence and her two brothers. They don't look alike at all but they're clearly very closely related. They (plus their parents) are monophyletic.

So here's the problem for cladistics: If we go by how animals look, we will obviously mistakenly categorize them. So we go by DNA: Which species have closely matching DNA? Which are outliers?
Scientists then have to test how well the old system (Linnean taxonomy) and the modern system (phylogenetic cladistics) fit. This is the purpose of the study you posted:
Abstract wrote:Using Cambarus we test the correspondence of subgeneric designations based on morphology used in traditional crayfish taxonomy to the underlying evolutionary history for these crayfish. We further test for significant correlation and explanatory power of geographic distance, taxonomic model, and a habitat model to estimated phylogenetic distance with multiple variable regression.


Their results are clear: The old model is bunk, the new one works and the distances are shown in the tables. Far from showing that evolution doesn't work it's another puzzle piece that fits.

Sadly I can't access the Norell paper, but I'm sure I'll get my hands on it in a few days. Interesting to note: He completely accepts evolution. Strange, isn't it? Could it maybe be that the creationists at evolutionnews were lying idiots?

So how could you show Monophyly to be wrong? Easy!
Either find an organism that doesn't fit into any category or that doesn't fit into any new category either. (CAVE: Aliens don't count for obvious reasons.)
Or find an organism that is at the same time a member of one group and of the other. Example: Crocoduck.

Evo Devo

Evo Devo is another rescuing device in of itself to explain away contradicting data between molecular biology (DNA and proteins) and paleontology (Darwin’s Tree).

Consider eyes for a moment. Humans and other vertebrates have camera like eyes with a single lens. Arthropods see through compound eyes. Octopuses and squids, not related to humans, have the camera-like lens. But the octopuses and squids close relatives’ clams and scallops have three types of eyes: camera, compound, and mirror type.

Since the evidence doesn’t coincide with evolution, evo-devo to the rescue. Since all animals share the same genetic material, it came from one sophisticated common ancestor with all the tools necessary in building different eye types. Genes just waiting for millions of years to be developed, although should have been weeded out by the other law of evolution: natural selection. But, there is another ad-hoc explanation for that as well called conserved sequence. When laws are broken, just make another one; just as long it doesn’t falsify evolution.


This just shows you don't understand what Evo-Devo is and I don't have the time to explain it to you. Here's a fairly good blog post explaining what it is.

By the by, eyes most likely evolved a few times over the course of time.

Principle of Gradualism

It’s a law except when it isn’t. Again, another unobservable ad-hoc rescuing device called Punctuated Equilibrium does the job. It explains away the missing links in the fossil record.


It is a law depending on how you measure time. If you say "gradual" is slow change over many many many years you would be right. If you say "gradual" is fast change over a short period and almost no change for many many many years you would also be right. By the way, the latter is punctuated equilibrium.

Evolutionary Economics

Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:

“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”

Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution6.htm

Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... tus_BW.jpg

and evolve into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... don_BW.jpg

I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.


You don't have the first clue of how evolution works, do you? Humans certainly don't have the "genetic material" to evolve wings where did you get that idea? From bats or what? Nonsense, they clearly evolved wings inside the split of Scrotifera: Chiroptera with wings on the one hand, Fereuungulate without on the other hand.

The quote about whale evolution doesn't really make sense in this discussion. Are you agreeing that whales did evolve from land dwelling mammals? Because everything in that quote agrees with me.

But as explained, humans certainly don't have the "material" to develop wings. You simply don't understand evo-devo.
Now could we evolve wings? Not with feathers. Without them? More likely, but the chances are still abysmally small. What we could have is our arms growing skin... but to what purpose? We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances.

Punctuated Equilibrium

“Why don’t we see constant changes”? This was a rescuing device for the lack of gradual Darwinian evolution found in the fossil record. This lack of evidence is the actual evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is slow and gradual except when it isn’t.

Punctuated Equilibrium happens when natural selection isn’t.

“A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence. Punctuational effects occur at more than twice the rate in plants and fungi than in animals, but the proportion of total divergence attributable to punctuational change does not vary among these groups. Punctuational changes cause departures from a clock-like tempo of evolution, suggesting that they should be accounted for in deriving dates from phylogenies. Punctuational episodes of evolution may play a larger role in promoting evolutionary divergence than has previously been appreciated.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5796/119.abstract

“For some biologists, “punctuated equilibrium” is a radical idea. The term was coined in the 1970s to describe an uneven pace of evolution in the fossil record. But because it posits that evolution happens in bursts, punctuated equilibrium goes against the notion that evolution inches forward in tiny steps guided by natural selection. Now evolutionary biologists have shown that evolution in the genome also has fast and slow speeds, and that natural selection isn’t always governing genetic change.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/20 ... ato-rhythm

Since both the fossil record (ad-hoc incompleteness) and genes (ad hoc evo-devo) don’t match gradualism (ad hoc punctuated equilibrium), then force direct observations into evolution-only fables to make it appear factual.


Now you're just getting silly: You're mixing up genes with evo-devo and everything is muddled together. You're quoting from a pop-science article when you could just go to the primary literature:
Eldredge and Gould: Punctuated Equilibria
Image

This is the difference between pure Gradualism and pure Punctuated Equilibria. Not a big difference. Here's the thing: At first they thought the two were mutually exclusive. Today we know the two complement each other.

Guess what? That's how science works. PE is a rather minor addition to Evolution and doesn't deserve the hype it gets. This is just creationists overselling something to make a point.

EDIT: Computer failed, so I had to post before shutdown.

Natural Selection

“How did animals know what they needed to evolve?”
Natural selection is a conservative process. (Edward Blyth and William Paley) It either maintains what exists or gets rid of it. It cannot generate new organs and new genetic information. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about natural selection.


You do not understand how evolution works. There is considerable dispute among scientists and batty creationists about natural selection. In the hundreds of millions of years since our beginnings, natural selection helped shape what used to be arms to what are now wings in bats. That's definitely new genetic information and that's definitely new organs.

Also I'm not sure why you reference Blyth, but Paley was before Darwin's time, 54 years before the Origins. Also, Paley was an idiot who used incorrect arguments.

Biodiversity

“Evolution says everything gets bigger and better”
Biodiversity is a huge variation of genes within its species. There is no dispute among evolutionists or creationists about biodiversity.


Aron's point was that creationists think that "evolution = everything gets bigger and better". This is untrue. Evolution = nature tries every path at once = everything gets more diverse over time. (Extinction events notwithstanding)

Dollos Law of Irreversibility

“It’s not evolution; it’s de-evolution”.
It’s irreversible except when it is reversible.

Genetic study of house dust mites demonstrates reversible evolution:
"In evolutionary biology, Dollo's law states that evolution is unidirectional and irreversible. But this "law" is not universally accepted and is the topic of heated debate among biologists. Now a research team has used a large-scale genetic study of the lowly house dust mite to uncover an example of reversible evolution that appears to violate Dollo's law.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093424.htm


Dollow's "Law" is indeed the only one in dispute. Here's the problem: There are loose and tight interpretations of the law.
The loose one is directly contradicted by the above study and many, many others. No doubt about that.

The far tighter interpretation states that you can't go back the exact same path. Think of it this way: It's January 1st. You get up, brush your teeth, etc. etc. and then go back to sleep. Can you then rewind your day perfectly? I.e. get up again, un-brush your teeth (as it were) and lay back down? In exactly the same way as you did before, mind!

That's the much stronger interpretation of that law. That doesn't seem possible. In fact, it's a mathematical improbability so large it's nearly impossible.

You might as well let AronRa know to update his “facts” and “laws” of evolution.


Before I do that: Will you update your knowledge of how science in general and evolution in particular work?

Evolution is a flexible term and can adapt to anything. It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, atavism, incompleteness, conserved trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, neo-lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified


Didn't I already explain that every single one of them (with the exception of lamarkism, which is incorrect) have been observed? I can give you examples for every single one of these.
Also, please learn the difference between science and an ad hoc argument. (Also ad hoc and ad hoc.)

If science was a newspaper, evolution would be the funnies!


Irony strikes! :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Last edited by Inferno on Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:09 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

I can't believe people are still citing "punctuated equilibrium" as evidence against evolution. Gould himself rebutted most of the creationist misrepresentations of his work. A collection of some of these can be found here.

Rhed, if you have a quote from Gould that you think is meaningful that is not rebutted there please cite it.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:59 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:Why humans cannot evolve wings” – But see evo-devo above. We have the same genetic material to do so. But of course some land-dwelling mammals decided to evolve into sea-dwelling mammals via random mutations and natural selection, violating the law of evolutionary economics:

“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”

Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution6.htm

Surely if whales could do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... tus_BW.jpg

and evolve into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... don_BW.jpg

I’m sure humans could also develop wings. Maybe not feathers, but perhaps wings like a bat since we are mammals and have the genetic material (evo-devo) to do so.


Inferno wrote:You don't have the first clue of how evolution works, do you? Humans certainly don't have the "genetic material" to evolve wings where did you get that idea? From bats or what? Nonsense, they clearly evolved wings inside the split of Scrotifera: Chiroptera with wings on the one hand, Fereuungulate without on the other hand.

The quote about whale evolution doesn't really make sense in this discussion. Are you agreeing that whales did evolve from land dwelling mammals? Because everything in that quote agrees with me.

But as explained, humans certainly don't have the "material" to develop wings. You simply don't understand evo-devo.
Now could we evolve wings? Not with feathers. Without them? More likely, but the chances are still abysmally small. What we could have is our arms growing skin... but to what purpose? We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances.


Not sure why you say that I don't know how evolution works? The original argument was about reindeer flying in the future, but it can also apply to humans as well. You don't agree with that because of the "laws" of evolution. I provided an example of how evolution works; that is, a rodent-like creature evolving into a humpback whale due to miraculous random mutations and natural selection. Hence a reindeer evolving wings and fly could happen by the same mechanisms. I will quote it again:

“To make this transition, whales had to overcome a number of obstacles. First of all, they had to contend with reduced access to breathable air. This led to a number of remarkable adaptations. The whale's "nose" moved from the face to the top of the head. This blowhole makes it easy for whales to breathe in air without fully surfacing. Instead, a whale swims near the surface, arches its body so its back briefly emerges and then flexes its tail, propelling it quickly to lower depths.”

"Random mutation resulted in at least one whale whose genetic information placed its "nose" farther back on its head.
The whales with this mutation were more suited to the sea environment (where the food was) than "normal" whales, so they thrived and reproduced, passing on this genetic mutation to their offspring: Natural selection "chose" this trait as favorable."


If a "land dwelling" animal could evolve into a "sea-dwelling" animal, then surely a reindeer could evolve some wings, regardless if the genetic material is there now or not. That is what random mutations is all about. And for the record, no I don't believe that whales were ever land-dwelling. For the same type of reasoning you have for why humans or reindeer wouldn't evolve wings:

We're far too heavy to lift off and have far too little muscle mass to sustain flight even for short distances

Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.

Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:55 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:
Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:


What is an Idists? I Binged it and looked in my dictionary and could not find a definition?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:27 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2434Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:Not sure why you say that I don't know how evolution works?


Here's a clue:

decided to evolve


Looks an awful lot like you don't know how evolution works.
Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:06 am
surreptitious57Posts: 224Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:09 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

tuxbox wrote:
I Binged it and looked in my dictionary and could not find a definition

It is Intelligent Design which is basically an alternative to Creationism

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:51 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

surreptitious57 wrote:
tuxbox wrote:
I Binged it and looked in my dictionary and could not find a definition

It is Intelligent Design which is basically an alternative to Creationism


Thank you. I've never seen it written that way before. I tried that argument in the Deist thread and failed miserably. ;)
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:57 am
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.

Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:
Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?
Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:18 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.

Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:


red wrote:Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?


Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc. Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:46 am
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rhed wrote:
red wrote:Few (if any) would "believe" this, but it is not impossible given enough time and favourable forces of nature. Perhaps your disbelief is due to a perspective that highly adapted land animals would never revert to the oceans, but would you concede that animals such as tree frogs, for example, might be able to revert to fresh water amphibians and later salt water?


Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc. Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.

Oh, so you have changed your mind............

Rhed wrote:Why on earth would you believe a sea-dwelling creature would evolve into a land-dwelling creature and then get home sick and evolve back to a sea-dwelling creature again.

Your reasoning sounds more like an IDists! :shock:

The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?
Perhaps your imagined designer wears the emperor's new clothes and only you are seeing them.
Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:36 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

red wrote:The above aside, what gives cause for a designer to use old building blocks rather than start with a clean slate in designing new bodies?
Perhaps your imagined designer wears the emperor's new clothes and only you are seeing them.


Not sure how using old building blocks debunks a designer. God in the Bible created life only once including the code in all life to reproduce and populate the earth naturally. We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.


Mother Nature, or naturalistic evolution, doesn't correct errors. Mother Nature does not conserve traits for just-in-case scenarios. Naturalistic evolution should create store-houses in the genome. It doesn't know why to evolve wings to fly, or flippers to swim, or eyes to see or ears to hear. These are all hallmarks of design; not random unguided mutations. Perhaps your imagined unguided random theory of evolution wears the emperor's new clothes.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:19 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 80 of 116
 [ 2311 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests