The bottom line - what do we really know?

[The Barbarian]

Now the question the anatomical structure of the critter:
1) Evolution?
2) Inherited?
3) Mutation (recombination)?

If #2 and #3 are correct, then #1 is false.

No, that's completely wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So any new mutation is by definition, evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

When people speak of evolution, they discuss complete organisms and family trees. Fossil record and such like things.
An assumption of common descent rather than multiple independent pathways.

Evidence. Even informed creationists admit there is abundant evidence for common descent (which is not evolution, BTW; it's a consequence of evolution)

 

[Mountainmike]

Evidence. Even informed creationists admit there is abundant evidence for common descent (which is not evolution, BTW; it's a consequence of evolution)

I reduce it all to its scientific Status.

To identify between- What can be said for certain, what is just supported conjecture , and conjecture for which there is no evidence at all, however sensible it may sound.

The illdefined “blob” that is generaliy referred to as “evolution“ is a mixture of all of them
( into which some also mix parts of what is abiogenesis - depending on your definition of “life”, so where “evolution” actually started- there is even a problem defining that! )

So I am obliged to ask precisely what people mean by “ evolution” when they make a conclusion about it, since there IS no single defintion of “evolution”.

For example - I can proudly say I believe in “evolution,“ because with intelligent design, I’ve bred a few unusual plants! As man has done with plants, and animals throughout recorded history. But that is using “ evolution” in the narrow context of observed inheritance / genetic processes. Man is good at using patterns in obsevation!
Many use the word evolution in far greater reach and breadth

Darwins theory of “ evolution” includes a specific falsification criterion , which therefore identifies his theory
as “ progressive small change”

It therefore does not , by definition , include the concept of common descent and even he in his writings notes the open question of whether there were multiple starts ( multiple starts incidentally is the default outcome of presumption of first life presumed as a chemical process).

Can you say for certain that some early fossils or assumed relatives were not the last , of a separate dead end line from an inferior separate start, which competed with, but ultimately lost the battle of survival?

Good luck with that - the oldest DNA is mammoth only a million years ago. If you cannot state it for certain then your limited view of common descent is at best therefore defined as “ surviving species” not “ all species”

We know next to nothing about cell devopment from as yet undefined first life to present modern cell horrendous Complexity, So claiming we “ know” about early life or , most of development of life, is false . We don’t.

If you want to believe common descent, be my guest, but that’s what it is a belief, with plausibility evidence.
I like scientific precision, because as a mathematical physicist , I was trained and brought up on it.

It doesn’t matter who believes a proposition as to what the truth is.

Newton and his vociferous acolytes , believed light Was a particle, and they ridiculed those who did not.

Mind you , since particle and wave are just models, not realities, the entire debate is shadow boxing, as is much of the “debate” on evolution - which tends to be parties shouting past each other , rather than engaging in genuine concerns.

 

[The Barbarian]

I reduce it all to its scientific Status.

To identify between- What can be said for certain, what is just supported conjecture , and conjecture for which there is no evidence at all, however sensible it may sound.

Dr. Wise, who is a YE creationist and a paleontologist, disagrees with you. He says the many transitional fossils and series of fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

The illdefined “blob” that is generaliy referred to as “evolution“ is a mixture of all of them

Biological evolution has a very precise definition. Because you don't know what biological evolution is, it's just vague blob for you.

So I am obliged to ask precisely what people mean by “ evolution” when they make a conclusion about it, since there IS no single defintion of “evolution”.

"Change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or Darwin's phrase, "descent with modification." That's what it is.

It therefore does not , by definition , include the concept of common descent and even he in his writings notes the open question of whether there were multiple starts ( multiple starts incidentally is the default outcome of presumption of first life presumed as a chemical process).

Common descent is a consequence of evolution. It is not evolution. You're right, Darwin didn't know if there was a single common ancestor or several. He just supposed that God made the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Of course Linnaeus had discovered long before Darwin, that all living things fit nicely into a family tree, and the discovery of DNA confirmed the tree of Linnaeus and Darwin's prediction; genetics and DNA analyses confirm all known life on Earth had a common origin.

Can you say for certain that some early fossils or assumed relatives were not the last , of a separate dead end line from an inferior separate start, which competed with, but ultimately lost the battle of survival?

It would be astonishing if any fossil we discovered was the precise individual that gave rise to a major new group. But since evolution happens to populations, not individuals, that's not an issue. Was any herrerasaurus fossil we've found be the one that gave rise to the first dinosaur? The question is absurd. We only know that that species is so close to dinosaurs that by some definitions it is a dinosaur.

We know next to nothing about cell devopment from as yet undefined first life to present modern cell horrendous Complexity,

No, that's very wrong. There are entire journals of research into cellular evolution.

The evolution of prokaryotes is a history of endosymbiosis:

From prokaryotes to eukaryotes

evolution.berkeley.edu

Our mitochondria, for example, reproduce on their own, using their own bacterial DNA. So do chlorplasts in plants. And such endosymbiosis has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about that?

If you want to believe common descent, be my guest, but that’s what it is a belief

Comes down to evidence. DNA analyses show common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. You can believe the evidence is wrong, but all you have to counter the evidence is your belief.

I like scientific precision, because as a mathematical physicist , I was trained and brought up on it.

But data from DNA analyses is too complicated for you to get? How so? It doesn’t matter who refuses to believe the data; reality is indifferent to denial. Biology might seem too complex and involved to understand, but remember, it still works according to physical laws. You just have to work a little harder to get it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Dr. Wise, who is a YE creationist and a paleontologist, disagrees with you. He says the many transitional fossils and series of fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."


Biological evolution has a very precise definition. Because you don't know what biological evolution is, it's just vague blob for you.


"Change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or Darwin's phrase, "descent with modification." That's what it is.


Common descent is a consequence of evolution. It is not evolution. You're right, Darwin didn't know if there was a single common ancestor or several. He just supposed that God made the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Of course Linnaeus had discovered long before Darwin, that all living things fit nicely into a family tree, and the discovery of DNA confirmed the tree of Linnaeus and Darwin's prediction; genetics and DNA analyses confirm all known life on Earth had a common origin.


It would be astonishing if any fossil we discovered was the precise individual that gave rise to a major new group. But since evolution happens to populations, not individuals, that's not an issue. Was any herrerasaurus fossil we've found be the one that gave rise to the first dinosaur? The question is absurd. We only know that that species is so close to dinosaurs that by some definitions it is a dinosaur.


No, that's very wrong. There are entire journals of research into cellular evolution.

The evolution of prokaryotes is a history of endosymbiosis:

From prokaryotes to eukaryotes

evolution.berkeley.edu

Our mitochondria, for example, reproduce on their own, using their own bacterial DNA. So do chlorplasts in plants. And such endosymbiosis has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like to learn about that?



Comes down to evidence. DNA analyses show common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. You can believe the evidence is wrong, but all you have to counter the evidence is your belief.


But data from DNA analyses is too complicated for you to get? How so? It doesn’t matter who refuses to believe the data; reality is indifferent to denial. Biology might seem too complex and involved to understand, but remember, it still works according to physical laws. You just have to work a little harder to get it.

When you actually address the points I made in a scientific manner I will respond.
Hint. Starting with “ evidence “ of what a YEC believes? Streuth..
Hint: macroevolution is not a theory , it’s a working hypothesis .
Hint: “ biological evolution “ is by definition only a subset of evolution and it is best classed as an observation. The molecular genetics explaining some of it includes theories
Hint: I note darwins OWN falsification criterion. Not your waffle,

etc etc
Your Entire post is demonstration of more woolly thinking of the type that has taken over from scientific rigour.
Particuarly on lay forums.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hint: macroevolution is not a theory , it’s a working hypothesis .

It's directly observed.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families evolve from other taxa. They just don't like to use the "e" word.

The Institute for Creation Research says that all the different kinds of cats in world evolved from a single pair of cats on the Ark.
Answers in Genesis says that it's an error to think that new species don't come about from other species.

Hint. Starting with “ evidence “ of what a YEC believes? Streuth..

As you see, you don't know much about what YECs believe. Worth checking it out before you tell us about it. Might be, you don't know what "macroevolution" means. What do you think it means in biology?

Hint: “ biological evolution “ is by definition only a subset of evolution

Nope. That's wrong, too. It's Darwin's theory. Not related to any other sort of change. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification"; he seems to have anticipated that people would conflate "evolution" with unrelated things.

Hint: I note darwins OWN falsification criterion. Not your waffle,

Since you don't seem very aware of what evolutionary theory or even YE creationism are about, perhaps you would like to show us what Darwin's OWN falsification criterion is. What do you have?

Your Entire post is demonstration of why getting a degree in one thing, is no evidence that one knows anything at all of other things. As we've just shown, you have a lot of misconceptions about biology.

Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.

 

[QvQ]

Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.

“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

 

[Mountainmike]

“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

I’m referring to this:

Chap 4 - 5 modes of transition,

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down​

Sorry.. unbolding doesn’t seem to work!

So confirming “progressive small change”

 

[Mountainmike]

It's directly observed.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families evolve from other taxa. They just don't like to use the "e" word.

The Institute for Creation Research says that all the different kinds of cats in world evolved from a single pair of cats on the Ark.
Answers in Genesis says that it's an error to think that new species don't come about from other species.


As you see, you don't know much about what YECs believe. Worth checking it out before you tell us about it. Might be, you don't know what "macroevolution" means. What do you think it means in biology?

Nope. That's wrong, too. It's Darwin's theory. Not related to any other sort of change. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification"; he seems to have anticipated that people would conflate "evolution" with unrelated things.


Since you don't seem very aware of what evolutionary theory or even YE creationism are about, perhaps you would like to show us what Darwin's OWN falsification criterion is. What do you have?


Do show us what Darwin's own falsification criterion is.

Sorry i deal In Formal definitions. You are all over the place.

eg “ change in allele frequency” gives no reason for change , mechanism change, or scope of change.
I can create allele change by simply mixing two existing populations.
By itself that definition says nothing of the origin or progress of life.

So it is only a tiny part- the word “ evolution” is just an illdefined misused blob.
I can’t be bothered to go blow for blow.

 

[QvQ]

Chap 4 - 5 modes of transition,

That is chapter 4-5 from which book?
Your quote is intriguing.
The quote I posted was supposedly from a letter written by Darwin but then on the internet? Who knows how true that is.
I haven't researched Darwin's falsification criterion.
But either way it is stated, it is an interesting proposition.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry i deal In Formal definitions.

"Change in allele frequency in a population" is a formal definition. In fact, it's the scientific definition of biological evolution. You are all over the place; this is biology 101. Maybe it's time to do a little reading and catch up

eg “ change in allele frequency” gives no reason for change , mechanism change, or scope of change.

Nope. Darwin, had no idea why new traits appeared. They just did. We now know that it's due to mutation, epistasis, immigration, birth or death of individuals in the population, etc. Since Mendel's work became known, we know why, and with modern molecular biology, we know the mechanism. "Scope" depends on the allele.

I can create allele change by simply mixing two existing populations.

Immigration is indeed one possible way that it can change. And the population is now genetically different. Interestingly, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a way we test for selection, and it does matter if there is significant immigration or emigration.

By itself that definition says nothing of the origin or progress of life.

Biological evolution is not about the origin of life, or about "progress." Seriously, you need to do some reading so that you can do better in these discussions.

So it is only a tiny part- the word “ evolution” is just an illdefined misused blob.

If you don't understand something, it always looks like a blob. My point, exactly.

I can’t be bothered to go blow for blow.

Could you be bothered to learn about the subject?

 

[The Barbarian]

Chap 4 - 5 modes of transition,

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down​

Here's the part they cut out before they gave you that quote-mined snippet:

But I can find no such case.”​

A quote from The Origin of Species

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my t...

www.goodreads.com

No one else can find one, either. You have one? You're trusting the wrong people. If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.

 

[QvQ]

If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.

I have read all of Darwin's books.
It appears the quote I posted is from Chapter 9, Origin of the Species
So both are Darwin's own falsification criteria.

“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

 

[Diamond7]

Neanderthals seem to have adapted the anatomically modern human toolkit after they shared the same areas with those humans.

We see in Exodus 23:29 "But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land."

This shows us how God slowly replaced Neanderthals with Modern Humans. They were forbidden to intermarry. with the inhabitants of the land.

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 (NIV):

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

 

[Diamond7]

Not these guys, either. But both forms are clearly the same subspecies, while Neanderthals are about the same distance from both of them anatomically and genetically.

Do you realize they are wearing costumes and that is not how they really dress.

 

[Diamond7]

Both have the same common ancestor.

The letter A in the Hebrew alphabet represents the horns on the lead animals in a herd.

 

[The Barbarian]

What you are citing, occurred long after Neanderthals has disappeared from the Earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you realize they are wearing costumes and that is not how they really dress.

What they wore has no relevance at all to their relationship.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have read all of Darwin's books.

So how is it you didn't know that edited quote you presented was missing a comment that changed the meaning?

“If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

And again, the quote has been edited to make it seem other than it is:

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States."

As Dr. Wise points out, the fossil record now supports Darwin's prediction.

 

[Mountainmike]

Here's the part they cut out before they gave you that quote-mined snippet:

But I can find no such case.”​

A quote from The Origin of Species

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my t...

www.goodreads.com

No one else can find one, either. You have one? You're trusting the wrong people. If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.

I include the definition to show the nature of Darwinism As defined by him.
It is just a bit part. He has myopia. He can only see recent generations And speculated from that.

As a piece of speculation, its fine. It’s neither hypothesis nor theory as regards origin of life because it cannot be tested other than present and recent genetic process, from which he extrapolates the rest.

I’ve intelligent designed plants in my garden, as well. It doesn’t prove where life came from.

He LIKE YOU , like science, has no idea how first life began, what it consisted of, what genome it had, or any of the stages other than speculation on how each cell became the hideously complicated , self repairing, self powering , self evolving, factory of thousands of biochemiCals, that is the modern cell.
That is 99.999% of the problem of life, not 0.001% of it.

In Darwin’s day cells were assumed to be simple blobs of jelly, so Darwin speculated without most of the evidehve.

He couldn’t find a case , but I can - find at least 5 cases in the SCIENCE of so called Eucharistic miracles where bread became human cardiac tissue - a complex organ- , with No progressive intermediates- as vouched for by multiple independent teams of pathologists, dna scientists, blood labs and the rest , so it is evidence DISPROVING Darwins claim/ conjecture by his OWN test :
at tixtla, sokolka, Buenos airies, lanciano , legnica and more..

On the other hand Darwin never had a “ theory” since it is not succinct enough as a proposition ( other than by the falsification test) and was never proven other than by plausibility for other than recent times.

It’s a brilliant piece of work. It might even be true . But evolutionists go way ahead of the evidence in speculating that it is True.

I like scientific rigour and definition.
To separate what we know , from what we ALL believe.
We all have beliefs in the incredible , evolutionists just as many.

Unless they are very limited and specific in claims , which they rarely are.
Much of the blob of Ill defined “ evolution” and “ abiogenesis ” is atheist “wish believe” Based on speculation.

I trust in science , what it can and cannot say, for sure,
now re read the OP.