Why Evolution is True

[lasthero]

As far as I understand it they have only observed organisms changing within their own kind

What is a kind?

 

[stevevw]

We can measure the rate at which those mutations persist, or are discarded over time from the genome.....these things can be measured....they are FACTS...!

But can those mutations make a new creature or are they occurring within the same creature and have limits. Has it been proven that mutations can produce new complex features like wings and grow tails ect. If a mutation produces a part win how it that beneficial. If it produces stumps for legs how are they beneficial.

Now, what I think is confusing you is the THEORY BEHIND THOSE FACTS....

Have you studied biology. How do you know what you are talking about.

The THEORY is the part that attempts an explanation of those facts...

But if they are facts then there wouldn't be any need to attempt to explain it because they would know because its a fact. How can they say its a fact if they dont know how to explain it properly.

 

[CabVet]

But can those mutations make a new creature or are they occurring within the same creature and have limits. Has it been proven that mutations can produce new complex features like wings and grow tails ect. If a mutation produces a part win how it that beneficial. If it produces stumps for legs how are they beneficial.

Yes, mutations can and do produce those things. And yes, intermediate states can be beneficial and/or neutral.

Have you studied biology. How do you know what you are talking about.

He could have won a Nobel prize and you wouldn't care about he has to say if it contradicted your views, so why do you ask the question?

But if they are facts then there wouldn't be any need to attempt to explain it because they would know because its a fact. How can they say its a fact if they dont know how to explain it properly.

They are facts and they are explained. Some people don't "believe" them.

 

[Loudmouth]

But can those mutations make a new creature or are they occurring within the same creature and have limits.

You would have to define "new creature" and what those limits are before we can even try to answer that question.

From what I have seen, if a creationist can use the same name to describe two species then they are considered the same creature. For example, they will say that ostriches and sparrows are the same creature because they are both birds. The problem is that this rule is unevenly applied, at best. For example, humans and chimps are both primates, but creationists refuse to consider them the same creature even though I can use the same name to describe them both. Also, the DNA differences between chimps and humans is much less than it is between ostriches and sparrows.

What we need are some set criteria to work with.

Has it been proven that mutations can produce new complex features like wings and grow tails ect.

The reason why one species has wings and another does not is because their genomes are different. Mutations cause genomes to change and become different.

If changing a genome only caused bad things to happen, then why are there so many species with so many different genomes? There are 6 billion different genomes that produce humans alone.

If it produces stumps for legs how are they beneficial.

If mutations produce legs that increase fitness, how are they detrimental?

But if they are facts then there wouldn't be any need to attempt to explain it because they would know because its a fact. How can they say its a fact if they dont know how to explain it properly.

We have to explain it because some people don't want to accept the facts.

 

[CabVet]

What is a kind?

A very dishonest definition: whatever changes. If we document through a complete fossil record that rats evolved into elephants they are the same kind. That no longer is evolution, but only "natural selection".

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but that is why its called a theory because its hasn't been proven 100% correct.

If we were not allowed to teach theories that were less than 100% correct then we couldn't teach anything in science class. Germ theory is not 100% correct. The theory of atoms is not 100% correct. No theory in science is 100% correct.

But what ends up happening is they talk about it as 100% correct . . .

No, they don't. They teach evolution just like every other theory. They teach that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but like every other theory, evolution is open to falsification and refinement.

and then go into all these nice little pictures and stories that are not based on fact.

Like what?

I am saying they should be qualifying what they say by letting people know that it isn't 100% correct and that there are many anomalies.

That is taken care of from the get go. When you label something as a scientific theory you are saying that it will never be 100% correct. All theories in science are tentative and open to falsification and refinement.

Those are up for debate. Many that they had claimed in the past are just variations within a species or kind.

If three different fossils are all from the species Homo erectus, how does that disqualify H. erectus from being transitional?

Also, what criteria do you use to determine if two fossils are from the same kind or not? Are we back to the unevenly applied name game?

Some were shown to not be linked to the animals they said through genetics.

Every species I am aware of is linked by common ancestry through genetics.

Even the ape man links are up for debate as many were evolutionists trying to make apes more human and humans more ape like.

Examples?

More to the point, what features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

HGT has been shown to possibly account for some of the so called transitions through either cross breeding or virus.

Peer reviewed papers?

The tree of life which linked all the animals that Darwin and other evolutionists have made is being dismantled year after year through genetics and other discoveries.

Those papers agree that the major clades of eukaryotes still fall into the tree predicted by Darwin.

If you take Pakicetus which is suppose to be a transition of whales. They focus on a couple of similarities to link it to the whale yet dont mention the many dissimilar connections which link it to other animals.

Examples?

Sometimes it's a matter of interpretation and sometimes scientists are in dispute about what the connections represent.

99.9+% of biologists agree that the evidence indicates evolution.

Esp with say apes and things like hip and pelvis bones for determining whether they may walk upright or not. Sometimes there is only fragments of bones and they can make something out of it that may not be the case.

What about the pelvises where there is more than just a fragment?

Remember that variation is also something that looks like transition but they havnt got the genetic information to be 100% sure that its a different creature and thus makes another species.

Until you define what a transition are, what their genetics were, and what qualifies as a different creature you are just whistling in the wind.

Also the interpretation of species is something that many have different views on.

How do we determine which views are correct?

When they say there are 100 different species of bats for example they are still all bats.

When we say there are 100's of primate species, including humans, they are still primates. When we say that there are 1,000's of species of mammals, including humans, they are still mammals.

Also, there is more genetic distance between two bat species than there is between humans and chimps. Way more.

But if you want you can show me some transitions which you think have any evidence for being true.

What features would those fossils need in order for YOU to accept them as transitional? If you are going to complain about how people interpret the evidence, then it is incumbent on you to produce the criteria that we should be using.

 

[stevevw]

Judging by your posts, you need to research evolution in general, because your knowledge is lacking. If you want to learn it, use legit scientific sources, not the lying creationist sources that give false information.

Have you studied evolution or do you have any qualifications. I have researched evolution in general. I agree evolution is something that occurs. But what is not clarified is to what extent it occurs. Variations with the same kind/species happens and it can even produce some big changes over a long enough time just look at dogs. But I am not sure that there is any evidence that one day a dog will turn into a cat or visa versa.

As far as I understand .panspermia.org is not a creationist site. But isnt it funny that any site that will have some different info that will challenge what evolutionist say is lumped with all the creationist sites. There are scientists that also disagree with the traditional model of evolution. In fact more and more are coming out all the time. remember we are talking about the Darwin model of evolution. That tree of life is being dismantled and new models are popping up. Most are showing a lot more HGT. This means that less genetics was passed down from one creature to another and more was passed across. So some of the new species didnt come from mutations and natural selection but through genes being injected into an animal by cross breeding or viruses.
Horizontal Gene Transfer in Prokaryotes: Quantification and Classification - Annual Reviews Collection - NCBI Bookshelf
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/jumping-genes-versus-epigenetics-the-real-drivers-of-evolution
Horizontal gene transfer : Not Exactly Rocket Science
Horizontal gene transfer, genome innovation and evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Microbiology
Molecular Evolution Forum: Horizontal Gene Transfer Takes a Turn: Expansins from Plants to their Bacterial and Eukaryotic Parasites

 

[Loudmouth]

It depends what you mean by evolution. As far as I understand it they have only observed organisms changing within their own kind . . .

That is a loaded statement since creationists refuse to lay out the criteria used to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not.

A creature has a great ability to change and vary but as far as it growing wings or a dog like creature turning into a whale I am not sure that has been proven.

Dogs and whales are both within the mammal kind, aren't they?

an say evolution can happen up to a certain point but then there are limitations and boundaries where it cant cross.

You have to demonstrate that there are limitations and boundaries.

 

[lasthero]

Variations with the same kind/species happens and it can even produce some big changes over a long enough time just look at dogs.

So kind is synonymous with species?

But I am not sure that there is any evidence that one day a dog will turn into a cat or visa versa.

If you think that scientists expect that a dog turning into a cat is something that could actually happen, I would say you haven't studied evolution nearly as well as you claimed.

But isnt it funny that any site that will have some different info that will challenge what evolutionist say is lumped with all the creationist sites.

Panspermia doesn't challenge evolution, so far as I'm aware.

There are scientists that also disagree with the traditional model of evolution. In fact more and more are coming out all the time. remember we are talking about the Darwin model of evolution.

Yes, models are refined as we learn more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you studied evolution or do you have any qualifications. I have researched evolution in general. I agree evolution is something that occurs. But what is not clarified is to what extent it occurs.

Since scientists have concluded that all life is related through common ancestry, then it is quite apparent that the extent is the combined biodiversity of fossils and living species.

Variations with the same kind/species happens and it can even produce some big changes over a long enough time just look at dogs.

Humans and chimps are both in the primate kind.

Humans and bears are both in the mammal kind.

Humans and fish are both in the jawed vertebrate kind.

Humans and protists are both in the eukaryote kind.

But I am not sure that there is any evidence that one day a dog will turn into a cat or visa versa.

Since evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy for species that have vertical inheritance, there is no way that evolution can make one existing species evolve into a species on another branch of the tree.

As far as I understand .panspermia.org is not a creationist site.

As far as I understand, panspermia describes how life got to Earth, not how it evolved once it got here.

There are scientists that also disagree with the traditional model of evolution. In fact more and more are coming out all the time. remember we are talking about the Darwin model of evolution.

There are a massive number of scientists who disagree with the traditional Newtonian model of gravity. This doesn't mean that God causes planets to move about the Sun. This also doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Do you know why this is?

That tree of life is being dismantled . . .

What you always fail to mention is that this applies to prokaryotes and not to the eukaryote branch that humans are found on.

 

[stevevw]

What about the pelvises where there is more than just a fragment?

Until you define what a transition are, what their genetics were, and what qualifies as a different creature you are just whistling in the wind.

Yes I realize there are fossils of more than fragments and this is where I was saying that most of what I have read there is some debate about how they are interpreting the bones and structures. Whether they are a form of ape or human or a deformed human or a varience in human or ape. They have already found this with some of the recent dicoveries such as at Dmanisi, Georgia. This suggest that early man was a single species. That a lot of the so called different species that scientist were quick to make were actually variations of the same species of man. They had found most of the different shapes of skulls in the one group all together and dated the same which covered skulls found in Africa and other places throughout time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ry-suggests-early-man-was-single-species.html

So if you could give me the link to that picture I will check out what they say about it and do some research on it. I normally find that there is some conjecture with most of these even amount the scientists.

I will have to get back to you on the other replies as its getting late here in Australia and I have work tomorrow.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I realize there are fossils of more than fragments and this is where I was saying that most of what I have read there is some debate about how they are interpreting the bones and structures.

You can find scientists who disagree with any theory you wish to mention, even those theories that you would consider strongly accepted. Scientists love being contrarians. Simply finding a scientist who disagrees with a theory isn't enough.

You need to show why the vast, vast majority of scientists are wrong. You need to do so by defining your terms, presenting evidence, and demonstrating how your interpretations are testable and falsifiable. In other words, you need to do the science.

Whether they are a form of ape or human or a deformed human or a varience in human or ape. They have already found this with some of the recent dicoveries such as at Dmanisi, Georgia.

Why can't a fossil be a transitional and also be a variation of human or ape?

You need to define what features a transitional fossil should have. Otherwise, you are just throwing words out there.

This suggest that early man was a single species.

H. erectus was not H. sapiens. That is the massively overwhelming conclusion of scientists. The skulls you are mentioning were lumped as a single species, H. erectus. None of them were lumped into anatomically modern humans.

That a lot of the so called different species that scientist were quick to make were actually variations of the same species of man.

They also say that the species of human they were lumped into is transitional.

So if you could give me the link to that picture I will check out what they say about it and do some research on it.

That picture is Lucy, the famous Australopithecine fossil that scientists consider to be transitional.

I normally find that there is some conjecture with most of these even amount the scientists.

Then give us a definition of transitional that does not use conjecture.

 

[createdtoworship]

They teach the theory of evolution just like they teach every other theory, such as the germ theory of disease, the theory of atoms, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc.



What other scientific alternatives are you proposing? Do you have the scientific research and consensus to back it up?



You are aware that we have transitional fossils, correct?

but it's technically not a theory, as I have proven, a scientific theory needs observation empirically speaking to be hypothesis, and later a theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

Steve....evolution IS A FACT....

Again....? Evolution IS A FACT.......got that...?

When Dawkins uttered that statement he was completely correct. We can observe the mutations that occur in populations. We can measure the rate at which those mutations persist, or are discarded over time from the genome.....these things can be measured....they are FACTS...!

THAT's evolution.....!

Now, what I think is confusing you is the THEORY BEHIND THOSE FACTS....

The THEORY is the part that attempts an explanation of those facts...

lol, evidence please?

 

[bhsmte]

but it's technically not a theory, as I have proven, a scientific theory needs observation empirically speaking to be hypothesis, and later a theory.

You have proven nothing, except, maintaining your reputation.

 

[Loudmouth]

but it's technically not a theory, as I have proven, a scientific theory needs observation empirically speaking to be hypothesis, and later a theory.

How are fossils not empirical observations?

How are genome sequences not empirical observations?

How is the geographic distribution of species not an empirical observation?

How is the distribution of homologous adpations among species not an empirical observation?

 

[sfs]

but it's technically not a theory, as I have proven, a scientific theory needs observation empirically speaking to be hypothesis, and later a theory.

Wrong for multiple reasons. First, there is no technical definition of "theory"; scientists don't get together and decide when something qualifies as a theory. In fact, they don't use the word very often. Second, evolution has tons of empirical observation (as you've been told over and over).

Where do you get the idea that you can tell scientists how to do their jobs? Do you take the same approach with dentists and doctors?

 

[CabVet]

but it's technically not a theory, as I have proven, a scientific theory needs observation empirically speaking to be hypothesis, and later a theory.

You have "proven" nothing. Evolution has been observed and documented, multiple times. I am sorry if you couldn't demonstrate using 4th grade science fair experiment logic. If you raise the bar to 7th grade I can show you some that work.

 

[CabVet]

lol, evidence please?

What type of evidence do you want? Biochemical? Genetic? Biogeographic? Morphological? Geological?

 

[Dizredux]

Steve, these are really good questions but many seem to be based on an incorrect understanding of the subject. Let me try to explain a few points as best I can.

It depends what you mean by evolution. As far as I understand it they have only observed organisms changing within their own kind and not turning into something else.

With evolution organisms do not turn into something else. What happens is termed descent with modification. Existing traits such as bone structure for example will become modified over time to the extent to we will put a different name on the population.

As an example all tetrapods (four legged animals-dogs, cats, birds, bats, groundhogs and so forth)have the same basic leg structure (six bones- the humerus, the radius, the ulna, the carpals, the metacarpals and phalanges) or as Neil Shuban describes it “One bone, two bones, lots of bones, and then digits."

So then all tetrapods have the same basic leg structure. This structure has modified a lot over time (birds wings for example) but the are all different forms of the same six bones.

A creature has a great ability to change and vary but as far as it growing wings or a dog like creature turning into a whale I am not sure that has been proven.

Pretty much it has. Look at the tetrapod example and you can see where bird wings and whale fins got their basic plans. This is clear and fairly definitive evidence that all tetrapods are related to each other and descended from a population of early tetrapod ancestors. Other lines of evidence also bear this out.

So we can say evolution can happen up to a certain point but then there are limitations and boundaries where it cant cross.

This is interesting as no limitation has been found or even hinted at. This, if discovered, would put the modern Theory of Evolution in serious jeopardy. In one way, evolution is simply one speciation after another.


To another post with more questions.

But can those mutations make a new creature or are they occurring within the same creature and have limits.

This is a complex question asking more than one thing. I will try to simplify. Mutations occur within the individual but evolution occurs within populations of individuals. It is the genetic changes in the group that is evolution. It is just terminology I know but it is important terminology.

As I discussed above, there has been found no boundary to continuous speciation.

Has it been proven that mutations can produce new complex features like wings and grow tails ect. If a mutation produces a part win how it that beneficial. If it produces stumps for legs how are they beneficial.

Mutations do not for the most part result in new "complex" changes. The changes are generally small and are usually modifications of existing parts so to speak Over time, mutations along with natural selection, genetic drift and a few other mechanisms make the bigger changes we see resulting in bird wings, bat wings, whale fins and such.

With evolution all forms are functional and useful. Wings were used for gliding before flying. Feathers were probably used for insulation before wings began to develop. If the modification was not successful at least to some degree the individual would have died quickly and not reproduced. Nature is not kind.

Have you studied biology. How do you know what you are talking about.

Lots and lots of reading over lots and lots of years. Education doesn't have to stop when school does.

But if they are facts then there wouldn't be any need to attempt to explain it because they would know because its a fact. How can they say its a fact if they don't know how to explain it properly.

It is hard to explain new things to people where they can understand it. An old teaching rule: "To be an effective teacher, you have to know a hundred times about a subject than you will use successfully teaching it." I have found this to be pretty accurate, perhaps even an underestimate.


Evolution is a complex subject and not always intuitive or easy to understand. There is a lot of background to it which if you don't have can, at times, make it quite difficult to understand.


Evolution is really pretty simple at the basic level and is almost inevitable if you have three factors operating

Imperfect replication (variations in offspring)

Heritability (those imperfections can be passed on to offspring)

Differential reproductive success at least particularly due to interaction with the environment. (Natural Selection)

There are other factors involved but these are the main three.

If you have these three, it is pretty much guaranteed that evolution is going to happen.

Take care,

Dizredux