The evidence for Evolution.

[SteveB28]

And we can prove these gradual micro changes over long periods of time building up one micro change after another eventually cause differing species over epochs exactly how? As I said in physics the forces that happen at a micro-level pico meters and fempto meters are not existent at the macro level. How then can we be sure in Biology that there can be no difference between micro evolution or macro evolution. I'm simply looking for something to hang my hat on here and don't believe I've heard articulate answers.
Thanks, Pat

Have you ever bothered to research anything under 'speciation'?



.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. I asked them to identify whom they were talking to. Please don't lecture me on politeness it seems a bit hypocritical.

I explained to you rather politely. You of course were the first to be rude here. Rude and wrong is a very bad combination.

 

[John 1720]

I explained to you rather politely. You of course were the first to be rude here. Rude and wrong is a very bad combination.

No, you gave an answer for a question I did not ask you and neither you nor the initiator of the post ever mentioned whether post 717 was directed towards me or not. I simply wanted to answer your friend if the question was directed at me or not so I could give an answer if it was or remain silent if it wasn't. That is when you butted in and answered his question in a way that had no relevance to what I asked him, which was who are you directing this question to. Read the sequence of the thread and you will see I am correct. There are some pretty sad and obfuscated debate protocols over here. I came over expecting an intelligent discussion not arrogance mixed with pseudo intellectual know it all self righteous poppycock, I wasn't expecting Robert's rules of order but didn't expect chaos either. on this thread. When you ask a simple question one should expect to get a simple answer - that appears not to be SOP on this thread. I've found that you can actually learn things from other threads but there is little didactic substance here - just pretense.

The analogy is not particularly apt because in physics the predominate forces are different at the different levels.
But the idea that there are two different processes at work in evolution for macro and micro is purely a creationist fantasy. There is just one: variation and natural selection. And since there is no qualitative difference between the kind of changes which cause adaptation and those which cause speciation there is only need for one.

Excuse me if I just don't take your word for it. In the search for truth you must offer proofs - that is science my friend and you haven't done anything more than throw around terms and twist them into perjorative invocations in order to try and sophomorically discourage anyone who asks you a question. What exactly are you afraid of? I've been in engineering and science for 4 decades and I can tell you good scientists and engineers can disagree on many things but essentially we are all looking for truth; and the truth is either you have the data or you don't. I'm left to assume you DO NOT have the data but you are just parroting what you've heard. I didn't come here to hear birdsongs.
Sorry, but it is obvious you haven't answered the question although put to you simply,
Pat
Regards, Pat

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you gave an answer for a question I did not ask you and neither you nor the initiator of the post ever mentioned whether post 717 was directed towards me or not. I simply wanted to answer your friend if the question was directed at me or not so I could give an answer if it was or remain silent if it wasn't. That is when you butted in and answered his question in a way that had no relevance to what I asked him, which was who are you directing this question to. Read the sequence of the thread and you will see I am correct. There are some pretty sad and obfuscated debate protocols over here. I came over expecting an intelligent discussion not arrogance mixed with pseudo intellectual know it all self righteous poppycock, I wasn't expecting Robert's rules of order but didn't expect chaos either. on this thread. When you ask a simple question one should expect to get a simple answer - that appears not to be SOP on this thread. I've found that you can actually learn things from other threads but there is little didactic substance here - just pretense.

Excuse me if I just don't take your word for it. In the search for truth you must offer proofs - that is science my friend and you haven't done anything more than throw around terms and twist them into perjorative invocations in order to try and sophomorically discourage anyone who asks you a question. What exactly are you afraid of? I've been in engineering and science for 4 decades and I can tell you good scientists and engineers can disagree on many things but essentially we are all looking for truth; and the truth is either you have the data or you don't. I'm left to assume you DO NOT have the data but you are just parroting what you've heard. I didn't come here to hear birdsongs.
Sorry, but it is obvious you haven't answered the question although put to you simply,
Pat
Regards, Pat

Such whining. You did not like the answer given to your poorly formed demand, and then ducked my question. You don't seem to have much confidence in your beliefs.

Creationism is a belief that has erned condescension. But if you start again politely I can be polite in return.

 

[John 1720]

Have you ever bothered to research anything under 'speciation'?
.

Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? Just kidding, it's actuall nice to be addressed with a direct question but I must ask why should you care?
Was there an assumption on your part that I haven't or, if I did, I would be so overwhelmed by it that I wouldn't ask a question as to where the proof is that micro evolution over time brings about a cladogenesis branching from one species to another? The Cambrian fossil record clearly didn't show phyletic gradualism as it was presupposed and posed with this problem they simply invented the hypothesis of puncutated equibrium. Now I'm fine with coming up with hypothesis that might explain a problem when the prevailing theories don't add up. Einstein did that and it eventually superceded Newtonian physics. Although clearly classical Newtonian mechanics is readily used everyday when we're talking spacetime or even GPS you have to figure in relativity and time dilation. Einstein theories were adopted, however, not just because it sounded good and could explain things in a diffwrent light. They were adopted because we could offer proofs that he was right. Gould could offer no proof so in my book punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis and not a theory. Now I might not have kept up with this field of study but I believe the onus is on those who consider themselves expert here to show us the proofs. Maybe I missed someone doing that it the 37 pages of this thread but I still don't feel bad about it. So do you have the data or NOT that proves it? That's a question by the way
Good Night, Pat

PS:
If we are just making inferences from the fossil record and the plethora of species as our proof of cladogenesis branching is a reality one must ask themselves whether there is an alternate hypothesis for the quick appearance of new species during the Cambrian period )known as the Cambrian explosion). Inference alone is not enough for science but the onus is on any science to show the data that proves one's hypothesis is correct, otherwise we can speculate till the cows come home but it still doesn't amount to science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? Just kidding, it's actuall nice to be addressed with a direct question but I must ask why should you care?
Was there an assumption on your part that I haven't or, if I did, I would be so overwhelmed by it that I wouldn't ask a question as to where the proof is that micro evolution over time brings about a cladogenesis branching from one species to another? The Cambrian fossil record clearly didn't show phyletic gradualism as it was presupposed and posed with this problem they simply invented the hypothesis of puncutated equibrium. Now I'm fine with coming up with hypothesis that might explain a problem when the prevailing theories don't add up. Einstein did that and it eventually superceded Newtonian physics. Although clearly classical Newtonian mechanics is readily used everyday when we're talking spacetime or even GPS you have to figure in relativity and time dilation. Einstein theories were adopted, however, not just because it sounded good and could explain things in a diffwrent light. They were adopted because we could offer proofs that he was right. Gould could offer no proof so in my book punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis and not a theory. Now I might not have kept up with this field of study but I believe the onus is on those who consider themselves expert here to show us the proofs. Maybe I missed someone doing that it the 37 pages of this thread but I still don't feel bad about it. So do you have the data or NOT that proves it? That's a question by the way
Good Night, Pat

PS:
If we are just making inferences from the fossil record and the plethora of species as our proof of cladogenesis branching is a reality one must ask themselves whether there is an alternate hypothesis for the quick appearance of new species during the Cambrian period )known as the Cambrian explosion). Inference alone is not enough for science but the onus is on any science to show the data that proves one's hypothesis is correct, otherwise we can speculate till the cows come home but it still doesn't amount to science.

It appears that you are rather behind the times on the Cambrian explosion. It was not as dramatic as the creationist sites try to make it.


You may be basing your opinions on a strawman. Can you tell us your understanding of it?

 

[SteveB28]

Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? Just kidding, it's actuall nice to be addressed with a direct question but I must ask why should you care?
Was there an assumption on your part that I haven't or, if I did, I would be so overwhelmed by it that I wouldn't ask a question as to where the proof is that micro evolution over time brings about a cladogenesis branching from one species to another? The Cambrian fossil record clearly didn't show phyletic gradualism as it was presupposed and posed with this problem they simply invented the hypothesis of puncutated equibrium. Now I'm fine with coming up with hypothesis that might explain a problem when the prevailing theories don't add up. Einstein did that and it eventually superceded Newtonian physics. Although clearly classical Newtonian mechanics is readily used everyday when we're talking spacetime or even GPS you have to figure in relativity and time dilation. Einstein theories were adopted, however, not just because it sounded good and could explain things in a diffwrent light. They were adopted because we could offer proofs that he was right. Gould could offer no proof so in my book punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis and not a theory. Now I might not have kept up with this field of study but I believe the onus is on those who consider themselves expert here to show us the proofs. Maybe I missed someone doing that it the 37 pages of this thread but I still don't feel bad about it. So do you have the data or NOT that proves it? That's a question by the way
Good Night, Pat

PS:
If we are just making inferences from the fossil record and the plethora of species as our proof of cladogenesis branching is a reality one must ask themselves whether there is an alternate hypothesis for the quick appearance of new species during the Cambrian period )known as the Cambrian explosion). Inference alone is not enough for science but the onus is on any science to show the data that proves one's hypothesis is correct, otherwise we can speculate till the cows come home but it still doesn't amount to science.

Never assume that quantity supersedes quality.

Have you ever bothered to research 'speciation'?



.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you ever comprehend what people are saying to you? Whether you use the term species, 'infraspecific taxa', breed, race or kind is irrelevant, they're just categories made for our convenience based on certain criteria. Your opinions on those criteria has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the differences and similarities of different species etc can be measured, quantified and compared to demonstrate inconclusively the fact of common descent.

I know that you are aware of phylogenetic trees, ERV evidence etc etc. How you can seriously attempt to deny them by quibbling over the definition of the word species is mind boggling.

On the other hand, you have blatantly made up your rather ridiculous 'super genome' idea to try and force fit what we see in nature into your religious beliefs. Have you got any data or observations to back it up? Any predictions that could confirm it if tested? Anything at all?

Sure I comprehend what people are saying to me. They are saying ignore the seperate infraspecific taxa that exists in every species living today, that we classified as seperate species in the fossil record. I'm sorry, I refuse to ignore reality for fantasy. Your fantasy has no infraspecific taxa in the fossil record and is divorced from reality. You know every species has many infraspecific taxa within it, yet in your classification of the fossil record there are none. This is what leads you to believe species evolve into other species, based upon an incorrect classification of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as separate species. So why should I listen to people that can't even get the fossil record to match what we observe every day around us? Show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record that must exist according to observations of the world around us and how life propagates?

Sort of like your made up classification of species which is so arbitrary as to be useless?

I got more data backing up a perfect genome from the start than you have for an improving one. We know DNA data has been lost through mutations, but can you show me one single instance where new DNA was added? No you can't. The best you can do is show where what already existed was copied into a new order, but that happens during normal mating as well.

So you have ZERO evidence new DNA can be made where it never existed before. While I on the other hand can show you conclusively where DNA has been lost, but has never been gained.

Now I understand in your fantasies this happened in the mythical past. Where of course it can never be tested.

What common descent? Your confusion of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species which leads you to this incorrect belief? I expect if I wrongly classified the different infraspecific taxa of dogs as seperate species I'd be led to the false belief of evolution too. It's a good thing we have a record of their descent or you'd do just that.

Not the least of which everything in existence shares the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust, so we would naturally expect similarities all the way down to the atomic level. DNA which of course is comprised of those same atomic structures in every living creature. What you mistake as common descent is a natural consequence of all life being created from the same atomic structures.

In every species living today there exists infraspecific taxa within that species. Show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record? What you have none? That's right, because you have incorrectly labeled them as seperate species, so are led to the wrong conclusions. Surely you can show me where the fossil record contains infraspecific taxa so that it matches what we observe in real life? I didn't think so.

So once you get around to correcting all those mistaken classifications your common descent will fade away into nothing. You will realize the error of your ways and realize you have nothing to base any of your claims on. But as long as you continue to live in fantasy land detached from the reality of what you observe around you, you will forever be lost in those fantasies and unable to perceive reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's clear one thing up. Micro evolution as you all like to call adaptation is a far cry from macro evolution.

Just because I accept that if you take 1 million black rabbits and place them near the Arctic they will eventually become white rabbits, does not mean I accept that they will become something other than rabbits.

They may adapt to their environment by becoming white, but they started as rabbits and in a million years will still be rabbits. They will never become anything but rabbits.

So if you want to call adaptation incorrectly micro evolution fine. But macro evolution has never been observed and is fantasy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What evidence? The fact that you don't understand the difference between natural selection and artificial selection?

Your refusal to accept the outcomes are the same?

Can you tell me what the difference in offspring would be if I force an Asian an African to mate or if they choose to do so?

Can you tell me what the difference in offspring would be if I mate a Husky with a Mastiff, or if famine causes the Mastiff to migrate to new lands and it mates with a Husky?

The difference is your refusal to recognize that man mating two breeds would be no different than natural causes forcing them together and them mating. The difference is it gives you an excuse to reject the evidence. A poor one at that since the results would be the same in both cases. A Chinook.

I'll address your other fantasy outlooks on life after work.

 

[Speedwell]

No, you gave an answer for a question I did not ask you and neither you nor the initiator of the post ever mentioned whether post 717 was directed towards me or not. I simply wanted to answer your friend if the question was directed at me or not so I could give an answer if it was or remain silent if it wasn't. That is when you butted in and answered his question in a way that had no relevance to what I asked him, which was who are you directing this question to. Read the sequence of the thread and you will see I am correct. There are some pretty sad and obfuscated debate protocols over here. I came over expecting an intelligent discussion not arrogance mixed with pseudo intellectual know it all self righteous poppycock, I wasn't expecting Robert's rules of order but didn't expect chaos either. on this thread. When you ask a simple question one should expect to get a simple answer - that appears not to be SOP on this thread. I've found that you can actually learn things from other threads but there is little didactic substance here - just pretense.

Excuse me if I just don't take your word for it. In the search for truth you must offer proofs - that is science my friend and you haven't done anything more than throw around terms and twist them into perjorative invocations in order to try and sophomorically discourage anyone who asks you a question. What exactly are you afraid of? I've been in engineering and science for 4 decades and I can tell you good scientists and engineers can disagree on many things but essentially we are all looking for truth; and the truth is either you have the data or you don't. I'm left to assume you DO NOT have the data but you are just parroting what you've heard. I didn't come here to hear birdsongs.
Sorry, but it is obvious you haven't answered the question although put to you simply,
Pat
Regards, Pat

There is plenty of data. Speciation, which seems to fascinate you in particular, has been observed both in the field and in the lab. But you are not ready for data yet. You don't understand how evolution is supposed to work according to the theory.

You need to know exactly what the theory claims if you expect to understand what the data is supposed to show. I was trying to lead you to it gently, but since I got such a snotty rejoinder I will tell you straight out: You don't know anything more about the theory of evolution than pig knows about a clean shirt. Unless you are willing to learn to argue against the real theory of evolution and not some preposterous straw man there is no point in discussing it at all.

 

[John 1720]

Organisms diversifying rapidly from their ancestral species when there is a change in environment that makes new resources available or opens new niches.

Jon from Minnesota - thank you for that definition. I'm not sure "evolutionary radiation" is a great fit relative to its definition but there have been worse. I did not see your post until late last night so I had googled it beforehand, nevertheless I sincerely appreciate your direct answer and shall do my best to consider and answer your question below.

Could you clear up why you have a problem with macroevolution? You seem to acknowledge that small changes happen within a population.

I'm not sure I have a problem with macroevolution. I can see why many here believe it has merit as a hypothesis. However, I'm not sure the data supports it enough to be relied on. Perhaps someone of your caliber might provide me with more insight into the supporting data that I am currently unaware of. My sidebar comment in #713 was simply meant to delineate where most on this thread agree and disagree on. There was a discussion on beak size changes which are in species changes I hadn't realized making the statement would make this into an emotionally charged argument as it was just a setup to what we can agree on and where we might have a rational discussion. without demonizing each other. You seem to be a man of reason hat is articulate and knowledgeable so perhaps we can further discuss the topic? Even if we never agree I think it might be a useful exercise for each and certainly one that I admit might give me a better understanding of the topic, which is always a good thing.
[/quote]

Macroevolution is simply these small changes adding up. If you're going to reject "macroevolution" you need to explain the limit of how much a population of species can change and what the mechanism is that stops these changes from adding up. Evolution takes place in populations not individuals.

I would agree that with your postulate that if we agree there are definitely adaptive changes within a species that over extremely long periods of time they might add up significantly. I'm not sure that the vastness of the fossil record alone clearly shows that the transitional forms offers us a slam dunk that proves those adaptive in species changes explains the plethora of species we have on hand but I'm certainly willing to listen as to why you think it does. However, I don't think evolutionary science is anywhere near the point we have progressed with physics, chemistry or astronomy. Perhaps the brightest tool for panning this out will be the DNA research but it may turn out to be a double edged sword. Empirical evidence I believe is lacking. Take the finches that I mentioned with respect to the series of changes you potulate would happen over time. During the drought season it is true they adapted with beak size changes to their environment but as soon as el-nono brought back a series of rainy seasons their beak sizes returned to normal. So the question is whether there always exists a upward trend of "positive" changes that make up a series that would lead to transitional forms. Certainly the finches don't do that for us. Despite some that say I am postulating a red herring, there are certainly instances in physics where the forces working at the sub atomic level expressed in fempto and picometers do not exist at greater distances. I'm not saying this is related to biology but I said that because we really didn't know that in Newton's time until the science had advanced enough to prove that was the case. My point is we shouldn;t assume that is the case. There are many series equations in mathematics that will never produce sets and classes of numbers that others do. Equations that morph circles might produce ovals, just as equation may change squares to rectangles, etc but algorithmic operations on square will never produce circles. All I'm saying is I'm wary of making sweeping assumptions without the data that supports a postulate or a hypothesis. I do believe all truth happens to be God's truth, and that is an asset to me not a hinderence, just as it was for so many of the fathers of modern science.
Thanks, Pat.

 

[John 1720]

Never assume that quantity supersedes quality.

Have you ever bothered to research 'speciation'?



.

I already answered you in post #745 which you quoted. Did you read it?
Merry Christmas, Pat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's clear one thing up. Micro evolution as you all like to call adaptation is a far cry from macro evolution.

Just because I accept that if you take 1 million black rabbits and place them near the Arctic they will eventually become white rabbits, does not mean I accept that they will become something other than rabbits.

And right here you show that you do not understand what evolution is. The offspring of those rabbits will always be rabbits, just as your offspring will be human no matter how far into the future that you go. What you don't seem to understand is that you are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate and you are still a eukaryote, as your distant ancestors were. Until you get this basic fact right you will not be able to debate properly against the theory of evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

I already answered you in post #745 which you quoted. Did you read it?
Merry Christmas, Pat

Yes, I read your rambling reply. Now, please answer my question.....



.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly what to whom?

It may help you to know that accepted practice is to quote the (relevant parts of the) post to which you are responding - so the answer to your question above may be found by reading the post that was quoted.

You can access the quoted post directly by clicking on the little up-arrow next to the name of the quoted poster.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My question was
...
To which you answered:
...

You seem to have your quote attributions rather confused. You can reduce the chances of this occurring by using the 'Quote' or 'Reply' feature, and taking care not to disrupt the quote tags [..] when editing.

Things that happen on a microscale don't necessarily follow the same rules on a macroscale. In Physics we have identified 4 forces, Gravity, the electromotive force, the weak force and the strong force. However, both the weak force and the strong force only apply to microlevel scales, outside of a few femptometers the strong force is non-existent.

That is quite true (btw it's 'femtometers'), but evolution is not several forces (or principles) working at different spatial scales, but a single principle working across a range of temporal scales. If you want a spatial analogy, it is equivalent to many small steps adding up to a long distance. To extend the analogy, a new species could (loosely) be seen as marking a significant change of scenery on the journey.

 

[dad]

And right here you show that you do not understand what evolution is. The offspring of those rabbits will always be rabbits, just as your offspring will be human no matter how far into the future that you go. What you don't seem to understand is that you are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate and you are still a eukaryote, as your distant ancestors were..

Great. So your opinion of what 'understanding evolution' is, would be to get submerged in unproven fantasies with no proof or support whatsoever. Great example of what evolution actually is...belief based godless idiocy.

 

[SteveB28]

Great. So your opinion of what 'understanding evolution' is, would be to get submerged in unproven fantasies with no proof or support whatsoever. Great example of what evolution actually is...belief based godless idiocy.

Good grief.....you people never tire of your nonsense, do you...?

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, we have more (in volume and variety) evidence in support of evolutionary theory than for any other scientific theory.

Our current understanding of the biological sciences is underpinned by evolutionary theory.

But please, continue to ignore that reality in favour of your fantasies.....



.

 

[dad]

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, we have more (in volume and variety) evidence in support of evolutionary theory than for any other scientific theory.



.

Would 'evolutionary theory' include origins of life on earth? If so you have precisely none at all. If all you mean is mutating bacteria today or some such, well, you need a lot of godless imagination to contort that into creation of life on earth.