proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

If you think flippers are legs, you need to make an apointment witha good optician.

Please point out the difference hawkeye.

It is you who needs a refund on any courses that convinced you that evolution is based on science and is true. Nothing, especially diet contributes to natural selection. You can't prove natural selection is true.

It can be easily observed in action today.

I have to ask, what are your views on the accuracy of the Noah's ark story?

of course they do in the environment they were designed for. They could not survive on land. In fact they do not go on land for food. In fact if they did. land predators would make the extinct.

LOL, this is just completely untrue, do you bother to fact check this stuff before it pops into your head?

They aren’t picky eaters though as they will consume just about anything they can find to survive on. Some other common items that they will eat include invertebrates, birds, and small sized animals. This includes frogs, crayfish, and even crabs. They will also consume lizards and other items they can find on land when they need to.

Otter Feeding - Otter Facts and Information

 

[omega2xx]

There is plenty of evidence of salamanders speciating ('evolving into a different species' looks too much like the classic deliberate misunderstanding of evolution that whole species evolve into different whole species) as there is plenty of evidence of common descent for all life, let alone salamanders alone. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~genovese/depot/archive/evidence-CD.pdf

There are also ring species for salamanders. Evolution: Library: Ring Species: Salamanders

Here is discussion of a salamander that speciated despite inbreeding. Salamanders formed new species despite interbreeding

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13780-salamanders-formed-new-species-despite-interbreeding/

In the study of ring species of salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders. No evolution, no new species. It is unlikely the study included all families of salamanders and I believe some in the study could still mate and reproduce.

Accepting evolution is the exact opposite of accepting something by faith alone. What else in the world is there that has more evidence than evolution? There's genetic evidence. Molecular evidence. Geographical distribution evidence. Fossils combined with geological evidence. The list goes on and how.

If you think there is genetic evidence for evolution, you don't understand even the basic laws of genetics. Genetics actually refute evolution. There is no molecular evidence and certainly geographical distribution or geology has no ability to cause a species to evolve.

Here is a perfect opportunity to produce some of this evidence and prove me wrong. Because links never provide evidence, I have quit reading hem. Feel free to cut and paste any evidence presented in any site you prefer.

How is it that not all monkeys have evolved into humans? Try asking the real question of why no monkeys at all evolved into humans. Because none ever did.

Evolution preaches we evolved from apes. That is just as absurd and totally unprovable.

Why wouldn't monkeys evolve in a direction that would make them more like humans? Because they occupy a different ecological niche than early ancestors of humans did. And therefore the selection pressures on them were different. And hence they evolved in different directions.

That's pretty easy to explain.

What is difficult and impossible is to prove the explanation.

 

[Jimmy D]

If you think there is genetic evidence for evolution, you don't understand even the basic laws of genetics. Genetics actually refute evolution. There is no molecular evidence and certainly geographical distribution or geology has no ability to cause a species to evolve.

Here is a perfect opportunity to produce some of this evidence and prove me wrong. Because links never provide evidence, I have quit reading hem. Feel free to cut and paste any evidence presented in any site you prefer.

Evolution preaches we evolved from apes. That is just as absurd and totally unprovable.

Mmm, I'm sure I posted ERV evidence (not links) that contradicts everything you've said here. Why are you still ignoring it?

 

[omega2xx]

Here Mayr is arguing for punctuated equilibrium.And, he's talking about fossils that are intermediate between species.

Then why does he say, "not connected by their ancestors by a series of intermediates?"

If gradualism is true, then we'd see slow change in fossils, rather than (geologically speaking) quick emergence of species. There are plenty of intermediate fossils, meaning fossils between major groups such as Tiktaalik.

What was tiktaalik before it was taktaalik? Don't forget to include the evidence to support what you have to guess about.

And these fossils are still being found today, meaning that the fossil record is much more complete than it was when Mayr was researching.

Finding fossil is not evidence of evolution. Not only must you link them together, you need to start with evolution's unprovable guess as to what the first life form was, how did it originate, and what did it evolve into?

You appear to be trying to use the quote from Mayr to argue against evolution as a whole. If so, that is a blatant quote mine. Mayr is talking about the speed of speciation, not saying that there isn't a well defined evolutionary tree. Note that in the same book where the above quote came from, Mayr says:Mayr in no way doubts evolution. The quote that you quote mined is talking about the speed of emergence of new species, and is comparing the theories of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium.

I have not said or suggested Mayr doubted evolution. In facd he also said, "the fossils are the most convincing evidence fir the occurance of evolution."

It is amusing that what is "woefully inadequate" is the best evidence for evolution. That seems to be an oxy-moron.

 

[omega2xx]

It does no good to post actual scientific evidence to evolution worshipers. They run away and then ignore the scientific evidence that God told us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water as Gen 1:21 clearly states. They CANNOT explain HOW this scientific fact was written in Genesis more than 3k years ago so they run, hide, lie about refuting (proving wrong) the evidence and imply that people who understand this Truth are Nuts. Amen?

Agreed, but there are some who have not fully accepted evolution yet and they need to see the other side of the coin. That is the only reason I continue this discussion, which I will not continue unless they start producing some scientific evidence which they have not done so far.

 

[Jimmy D]

Agreed, but there are some who have not fully accepted evolution yet and they need to see the other side of the coin. That is the only reason I continue this discussion, which I will not continue unless they start producing some scientific evidence which they have not done so far.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

 

[omega2xx]

Once more.....

Punctuated Equilibrium, is a gradual process.
Yes, clearly, you have no idea what PE is all about.


Allow me to explain it in a simplistic fashion....

In evolution, there is something called a "local optimum". Which means that there is an "equilibrium", a balance, in the eco-system. That the populations in that habitat are as well adapted as can be, given the limits of potential biological change.

Natural selection works by selection pressures. Selection pressures are determined by the totality of the environment.

The characteristics of the offspring are controlled 100% by the gene pool of the parents. Once the kid is born the environment cannot change anything in the kid. Also nothing in the environment can affect the genes in the parents gene pool. You have absolutely no evidence that can make natural selection a mechanism for a change of species. Now prove mew wrong or admit you can't.

If the environment stays stable, then so do the selection pressures.
Unchanging selection pressures favor the status quo. At that point, not much change will happen, because -as said- the selection pressures will favor the status quo.

Give me an example of a "selection pressure" and the science that cause it to change the species. Let me make it simple for you. Mention a species, tell me what selection pressure cause the change of species. Don't forget to include the science that made it possible. Also include what the species evolved into. I predict this challenge will be ignored.

]Now, if impactfull changes happen in the environment, then the selection pressures change.
Now, the "equilibrium" is broken. Now, the status quo is no longer favored. Natural selection will now push towards other directions. This results in a more rapid pace of evolutionary change as opposed to during periods of stability.

Do you ever offer any scientific evidence for what you say?

That change is still as gradual as ever. PE does not mean that a cow suddenly gave birth to a whale!

What PE means is the long accepted evidence to prove evolution(gradualism) is not true. PE also says there are no intermediate fossils that tell us what the cow was before it was a cow, and there is no fossils showing pakicetus became a whale. No fossils linking land animals to sea animals.

 

[omega2xx]

False. PE is also a gradual process.

A theory that eliminates intermediate fossils, is not a gradual process.. It eliminates gradualism as proof of evolution. Did Gould say it was a gradual process?

That is indeed absurd. I guess it's a good thing then, that "eating fish" is not what evolution claims is the cause of land mammals evolving into sea dwelling mammals.

Someone I was discussing whale evolution with said that. I know evolution makes no such claim. What does evolution claim was the mechanism for l and animal evolving into a whale.

Nobody claims it happened overnight.
Try some 50 million years, instead.

Time will not change proven scientific laws. Your problem is not "how long," but HOW it is possible at all.

No "single" thing is.
In the end, change is regulated by natural selection, which works on selection pressures which take on many forms and are determined by everything in the environment: climate, habitat, geography, competing species, natural enemies, presence (or lack of) predators, available food sources (= diet), migration patterns, etc etc etc etc.<<

Talk is cheap but is not evidence. I have ask several in this and other forums to provide the evidence for natural selection. to date none have. Would you like to be the first? I predict you will not.

Why?
There's a whole range of land animals that spend a great deal of their lives in water that you can go observe TODAY. Take hippo's for example.... Are they "very vulnerable to land and sea animals"? They are amongst the most ferocious creatures alive today, for crying out loud... I saw one on National Geographic battling an giant crockodile. The hippo won.

I am happy for the hippo and sad for the crock. Now tell me wha teh hippo was before it was as hippo and what it evolved into. Otherwise what you claim is just an evo crock of you know what.

Surely they probably were lunch for other predators. Most animals are. Living exclusively on land, in the sea or even high up in the trees does not change that.

Practically every animal on this planet, is seen as lunch by certain other animals.

True but the eating may cause a species to survive but it can't be a mechanism for a change of species.

What is a predator to species X, is prey to species Y.

True again, but surviving is not a mechanism for it to become a different species. It only guarantees the species will survive. At least until some other stronger predator eliminates it.

 

[omega2xx]

I hope you didn't pay for those courses. If you did, I'ld ask for a refund. Because if after 3 "college courses" you still don't understand the gradual nature of the process, the implication of nested hierarchies, the idea that populations evolve instead of individuals, the fact that every species ever born was of the same species as its direct parents, the fact that speciation is a vertical process and not a horizontal one,....

Then I can only wonder what the content of those courses was..................



And yet, it seems that your knowledge about it is extremely lacking.

I always get this response when the person can't provided any evidence for what they say.

Thanks for finally admitting you would if you could, but you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

Yawn. Do you have any response other than denial/handwaving/burden shifting/misrepresentation?

Do you ever provide any verifiable evidence other than the usual evo hand waving rhetoric?

 

[omega2xx]

Speciation is not the process of a species evolving into a "different" species.
It is the process of a species evolving into one or more "sub-species".

So if a salamander population speciates, the "new" species will just be a new type of salamander.

All descendants of species X will forever stay on the same branch, in the same lineage, of species X. They will always be a sub-group of that species.

All cats, lions, tigers,... = felines.
All humans, chimps, gorilla's,... = apes
All dogs, wolves,... = canines

All felines, apes, canines,... = mammals

All mammals = tetrapoda

All tetrapoda = vertebrates

All vertebrates = eukaryotes

And so on.

You need to learn to wrap your head around what the "gradual" part of a "gradual process" means. It seems like you do not get how, in evolution, EVERY creature ever born was of the SAME species as its direct parents.

At no point in history did a member of species X give birth to a member of species Y. It doesn't work that way.


Let's move away from the whole evolution bit, because in my experience creationists have to much emotional objections to have a rational and objective discussion on the subject. Instead, let's just focus on the nature of a gradual process of introducing small changes every generation and having them accumulate and what that inevitably results in.

Let's look at the development of languages.

I hope you are aware that all Roman languages (like French, Portugese, Spanish, Italian) derive from Latin, right?

So, the ancestors of french, portugese, spanish and italian people didn't speak those languages. Instead, they all spoke latin.

Now, consider this: do you think that at some point in history, a latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child?

I'll go ahead and assume that when it comes to languages, you understand that generation after generation, small changes are introduced and accumulate in the language.

When you understand the graduallity of this process, you can think about biology in the same manner. The principles of the process are the exact same.



1. because populations evolve, not individuals

2. if multiple independent populations would evolve in the exact same way, evolution theory in its current form would be false

3. following your trail of thought, then in an evolutionary context, there should be just 1 species on the entire planet.

4. hilarious how you again expose how little you understand of the process of evolution.




It's rather easy, actually.

You have population A. For some reason, it splits in 2 or more populations. Various potential reasons for that (none of them out of the ordinary): part of the popluation migrates away; geological changes splits the population (for example, formation of a river that cuts right through the habitat of the population), etc.

Now, you have population A1 and A2. They are genetically isolated from one another. So they each are on their own evolutionary path from that point on. Over time, they will gradually diverge fruther and further from one another.

Have you never wondered how come that we can instantly tell someone's ancestral geographic location, simply by seeing his/her face?

White caucasians have ancestry in Europe.
Dark caucasians have ancestry in the Middle east.
Black people have ancestry in Africa.
Asian people have ancestry in Asia.

The fact that we can pinpoint geographic locations based on nothing but facial features, is a direct result of what I explained above about populations splitting and becoming genetically isolated from one another - making sure every "sub-population" continues on its own evolutionary path and starts diverging from the other sub-populations.


From this knowledge, we can again make some predictions concerning the geographic distribution of species. And once more, all these predictions check out. It explains why we only find kangaroo's in Australia, for example.

Instead of a long presentation of the usual fundie evo rhetoric, next time include the verifiable evidence for what you accept by faith alone. I am not interested in what you can predict. I am only interest in the evidence that makes your prediction true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@omega2xx

can you please go back to your reply to me in post 5687 and fix the quoting?
you likely have a typo in one of the closing tags.

Thanks

 

[omega2xx]

Are you going to use this pathetic deflection tactic every time someone asks a question? Maybe I don't know what is meant by your quote, will you explain it please? You said it.

"Gould's "punctuated equlibia, destroyed gradualism as a means of proving evolution."

I will be glad to when you do something I requested first---offer some verifiable evidence for what you say.

 

[Jimmy D]

I will be glad to when you do something I requested first---offer some verifiable evidence for what you say.

Evidence for what, evolution?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you ever provide any verifiable evidence other than the usual evo hand waving rhetoric?

I'll take that to mean "no, I don't have any other response."

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you think flippers are legs, you need to make an apointment witha good optician.

Hmm. These sea otter sure look like they are holding hands (I mean flippers) to me. I guess I better call the optician.

 

[omega2xx]

Endogenous retrovirus, an inherited retrovirus encoded in an organism's genome.

Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

(Thanks Loudmouth!)

When you use "must have happened," "If they occurred," "This is almost certainly" and other such phrase of doubt, it makes what you offer as proof doubtful.

To claim all life, animal, fish, birds, and humans and plants originated from one source, and you have no idea what that source was, is not only absurd, it can't be proved and the laws of genetics say it is impossible.

So tell me how a life or with no bones, not gene for bones and no need for bones produce a kid with bones.

Please include how the first life form originated from lifeless elements.

Also tell me what the first lie form evolved into and the science that cause it to evolve.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They could not survive on land. In fact they do not go on land for food. In fact if they did. land predators would make the extinct.

Otters don't need to go far inland. When they go onshore, they can stay close enough to water to quickly jump in the water if danger approaches from land.

They may not be the best design for land, or the optimal design for water, but if they can quickly go back and forth between land and water as the need presents itself, they can be a quite successful creature.

And the ancestor of the whale could have been similar to an otter.

 

[omega2xx]

How do you interpret fossils? For example, do you think that Eohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus and Equus all lived at the same time in some pre-Flood Garden of Eden? The same question goes for Dryopithecus, Sahelanthopus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis and Homo ergaster.

If you do not think this, do you accept that the genera in these two lists followed one another in time? If so, how do you avoid the inference that the earlier genera were the ancestors of the later ones? Do you think, for example, that all the members of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, for example, suddenly died out and that God then created Australopithecus anamensis to replace them? Or have you got an alternative explanation?

When species live and if they live at the same time is irrelevant. The question is how did an A become a B, then a C, then a D, etc.

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to understand how you interpret the scientific evidence and what creationist theory you have adopted to explain this evidence. (I am using the word 'theory' in its scientific sense here.)

Talk mentioning several species is not evidence.

In the last sentence of your quotation, Mayr actually says that the early species were the ancestors of the 'new species'. A moment's thought about the meaning of the word 'ancestor' will show you that it is logically impossible for a living being not to be connected with its ancestors by a series of intermediates. Every living thing has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on through a continuous series of intermediate ancestors and descendants. If you take the word 'ancestor' literally, Mayr cannot have meant what you think he meant.

What is it about "not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates" you don't understand?

What is it about "the fossil record is woefully inadequate" you don't understand?

 

[omega2xx]

@omega2xx

can you please go back to your reply to me in post 5687 and fix the quoting?
you likely have a typo in one of the closing tags.

Thanks

Sure. Sometimes I forget t and use the format in another forum I am in. Sorry about that.