"Assumptions" is a magic word

[gluadys]

That should be part of it.
Why not? What stopped bacteria to evolve into animal?

The fact that bacteria and eukarya went their separate ways hundreds of millions of years before some eukarya evolved into animals. When will you ever learn that evolution is not about following ONE track.

Shift the goalpost back to the OP (very easy), should one basic assumption of evolution be that the boundary of kingdom should not be crossed? Why should it be the assumption?

No. The assumption is that when lineages branch they don't turn around and become a single lineage again. (Some exceptions made when closely related species produce hybrids). The reason the boundary between kingdoms (or classes or orders, etc.) doesn't get crossed is because they represent divisions between lineages. Inheritance only occurs within a lineage (some exceptions for lateral gene transfer). So if a species is in kingdom A, it cannot inherit from a species in kingdom B and vice versa.


Like many creationists, you are assuming that evolution means crossing one of those boundaries to become something "different". But in fact, it is the opposite in reality. Because evolution is connected with descent, with inheritance, and the boundaries represent divided lineages, evolution can only occur within a lineage.

 

[laconicstudent]

The fact that bacteria and eukarya went their separate ways hundreds of millions of years before some eukarya evolved into animals. When will you ever learn that evolution is not about following ONE track.



No. The assumption is that when lineages branch they don't turn around and become a single lineage again. (Some exceptions made when closely related species produce hybrids). The reason the boundary between kingdoms (or classes or orders, etc.) doesn't get crossed is because they represent divisions between lineages. Inheritance only occurs within a lineage (some exceptions for lateral gene transfer). So if a species is in kingdom A, it cannot inherit from a species in kingdom B and vice versa.


Like many creationists, you are assuming that evolution means crossing one of those boundaries to become something "different". But in fact, it is the opposite in reality. Because evolution is connected with descent, with inheritance, and the boundaries represent divided lineages, evolution can only occur within a lineage.

*politely applauds gluadys' for her shredding of the misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.*

 

[philadiddle]

Thanks for the understanding.

The main reason for my "distorted" concept on time is that we do not know the nature of time. I did not say that. Physicists said it.

So, if we do not know how long is one year, then what is the point to argue about the difference between 6000 years or 6,000,000 years? To me, this numbers are only a relative scale.

It is amazing that Psalmist could say: 1000 years on earth is 1 year in Heaven.

I asked you how incised meandering fit with a flood model. Could you please answer?

 

[laconicstudent]

So, if we do not know how long is one year

A year is the length of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun, 365 days. One day is the length of time it takes the earth to revolve once upon its axis. Despite your claims, time isn't relative.

then what is the point to argue about the difference between 6000 years or 6,000,000 years? To me, this numbers are only a relative scale.

Nothing personal, but the fact that you could possibly believe that makes me think you are completely out of touch with reality.

It is amazing that Psalmist could say: 1000 years on earth is 1 year in Heaven.

Thats nice. I don't believe your theology and your view of Psalms has anything to do with the issue under discussion.

Now, Philididdle and the rest of us are waiting to hear your explanation of how incised meandering fits with a flood model.

 

[Assyrian]

In fact, this is the model of evolution I have.
E. Coli changed and changes back and forth for millions of years. They are all E. Coli(s?). They do not become more complex, and they do not evolve into anything else. That is how evolution should work. So, a fish may evolve into this fish or that fish. But a fish will not evolve into an amphibian. The story of Tiktaalik is 80% imaginary.

Back and forth? So where in its evolution is e-coli changing back? Do shigellas go back and become ordinary e-colis? What about that pest yersinia, or the salmonella and typhoid family? How is an ancestor of e-coli evolving and diverging into modern e-coli shigella salmonella paratyphoid and typhoid any different from Tiktalli or a relative evolving into amphibians reptiles and mammals?

 

[Calypsis4]

Hmm. Interesting.

 

[juvenissun]

I asked you how incised meandering fit with a flood model. Could you please answer?

I said they do not have to be related.

My intuitive understanding is that a global flood may accelerate the incision process like crazy. So, if a small canyon was there before the Flood, then the canyon will become a Grand-Canyon-like canyon after the Flood. Some meanders will be destroyed (becomes a wide, straight, but incised valley), but some may be preserved. It depends on the rock and the structure of the incised meander. Some huge entrenched meandering may even be formed if the rock is strong enough.

So, if the Grand Canyon was a small valley (like the one in the Yellowstone), then the Flood indeed could accelerate the canyon formation many many times. The typical incised meanders, in particular, the example of The Loop, are exceptional cases. Most parts (> 85% ?) of the Colorado River valley are relatively straight.

The above is only a conceptual model.

 

[juvenissun]

Back and forth? So where in its evolution is e-coli changing back? Do shigellas go back and become ordinary e-colis? What about that pest yersinia, or the salmonella and typhoid family? How is an ancestor of e-coli evolving and diverging into modern e-coli shigella salmonella paratyphoid and typhoid any different from Tiktalli or a relative evolving into amphibians reptiles and mammals?

Don't be picky. I meant here and there, this form and that form.

Indeed, why not evolve "back"? E. Coli is not going anywhere no matter how does it evolve. So, if environment (niche?) reversed, what stopped one E. Coli species from changing "back" to earlier species? Yes, it does not happen. But why not? We are now looking at a very 'simple" life. Genetics might give a good answer to this question.

Does this illustrate the "direction" of evolution?

 

[laconicstudent]

Don't be picky. I meant here and there, this form and that form.

Indeed, why not evolve "back"? E. Coli is not going anywhere no matter how does it evolve. So, if environment (niche?) reversed, what stopped one E. Coli species from changing "back" to earlier species? Yes, it does not happen. But why not? We are now looking at a very 'simple" life. Genetics might give a good answer to this question.

Does this illustrate the "direction" of evolution?

Devolution (biological fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CB932: Evolution of degenerate forms

What possible reason could there be for reversion? No. We always assume things are moving forward. It may lose an adaptation that it no longer needs, but it doesn't become inherently "more primitive" per se.

 

[juvenissun]

A year is the length of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun, 365 days. One day is the length of time it takes the earth to revolve once upon its axis. Despite your claims, time isn't relative.

Nothing personal, but the fact that you could possibly believe that makes me think you are completely out of touch with reality.

Thats nice. I don't believe your theology and your view of Psalms has anything to do with the issue under discussion.

Now, Philididdle and the rest of us are waiting to hear your explanation of how incised meandering fits with a flood model.

Is one year on Mars the same length as that on the earth?
No. So how long is one year? One-year to earth? One-year to Pluto? One-year to the Milky Way? One-year of the universe?
An year on the earth is only a convenient time unit. It does not have a strict meaning. It will eventually pin down to the definition of one second. Unfortunately, the length of one second is defined by an observation, not an understanding. It could change if we find a more stable clock.

 

[juvenissun]

Devolution (biological fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CB932: Evolution of degenerate forms

What possible reason could there be for reversion? No. We always assume things are moving forward. It may lose an adaptation that it no longer needs, but it doesn't become inherently "more primitive" per se.

For E. Coli, what is not needed if environment changed?

 

[gluadys]

Don't be picky. I meant here and there, this form and that form.

Just like primitive insects evolved here into beetles and there into ants and into this wasp form and that butterfly form?

Or just like primitive tetrapods evolved here into anteaters and there into pandas and into this horse form and that lion form?

Indeed, why not evolve "back"? E. Coli is not going anywhere no matter how does it evolve.

What do you mean that it is "not going anywhere?" (Basically evolution does not go backward because time does not go backward.)

Does this illustrate the "direction" of evolution?

There is no "direction" of evolution. There are many directions of evolution. E. coli represents several of them.

 

[juvenissun]

Just like primitive insects evolved here into beetles and there into ants and into this wasp form and that butterfly form?

Or just like primitive tetrapods evolved here into anteaters and there into pandas and into this horse form and that lion form?


What do you mean that it is "not going anywhere?" (Basically evolution does not go backward because time does not go backward.)


There is no "direction" of evolution. There are many directions of evolution. E. coli represents several of them.

For example, a species of E. Coli is trained to eat plastics ONLY. Now take the plastics away from that E. Coli, would it still remember how to eat plastics over a few (tens of ?) generations? Would the plastics-starved E.Coli start to search for a new diet or would it go back to the old diet?

 

[gluadys]

For example, a species of E. Coli is trained to eat plastics ONLY. Now take the plastics away from that E. Coli, would it still remember how to eat plastics over a few (tens of ?) generations? Would the plastics-starved E.Coli start to search for a new diet or would it go back to the old diet?

It would either starve (and be wiped out) or adapt to whatever source of energy was available. If it was the old diet, then it might re-adapt to that. But it would be new evolution (not a backwards movement) that would produce the re-adaptation.

Like the early tetrapod ancestors of whales came out of the water and adapted to terrestrial life and then the terrestrial ancestors of whales re-adapted to aquatic life. They did not evolve backwards to fish, but forward to a new kind of sea creature.

So even if the E. coli re-adapted to the diet of its ancestors, it would still be a new strain of E. coli, not a reversion to the ancestral strain.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't be picky. I meant here and there, this form and that form.

You looked at the e-coli evolutionary tree and claimed it was your model of evolution, yet you described it as 'back and forth' continual branching and divergence is hardly 'back and forth'.

Indeed, why not evolve "back"? E. Coli is not going anywhere no matter how does it evolve. So, if environment (niche?) reversed, what stopped one E. Coli species from changing "back" to earlier species? Yes, it does not happen. But why not? We are now looking at a very 'simple" life. Genetics might give a good answer to this question.

Does this illustrate the "direction" of evolution?

It probably does. The direction of evolution is forward in time. Time does not run backwards and random processes do not run back the same direction they came. Even if you had the environmental pressure reversed, how do you get all of the random mutations to randomly just happen to reverse and in the right order too? Evolution does not remember which mutations it selected before and reverse them, evolution does not chose which genes to mutate at all. Reverse the environmental pressure and the new random mutations that suit the environment will be selected. But they won't be the same mutations you had before. Dolphins are not sharks, they evolved similar steamlined bodies to adapt to the aquatic environment, but it is a mammalian adaptation, not a fish one. Dolphins did not reverse their evolution. I am not sure you can talk of reversed environmental pressure anyway. Living in water is a different challenge to a mammal than living on land is to a fish, not simply the reverse. Evolving lungs is not the reverse of holding you breath and moving your nose to the top of your head. Eating plastic is not the reverse of no plastic. For a nylon eating bacterium, there is a huge positive selective pressure in having a whole new food source available. Not having nylon available simply means the gene is redundant, a very small pressure against it compared to the massive pressure selecting it.

 

[juvenissun]

You looked at the e-coli evolutionary tree and claimed it was your model of evolution, yet you described it as 'back and forth' continual branching and divergence is hardly 'back and forth'.


It probably does. The direction of evolution is forward in time. Time does not run backwards and random processes do not run back the same direction they came. Even if you had the environmental pressure reversed, how do you get all of the random mutations to randomly just happen to reverse and in the right order too? Evolution does not remember which mutations it selected before and reverse them, evolution does not chose which genes to mutate at all. Reverse the environmental pressure and the new random mutations that suit the environment will be selected. But they won't be the same mutations you had before. Dolphins are not sharks, they evolved similar steamlined bodies to adapt to the aquatic environment, but it is a mammalian adaptation, not a fish one. Dolphins did not reverse their evolution. I am not sure you can talk of reversed environmental pressure anyway. Living in water is a different challenge to a mammal than living on land is to a fish, not simply the reverse. Evolving lungs is not the reverse of holding you breath and moving your nose to the top of your head. Eating plastic is not the reverse of no plastic. For a nylon eating bacterium, there is a huge positive selective pressure in having a whole new food source available. Not having nylon available simply means the gene is redundant, a very small pressure against it compared to the massive pressure selecting it.

The time argument is also suggested by Gluadys, and I think it is a very weak argument. Time is needed for evolution, but it does not control the mechanism of evolution.

Afterall, whether the evolution proceeds forward, sideward or backward, there should be some criteria for the judgment. The backward evolution I suggested is only a concept. How to determine the degree of randomness on evolution is not clear to me.

When we only see the mechanism of mutation, it might be justified as a random process. But what happened after the mutation should not be random. As far as I can understand, what would happen after the mutation is environment controlled.

An example just came into my mind: Killer Whales rushed upshore to get the seals. And it has to struggle to get back to the water. Would this situation promotes killer whale to develop its front fins into leg-like limbs? Was the similar happened to some fishes in Devonian time?

 

[Assyrian]

You really need to deal with the fact that you cannot rewind random events. Simply calling it a weak argument does not cut it.

 

[gluadys]

When we only see the mechanism of mutation, it might be justified as a random process. But what happened after the mutation should not be random. As far as I can understand, what would happen after the mutation is environment controlled.

The environment can only control what is there to control and that is the random process of mutation. As Assyrian says it is ridiculous to expect the same random mutations to occur in reverse in the precise order they occurred in the first place.

An example just came into my mind: Killer Whales rushed upshore to get the seals. And it has to struggle to get back to the water. Would this situation promotes killer whale to develop its front fins into leg-like limbs? Was the similar happened to some fishes in Devonian time?

Not likely, for lots of reasons. For one thing it is not likely Devonian fishes were looking for food on land. Their food was in the water. And so is most of the killer whales' food.

 

[laconicstudent]

I cite Lenski's experiment with E. Coli. After 20 years and 31,500 generations one population evolved a completely novel (for that population) citrate transport system and had developed the metabolic pathway for aerobic metabolism of citrate.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I said ape-like ancestor, I did not say monkeys. This is what I was referring to as a semi-distortion:

"It's also completely wrong. Those conclusions came from the observations Darwin made. He didn't just set out saying "LOL LETS FIND A WAY TO SAY HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEYS!" Current evidence is "retrofitted" into the theory, but that's because the conclusions already exist from previous observations, and these new pieces of evidence help further justify that conclusion."

Point taken, but the hypothetical quote from Darwin was really more just to fill space. The main point is that current knowledge about human evolution is not built upon "assumptions," but rather conclusions derived from other conclusions that have an empirical base (a rather large one, at that).