Do you agree with these statements?

[Speedwell]

It seems like some form of methodology of approximation, intuitive leaps, near enough is good enough approach.

It's the only game in town.

 

[Radagast]

It's the only game in town.

I wouldn't say that.

 

[Speedwell]

I wouldn't say that.

What have you got?

 

[Radagast]

What have you got?

To assert the truth of a proposition simply because one cannot imagine alternatives is not science as I know it.

 

[Job 33:6]

To assert the truth of a proposition simply because one cannot imagine alternatives is not science as I know it.

That's how a theory works.

For example in plate tectonics, we observe subduction zones from the surface, and we imagine that slabs subduct and melt in the mantle. We cannot imagine an alternative and yet, this is the only logical conclusion that we can think of.

Though realistically nobody has ever traveled into the mantle to see this happening, it's too hot.

 

[Speedwell]

To assert the truth of a proposition simply because one cannot imagine alternatives is not science as I know it.

Science does not assert absolute truth. Science asserts the best explanation currently available. You may not be satisfied with evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, but you haven't got a better one. In fact it is not only the best available, as far as I know it's the only one available. It's the only game in town.

 

[pitabread]

I never realized the scale and the complexity of that transition from fish to tetrapod. At first, I thought it very unlikely but after reading this article. It seems almost an impossibility, far to many deep changes, the heavier skeleton, the bone itself needs to morph. Explaining the change from fins to feet is almost inconceivable.

This is why again looking at modern bioforms can shed light on what those transitions can look like. Far from being impossible, there seem to be perfectly functional examples of semi-aquatic biological forms.

Amphibious fish - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So let's get this straight my friend.

There does not exist a series of fossils illustrating the transition of species in a phylogeny. According to the theory of Evolution. There is instead a suggestion of, a pattern of, a transition of species in a phylogeny.

This appears to be more of an hypothesis, rather than a theory. A pattern missing the direct evidence. I find this confronting.

I should have known better that asking for direct evidence.

It depends what you're prepared to accept as evidence. In the fossil record, lineages are discovered when a temporal sequence of fossils is found where each has a characteristic pattern of anatomical and situational similarities with the next, and this pattern is carried through the sequence with ongoing modification and refinements that indicate an overall development or progression over time. The last fossil in the sequence may be very different from the first, but is connected to it by this sequential pattern of development and characteristic features.

It's not possible to know whether each fossil in the sequence is a direct lineal descendant of the previous one - there may have been many similar related species at the time, but the similarity of the characteristic pattern of anatomy and the situational context gives an indication of how well it represents the proposed lineage at that time.

For example, the bird-like therapod dinosaurs have a pattern of characteristics not found in other dinosaurs, but which is present in modern birds (hollow bones, wishbone, hind-limb & foot articulation, shoulder-girdle & forelimb structure and articulation, and so-on). Even without the numerous transitional forms that have been unearthed that share and progress this pattern, one might suspect some relationship between them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Read it, interesting.

One of the great evolutionary transitions from fins to feet and weight bearing legs at that. Gills to lungs, is a monumental development also. A truly formidable transition requiring the sacrifice of innumerable mice.

The information on the change in the bone composition of the skull of the fish.This represents a very deep problem and one that may keep researches, busy for a very long time.

I never realized the scale and the complexity of that transition from fish to tetrapod. At first, I thought it very unlikely but after reading this article. It seems almost an impossibility, far to many deep changes, the heavier skeleton, the bone itself needs to morph. Explaining the change from fins to feet is almost inconceivable.

I also understand the tremendous focus on the genetics, the genetic switches needed to facilitate such tremendous changes across the fish. That is where the answers will arise, if there are answers to these questions. No doubt many more questions will stem from this genetic research and don't expect a solution soon.

Some (fairly) recent discoveries in genetics and protein folding have shed light on how the evolutionary process manages to get a surprising number of functional results from random mutations; you might find this article interesting: The Strange Inevitablility of Evolution.

 

[driewerf]

What some fish decides to become an amphibian, then decides to become a tetrapod?

It's not something individual creatures decide for themselves.

I am fully aware of that.

If you are aware that species (or individual organisms, for that matter) don't "decide" to evolve, why did you chose these words then, other than to erect a strawman?

 

[driewerf]

What are you inferring? A cat will over a million years turn into a dog?

Do you believe that the ToE somehow states that cats can live for millions of years?
Do you believe that the ToE states that an individual organism turns into something else?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

I think people have an issue when seeds get mixed up and such and you have a zebra lion.

The questions all seem like reasonable statements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think people have an issue when seeds get mixed up and such and you have a zebra lion.

I can't make sense of that - can you explain what you mean?

 

[Radagast]

Science does not assert absolute truth.

I disagree. One cannot ever attain absolute truth, of course, but that is the goal.

To be satisfied with an inaccurate model means the death of science. Dissatisfaction is the engine that keeps science moving.

Science asserts the best explanation currently available. You may not be satisfied with evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, but you haven't got a better one.

I've got at least 2 alternatives for you: theistic evolution and the complexity-based theory of Kauffman.

 

[pitabread]

I've got at least 2 alternatives for you: theistic evolution

How does theistic evolution differ from the scientific theory of evolution?

 

[CaspianSails]

And the emergence of new species has been observed and confirmed. You are going to have to fin some other reason to deny evolution.

Name a few.

 

[CaspianSails]

You are mistaken. Adaption and improvement are evolution.

Over a long enough time scale humans studding the evidence for a slowly changing population will label one point one species and a later variation another species.

Another way for this to happen is for the population to split into isolated groups so the slow changes/adaptations will be subtly different. Leading to the populations varying faster from each other then each is from the ancestral population. This is especially true if the pressures are different in the two environments.

You should caveat your posts to say that you do not hold to the Darwinian view of evolution as adaptation is not evolutionary within the context of his definition. Nice try but no.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree. One cannot ever attain absolute truth, of course, but that is the goal.

To be satisfied with an inaccurate model means the death of science. Dissatisfaction is the engine that keeps science moving.



I've got at least 2 alternatives for you: theistic evolution and the complexity-based theory of Kauffman.

"Theistic evolution" is too vague a term. Most varieties of it have no argument with contemporary evolutionary theory. Complexity theory, if true, would be a step forward in understanding biological evolution, not a denial of it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I can't make sense of that - can you explain what you mean?

I was kind of joking, chimera type genetic engineering isn't really a thing so ..

 

[pitabread]

I was kind of joking, chimera type genetic engineering isn't really a thing so ..

It kinda is though. For example: Living, breathing, glowing rabbits successfully born

In a collaborative effort between the University of Hawaii at Manoa and two universities in Turkey, scientists created two transgenic (genetically modified) bunnies by inserting a gene from jellyfish DNA into a rabbit embryo.​