Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

Funnily enough, the scientific method really only applies to scientific inquiry, not every day life.

That's a good point.

So the next time someone tells me there's no evidence for [event], should I take that as it just being a vulgar (i.e., ordinary) comment?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's a good point.

So the next time someone tells me there's no evidence for [event], should I take that as it just being a vulgar (i.e., ordinary) comment?

Unless it's do with something scientific, then yes. Also, no idea why you had to say vulgar when you could have literally just used ordinary. Seems like a very unnecessary step.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, no idea why you had to say vulgar when you could have literally just used ordinary. Seems like a very unnecessary step.

Like when I refer to "shrewdness of scientists" because "shrewdness" is a Linnaean term? or say that Darwin was "sinister," because he was left-handed?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like when I refer to "shrewdness of scientists" because "shrewdness" is a Linnaean term? or say that Darwin was "sinister," because he was left-handed?

I think that's calling being overly convoluted for your own good.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that's calling being overly convoluted for your own good.

What really irks people, is when I refer to Darwin's book as:

The Preservation of Favoured Races

Even though it's appropriate not to quote whole titles.

It's okay for them to call it "Origins," but for some reason not okay to call it "The Preservation of Favoured Races."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What really irks people, is when I refer to Darwin's book as:

The Preservation of Favoured Races

Even though it's appropriate not to quote whole titles.

It's okay for them to call it "Origins," but for some reason not okay to call it "The Preservation of Favoured Races."

Because the word 'race' is a very loaded term when it comes to biology and in the English language in general outside of sports. So when you misquote the book On the Origin of Species, you're making the book out to be talking about something it's not.

This has been explained to you before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the word 'race' is a very loaded term when it comes to biology and in the English language in general outside of sports.

Maybe Darwin should have thought of that beforehand, ya think?

So when you misquote the book On the Origin of Species, you're making the book out to be talking about something it's not.

Who misquotes it?

Those who call it ORIGINS? *

Those who call it ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

Those who call it THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES?

* Speaking of misquoting, ORIGINS isn't even pluralized in the title; but people stick an ess on the end of it.

 

[Yttrium]

You've yet to explain how. So far all you've done is parrot the Darwinist credo that mutations and selection are responsible for the evolution of the eye.

It's not "Darwinist", it's the mechanism of evolution. That's how it all works. You start with something basic, and with mutations and selections over many generations it can gradually get more complex.

Talk is cheap. Face it, there's no way to test the theory that the evolution (assuming it's eventrue) is the result of natural selection acting on mutations. All you've got is a story.

You seem to want to reduce science to story-telling. A theory that can't be tested is not science - it's just a story.
Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

I'm quite familiar with the scientific method. You don't seem to grasp the testing aspect. We don't test to prove a theory. We don't prove scientific theories. (If we could, they wouldn't be theories any more.) We make predictions based on our deductions, and test those predictions. We're trying to falsify the theory, not prove it. If it passes the testing, the theory survives, for the time being.

We can't create a black hole in a lab. We can't observe stellar formation in a lab. We can't produce a world-wide ice age in a lab. We have scientific theories about those things and many more. And we do test them, following the scientific method.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe Darwin should have thought of that beforehand, ya think?

Not really since in the Victorian period, races meant to include animals as well as people too. Heck, centuries before that, people thought other nationalities were races.

Who misquotes it?

Those who call it ORIGINS? *

Those who call it ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

Those who call it THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES?

* Speaking of misquoting, ORIGINS isn't even pluralized in the title; but people stick an ess on the end of it.

Oh, definitely you when you just call it The Preservation of Favoured Races. Origins is a misquote, I will say on that, but at least it's closer to the actual title than the subtitle you use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really since in the Victorian period, races meant to include animals as well as people too.

Then what happened?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then what happened?

Science got better at showing the similarities in people. And then people (idiots) used that same science to create the pseudoscience of scientific racism.

Race in biology is its whole own thing.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why would that be the next step?

Because you agree with the initial evidence that demonstrates the method of evolution and the evidence it leaves.

Common ancestry is consistent with the method and evidence... but you reject it and imply you have evidence to do so, but don't present it.

Please explain how the theory of Punctuated Equilibrim is tested.

By demonstrating the connections made by the theory.

For example if rapid speciation is a reaction to rapid environmental change it should be demonstrable with other evidence like other species or other geological evidence about the environment.

Is it possible to have a rational scientific discussion with someone who says something like this: "Humans are not that much more intelligent than chimps"?

Sure, just explain to me the metrics and methods you use to demonstrate why you disagree with the statement.

Chimps are cooperative, able to learn and teach and have rudimentary tool use.

Among primates humans are vastly more intelligent... but across the animal kingdom we are both right at the top.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't believe that humans have existed for 300,000 years.

Why not? We literally have human bones that old.

 

[Buzzard3]

Actually, it can. We can trace the genetic changes that led to increased brain size (human-specific NOTCH2NL genes), and the genetic changes that led to the anatomical changes that allowed more space for larger brains in the skull.

Even if that were true (and not another Darwinist fantasy), it tells me nothing about how humans evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps.

These anatomical changes were made possible by behavioural changes, especially the use of fire to cook food

So a mutation happened along that made an ape start using fire to cook food?

which meant far more nutrition with far less chewing, allowing smaller jaws and smaller chewing muscles, and providing more calories to support larger brains.

Nice story, but what a pity there's not a scrap of empirical evidence that suggests more calories will cause the evolution of a larger and smarter brain.

The initial increase in brain size led to behavioural improvements all-round - better tools, better hunting, better fire management, better cooperation, communication, etc. The increased social complexity and sophistication, language, etc., in turn, made even greater intelligence an advantage... So you can see that the start of the use of fire and tools was a tipping point that led to a runaway synergistic 'virtuous circle' of improvement, where each change reinforced the others.

... which tells me nothing about me nothing about how humans evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps.

 

[SelfSim]

... which tells me nothing about me nothing about how humans evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps.

.. because you obviously don't listen ..

 

[Astrid]

Even if that were true (and not another Darwinist fantasy), it tells me nothing about how humans evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps.

So a mutation happened along that made an ape start using fire to cook food?

Nice story, but what a pity there's not a scrap of empirical evidence that suggests more calories will cause the evolution of a larger and smarter brain.

... which tells me nothing about me nothing about how humans evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps.

You do know that these " arguments" amount to
no more than just being tiresome- right?

 

[Buzzard3]

Well that's just one implication of the ToE. Darwin formulated the theory by looking at a wide variety of extant life in a wide variety of geographical locations and environments and considering why they followed the patterns they did. Since then, every discovery has confirmed his idea, especially the millions of fossils discovered, and the genetic relationships between extant life.

Fossils are evidence of evolution, but they don’t tell us anything about what biological process was responsible for evolution; they don't confirm the theory that the fossil record is the result of a process of natural selection acting on mutations.

So my question remains: How do you test the theory that a human evolved from a fish via a process of mutations and natural selection?

But at the time, there was no molecular biology and relatively few fossils, but even so, it was possible to see that all vertebrates had the same basic structure and body plan, from skeleton to organs, all made in the same way, and it was possible to see that, for example, all mammals shared specific differences in the basic body plan, and the more similar the species appeared, the more similar their internals were. IOW they gave every appearance of being related.

My understanding is, the fossil record doesn’t provide any evidence that the many different phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion are related. Their respective phylogenic trees are not connected by any phylogenic branches.

What's more, it was possible to see how small changes in an ancestral tree from a common ancestor could produce those similarities in every mammal.

I agree that that’s the best scientific explanation for the apparent diversity within respective phyla. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s the truth.

Then, when they looked at the embryological development of all land-dwelling vertebrates

I used to think embryology (viz-a-viz evolution) was quackery (eg, Dobzhansky claimed that human embryos had “gills”, but they turned out to be nothing more than folds of skin - woops!) … until I saw the embryo of a snake – it had four little buds placed such that they obviously suggested four limbs. However that was evidence of devolution of morphology, not an evolution.

As time went on, more and more fossils were found, also consistent with the ToE, and eventually, molecular biology (modern genetics) showed that the same patterns of relationships were present in the genes. It showed that the closest genetic relation to humans was the chimpanzee, and we found fossil humans and hominins that led back through a complex lineage to a primitive ancestor in Africa, all consistent with the ToE and the genetic, embryological, and other indicators of common ancestry.

So it helps to see the evidence for the bigger evolutionary picture to get an idea of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it, not just 'fish to humans' - and I've only mentioned three lines of evidence, there are various others. For a full and readable description, I would recommend Neil Shubin's book, 'Your Inner Fish' (seriously).

None of this answers my question:
How do you test the theory that a human evolved from a fish via a process of mutations and natural selection?

 

[ottawak]

Fossils are evidence of evolution, but they don’t tell us anything about what biological process was responsible for evolution; they don't confirm the theory that the fossil record is the result of a process of natural selection acting on mutations.

But the fossil evidence is certainly consistent with the theory and there is no other viable explanation. The theory is tested by continued discovery of fossils consistent with it, and in some actual cases, predicting the discovery of such fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and in some actual cases, predicting the discovery of such fossils.

Ya ... I predict I'll find chicken bones down the road at KFC.

 

[Buzzard3]

Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution added together.

Sounds fine in theory, and it is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record and there could be some truth in it, but then again it could be wrong. No one can ever know the truth.

As for the eyes, @Yttrium beat me to it, but we can easily look at animals that exist today with varying degrees of morphological complexity in them and then extrapolate that data and compare it with what we know in the fossil record to see how eyes evolved.

Sorry but you appear to be wrong on two counts:

Firstly, the poster you mentioned didn’t answer my question, which was: How do you test the theory that eyes, for example, evolved via a process of mutations and natural selection?

Secondly, no extrapolation of the date shows us “how eyes evolved” – all you’ve got is perceived evidence that eyes did evolve. As for HOW eyes evolved, you’ve got zilch. It’s my understanding that it’s impossible for anyone to demonstrate the eyes evolved (assuming that’s even true) via a process of artificial selection acting on mutations.

Your main problem with this is your use of the word 'sudden'. Evolution isn't sudden. It's not *snap of the fingers* resistant outer layer, or *snap* light reactive photosensors.

I realise that.

But It's a consistent process of trial and error, where the genes that allow those mutations to occur are selected for in the gene pool by natural selection

If it’s not sudden, it’s gradual. So you’re assuming that part of a “resistant outer layer” and part of a “light reactive photosensor” provided a survival advantage. Got any empirical evidence to support this theory? If not, it’s not science but just another vacuous Darwinian story.

I've seen your comments after I replied to that post and all heavily seem to suggest that you think that as soon as humans appeared on the scene when paleontological evidence tells us we do, we should have immediately been starting fires, domesticating animals and building civilization.

… in which case, you’ve heavily misinterpreted my comments.

Get this: According to Darwinian folklore, 500,000 years ago, humans were smart enough to use fire for cooking, etc, but it took them another 490,000 years to come up with the idea of domesticating animals. Hilarious.