Evolution is a story

[Speedwell]

No. The whole illustration of life tree makes me see the trend.

Only in hindsight. If you went back in time and started all over, running evolution from the beginning of life, the odds are you would get a different tree and wind up with a different set of creatures than we have today. Intelligent (human) life? Maybe.

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you a biologist? If not, I won't waste time on you.
If you are, then I will ask you a few questions.

I'm not, but I have actually understood some of the biology I've read. I very much doubt that your arrogance will get you very far with SFS and the other biologists on this board.

I assume you will continue to grasp at straws and ignore counter arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

Only in hindsight. If you went back in time and started all over, running evolution from the beginning of life, the odds are you would get a different tree and wind up with a different set of creatures than we have today. Intelligent (human) life? Maybe.

It would still have a trend.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then the evolution process should stop long time ago.

It didn't because the environment continually changes - it's not just climate and the local biochemistry, there's competition from other bacteria and fungi, predation from viruses (bacteriophages), and don't forget that vast numbers of bacteria live on and in other animals, which provide very changeable environments. For example, humans probably have more bacterial cells in and on them than they have human cells; you're more a colony of species than a single species...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No. The whole illustration of life tree makes me see the trend.

What trend? I don't think you ever said...

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would still have a trend.

This is your claim. you need to support it with evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

It would still have a trend.

But that trend cannot be extended into the future. The theory of evolution does not predict that any trend you observe in hindsight will continue.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

False. And stupid.

 

[juvenissun]

It didn't because the environment continually changes

... and bacteria continuously to adapt.

No evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

But that trend cannot be extended into the future. The theory of evolution does not predict that any trend you observe in hindsight will continue.

It may not be able to predict, but it does make a trend. That itself is a prediction.

 

[Shemjaza]

... and bacteria continuously to adapt.

No evolution.

It may not be able to predict, but it does make a trend. That itself is a prediction.

Both of these comments are contradictory.

Can you explain yourself in another way?

 

[juvenissun]

Both of these comments are contradictory.

Can you explain yourself in another way?

They are not contradictory. Both ideas (either way) go against evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Major league LOL

 

[TBDude65]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

It sounds more like someone has taken the basics of a religion and modified it to make it sound like it applies to a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are facts about nature discovered independently by humans and then tested while attempting to falsify it as a way of determining its probability of being true of false. Which means that scientific theories aren't invented by man but discovered by man and articulated by man. And scientific theories don't make any assumptions about a god or about supernature. They are descriptions of the natural world, so point 2 is also irrelevant.

Instead it seems to be modifying the observation that humans invent religions all the time (more recent obvious examples would be Mormonism and Scientology) for various reasons. But one might say that one reason some invent new religions is to exclude the old religions and gods from their lives.

So this point seems to be more of a projection of religious insecurities than statement of fact.

 

[Shemjaza]

They are not contradictory. Both ideas (either way) go against evolution.

What do you mean "either way"?

But:
continuously to adapt [sic] and No evolution are in opposition.
Bacteria and all life studied has constant mutations and those mutations can create advantageous traits that will spread through the population. Antibiotic strains, heat and sun resistant variations can all be observed to get more common when pressures are in place.

not be able to predict and does make a trend if it's unpredictable then it can't be said to be a trend.
We have genetic and fossil evidence, not to mention the vast array of current life forms. There isn't a constant increase in complexity or intelligence. Some species gain new features and some lose features. Tree sloths have slower metabolisms and smaller brains then their ancestors and that's one possible advantage in very low food environments. Cave fish can lose their eyes because eyes are useless in the dark. Bacteria have gained the ability to eat nylon or to continue to live in arsenic environments.


Your arguments make no sense and your conclusion is against actual evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you mean "either way"?

But:
continuously to adapt [sic] and No evolution are in opposition.

not be able to predict and does make a trend if it's unpredictable then it can't be said to be a trend.

You do not understand my simplified way of expression.

Bacteria continue to adapt. But they stay as bacteria. They are not going to evolve into anything which is not bacterium.

Evolution says there is no prediction. But if we review what evolution did in a long period of time, we do see a trend.

 

[Shemjaza]

You do not understand my simplified way of expression.

Bacteria continue to adapt. But they stay as bacteria. They are not going to evolve into anything which is not bacterium.

Evolution says there is no prediction. But if we review what evolution did in a long period of time, we do see a trend.

What trend? You keep saying we can see a general trend, so what is it?

Some species have got more complicated, but not all and some have developed a bunch of new traits but not all.

Species don't lose their ancestry, which is why we are humans and mammals.

 

[juvenissun]

Species don't lose their ancestry, which is why we are humans and mammals.

Why not?

 

[Speedwell]

Why not?

My great grandfather was a German. How many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great grandfather stops being a German?

 

[Jimmy D]

Why not?

Seriously?