Evolution Lesson

[USincognito]

So, someone remembers waltzing, or at least the name. Question it is, then.

How much of evolution has actually been observed? Not adaptation (limited within kinds like bird claws and bills), not degeneration (loss of function or appendages), but evolution.

Do you not understand that scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you not understand that scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes?

Expecting an uninformed retort involving the phrase "fake time" in 3, 2, 1...

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, someone remembers waltzing, or at least the name. Question it is, then.

How much of evolution has actually been observed? Not adaptation (limited within kinds like bird claws and bills), not degeneration (loss of function or appendages), but evolution.

-_- kinds is not a term recognized by those in the biological community, and it has no standardization outside of it. That is, it is a term with no solid definition, and it isn't a scientific one. If you have a personal definition of kinds you would like to share, as well as some basic categories and what falls into them, I could answer your question better.

Also, loss of function IS part of evolution. If a structure is no longer used, then there are selective pressures in place for its degeneration. You can try to claim it doesn't count for your personal, arbitrary reasons, but in reality, it does.

Well, we have observed the evolution of a reptilian gastrointestinal tract from being carnivorous to being herbivorous, including structures in the intestines not only not seen in that species before, but rare in reptiles in general. That's one example that comes to mind.

 

[xianghua]

Also, loss of function IS part of evolution. If a structure is no longer used, then there are selective pressures in place for its degeneration.

not sure. see this for instance:

Violation of Dollo's law: evidence of muscle reversions in primate phylogeny and their implications for the understanding of the ontogeny, evolutio... - PubMed - NCBI

 

[PsychoSarah]

not sure. see this for instance:

Violation of Dollo's law: evidence of muscle reversions in primate phylogeny and their implications for the understanding of the ontogeny, evolutio... - PubMed - NCBI

Regardless, any physiological changes seen in populations over generations that is genetically associated IS evolution. The loss of function in a body structure is no less of a change than gaining structure, and I loathe the fact that many creationists purport that one genetic change can be evolution, but another can't just because one adds something and other subtracts something.

 

[pat34lee]

Presumably to make Christianity look foolish. You are talking about how creationist "science" is the devil's work aren't you?
-CryptoLutheran

Only ID, or old-earth creationism, as it is a compromise between scripture and false science.

 

[pat34lee]

I thought those claiming supernatural powers were in thrall to the devil? And yet you say you know what I do. You say you know I dismiss any evidence against my favoured theory. How do you manage that?

More seriously, I would advise you to withdraw that accusation. It would be nice if the withdrawal was accompanied by an apology. I won't be reporting you on this occasion, but please do not let it happen again.

You won't, or shouldn't report, because I am right according to the post to which I responded.

So, on the one hand there is this vast body of evidence, built up painstakingly...
vs
who offer no evidence, present circular arguments and declare - contrary to the views of the majority of their brethren

So, before you even begin with evidence or facts, you have placed truth, justice and the Christian right on one side, creationists as liars and idiots on the other, and God arguing against his own scriptures.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you not understand that scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes?

They are limited to what can be observed, tested and repeated enough times to determine the reliability of the results.

 

[Speedwell]

They are limited to what can be observed, tested and repeated enough times to determine the reliability of the results.

Which includes the observation and testing of evidence left behind by past phenomena.

 

[Ophiolite]

You won't, or shouldn't report, because I am right according to the post to which I responded.

So, on the one hand there is this vast body of evidence, built up painstakingly...
vs
who offer no evidence, present circular arguments and declare - contrary to the views of the majority of their brethren

So, before you even begin with evidence or facts, you have placed truth, justice and the Christian right on one side, creationists as liars and idiots on the other, and God arguing against his own scriptures.

I am going to be charitable and ascribe this to misunderstanding on your part.

I began with evidence, I began with facts, I began with a Christian perspective. I examined the evidence, I considered the facts and brought my Christian perspective to bear upon the issue.

When I was younger I delighted in seeking out instances where science seemed to have got things wrong. Many of the arguments used by creationists appealed to me. If placed any group, from my POV, on the wrong side of the fence, it was orthodox science.

However, as I studied the arguments in more detail I moved to the conclusion and the understanding that on the one hand there was a vast body of evidence etc., and on the other there was no meaningful evidence etc.

So, I ask you again to retract your statement. (You might also wish to retract your claim that I called creationists liars and idiots.)

 

[pat34lee]

Which includes the observation and testing of evidence left behind by past phenomena.

And how do you determine repeatability when you have to guess at which are related and which are not, and which are the same animal?

A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

 

[pat34lee]

I am going to be charitable and ascribe this to misunderstanding on your part.

I began with evidence, I began with facts, I began with a Christian perspective. I examined the evidence, I considered the facts and brought my Christian perspective to bear upon the issue.

When I was younger I delighted in seeking out instances where science seemed to have got things wrong. Many of the arguments used by creationists appealed to me. If placed any group, from my POV, on the wrong side of the fence, it was orthodox science.

However, as I studied the arguments in more detail I moved to the conclusion and the understanding that on the one hand there was a vast body of evidence etc., and on the other there was no meaningful evidence etc.

So, I ask you again to retract your statement. (You might also wish to retract your claim that I called creationists liars and idiots.)

You just wrote it out again (part in bold letters). All the evidence on one side which leaves what? No evidence (meaning they made up or imagined everything) on the other. Quit reading what I wrote and understand what you did.

 

[USincognito]

They are limited to what can be observed, tested and repeated enough times to determine the reliability of the results.

Right. And that limitation does not constrict observation to "before our eyes in real time". Also you need to learn that observations and outcomes of analysis must be repeatable, not events.

I doubt you'll read it, but this may help.
I don't think Answers in Genesis quite gets science Pt. 1

 

[Ophiolite]

You just wrote it out again (part in bold letters). All the evidence on one side which leaves what? No evidence (meaning they made up or imagined everything) on the other. Quit reading what I wrote and understand what you did.

Please follow the sequence of events.

I began with a view that was rooted in a Christian perspective.

A natural skepticism led me to suspect the findings of science, seeing them as being overly dogmatic.

I was drawn to many of the arguments used by YECs.

Thus, my starting position was somewhat neutral with a leaning to some aspect of YEC claims. Then I deepened my study of both sides of the argument. Over time I come to conclude there was this vast body of evidence, built up painstakingly by sincere, intelligent, hard working researchers, many of whom were Christian, many of whom had been moved to work in the fields of biology, palaeontology and genetics by their faith in God. And on the same hand there was my own, growing personal experience, wherein I examined first hand a small portion of that evidence and found it to accurately reflect what the experts said it would.

On the other other hand I came to see that the YEC views, held by a smaller group of sincere, intelligent individuals, were based upon no significant evidence, tended to use circular arguments and in some instances declared - contrary to the views of the majority of their brethren - that it was all a massive conspiracy sponsored by the devil.

That is what I did. That is what I thought. You have now presumed to tell me on multiple occasions what I thought and what I did and you are mistaken. Perhaps that mistake arises from lack of clarity in my writing. I believe I have now rectified any ambiguity. It would be nice if you were to acknowledge that your understanding of what I thought and what I did were faulty.

 

[FredVB]

How and why does any of this universe exist? Is there not necessary existence that must explain the universe coming to be? Or is it thought that any of what exists would come from nothing existing, and nothing existing can produce that?

 

[Skreeper]

How and why does any of this universe exist? Is there not necessary existence that must explain the universe coming to be? Or is it thought that any of what exists would come from nothing existing, and nothing existing can produce that?

It is unknown what happened before the Big Bang. That doesn't give you the right to make stuff up.

 

[FredVB]

What is made up? Can't that question be answered?

 

[Skreeper]

What is made up? Can't that question be answered?

I say: "We don't know what caused the universe to exist, let's find out." You say: "I don't know either but I'm just gonna make up this God thing that has sufficient properties to explain it."

 

[PsychoSarah]

How and why does any of this universe exist? Is there not necessary existence that must explain the universe coming to be? Or is it thought that any of what exists would come from nothing existing, and nothing existing can produce that?

Not a question related to evolution or biology in general, this is off topic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The whole point of this thread was for it not to be a debate, but a learning opportunity for anyone curious about aspects of evolution or biology in general. If this nonsense persists, I'm gonna have to close the thread.