Evolutionary debate

[sfs]

It apparently must, or else where is the alternative idea? A certain way of looking at the evidence has produced a single plausible explanation. Why only the one acceptable road?

It isn't the only acceptable road -- it's just the only road that anyone has been able to find that actually goes through the mountains of evidence.

Anyone is free to offer a better explanation at any time. In fact, evolution didn't start out as the accepted explanation: it had to win support despite an overwhelming assumption against it. But time after time, in area after area, evolution explains and predicts observations better than any alternative, so much so that there really is no alternative now. There is no coherent theory of creationism -- no creationist explanation for why ERV insertions fall where they do, for example, no creationist prediction about which pseudogenes should be shared between which species, no creationist expectation for how often two genomes should differ by transitions rather than by transversions.

Creationists are happy to tell us that the data could be interpreted in different ways, ways that do not rely on evolution. Somehow they never get around to doing the interpreting, however.

 

[JediMobius]

Lets look at the example of the horse. The earliest horses had 4 toes. Intermediates had 3 toes, and more recent ones had 1 toe and 2 long stints. The modern horse has 1 toe with very small stints. This is an example of how such transformations can occur over time.

They are all horses.

Lets look at whales. Their flippers have the same structure as your own hand. A penguin's wing has the same structure as your hand as well, yet is used as a flipper. If a hand can turn into a flipper, or a wing, then your argument fails.

It seems we've jumped to the conclusion that a hand turns into a flipper, or vice versa without a discernible reason for such a conclusion. However, the facts are simply that as a hand is supported by bones in its way, a flipper and a wing are supported by bones each their own way. It's no mystery that each creature's phalanges work in segments, how else would the muscles over the structure have flexibility?

Common descent is inferred by all the evidence. The evidence is based on anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, biogeography, and the fossil record. Here is a very good website to check out for this evidence: Understanding Evolution
In particular: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Also, "Your Inner Fish," by Neil Shubin is an excellent read, and is designed for non-scientists to understand.

Is this where I link answersingenesis? I might read that book though (I have a long list.)

Anyway, I would expect similar traits to be produced among non relatives of species utilizing the same method of building these traits - DNA. Whatever adaptation the environment requires, there's a genetic combination to achieve the necessary traits.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists are happy to tell us that the data could be interpreted in different ways, ways that do not rely on evolution. Somehow they never get around to doing the interpreting, however.

Ain't are job.

 

[Hespera]

That's quite the oversimplification, I think.

It is simplified, yes, but not oversimplified; why do you say that?
it is simple to say "the bible is the word of god". Is that also oversimplified? You might look for the meaning of what I said rather than just try to find an (oversimplified' way to dismiss it.



The reasoning here doesn't seem logical to me. A skull serves a basic function. It protects the soft tissue of the brain, eyes, etc. One could similarly say all hats and helmets match, shifted a bit in position, shape, and size. However, I wouldn't posit that all hats and helmets came from a single initial invention. It's just as likely that the necessity of a hat or helmet produced the invention of it in several separate instances. Likewise, several original lifeforms - all made of cells, but with distinct genetic coding - would necessitate skulls.


it is reasoning, and it is also very careful study and analysis by a lot of serious minded people over the course of a lot of years.

The skull has a number of functions, of which you named a few.

The earliest chordates had a simple sort of soft "skull', as do the primitive ones of today, such as the lamprey.

If the skulls of each type of animal had been separately developed, it would be very peculiar to find that there are living and fossil species that represent all of the stages of modifying the same bones to different shapes sizes and uses. Do you now what i am talking about here?

Coz if you do you'd see how the helmet analogy just does not apply in any sense at all. IF you spoke of how there are simple hats that people then developed into ever more complex structures, all based on the same original materials and design, youd be a little closer. If all hats/ helmets of all types thru history and all over the world showed the same characteristics in this way, you would reasoanably assume they had a single common origin. Archaeologists are big on finding this kind of commonality to show the spread of cultures.


Perhaps it's history, or perhaps different creatures with similar features is simply a product of limited variation in environment.

if these organisms did not occur in the fossil record in a distinct sequence from one to the next then youd have some room for saying that it is not history. how DO you explain there being a sequence if it is not history?




It apparently must, or else where is the alternative idea? A certain way of looking at the evidence has produced a single plausible explanation. Why only the one acceptable road?

Religion is the path of the one acceptable road. Science on the other hand, works with the explanation that is consistent with the data.

Show data that shows another 'road" and lead us down it.

Creationists have this problem that they have no explanation that is consistent with the data.

quote, hespera
I dont know that anyone says it "has" to. Just that it appears to.
If you want the evidence for how evolution has proceeded, there are a great many excellent sources. You wont get it in an afternoon. its a bit like learning to play the piano; you have to actually put in some time. quote


Appearances are often deceiving. I understand how the conventional conclusions have been drawn; comprehension is not the problem.

Always love that word, "conventional", and how it implies so much more than it delivers..

Of course appearances are often deceiving. however, this "appearance is based on all known data, and if you know of how it is deceiving, or wrong, then step forth with your data. otherwise, you have merely made a quip here with your 'appearances can be deceiving" comment.

Lastly, it is fine to say that comprehension is not the problem. If there is / you have a problem, may i ask what it is?

And of course, it is fine to SAY your comprehension is good, but the evidence I see points the other way.

 

[sandwiches]

Ain't are job.

So, it's only your job to tell us we're wrong but not to explain how. Nice cop out.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, it's only your job to tell us we're wrong but not to explain how. Nice cop out.

I did explain how -- by antithesis.

But it probably got buried in automatic denial, which, of course, means I have to repeat myself.

 

[sandwiches]

They are all horses.

What about genetics do you think make it impossible for animals to go from reptiles to mammals, for instance?

 

[sandwiches]

I did explain how -- by antithesis.

But it probably got buried in automatic denial, which, of course, means I have to repeat myself.

Antithesis? I'm guessing this is AVspeak for 'showing how my interpretation of the Bible differs from what you're claiming?'

 

[Hespera]

They are all horses.



It seems we've jumped to the conclusion that a hand turns into a flipper, or vice versa without a discernible reason for such a conclusion. However, the facts are simply that as a hand is supported by bones in its way, a flipper and a wing are supported by bones each their own way. It's no mystery that each creature's phalanges work in segments, how else would the muscles over the structure have flexibility?



Is this where I link answersingenesis? I might read that book though (I have a long list.)

Anyway, I would expect similar traits to be produced among non relatives of species utilizing the same method of building these traits - DNA. Whatever adaptation the environment requires, there's a genetic combination to achieve the necessary traits.

Where you say 'they are all horses' you get close to understanding what I mean by saying all vertebrates are the same "kind". Kind, as in kin, kindred, relatives.

When (if) you actually do study and comprehend something about comparative anatomy and the fossil record, you'd see that all of the vertebrates fit into the same sort of continuum as that from the earliest identified 'horse' to the modern ones.

A fox size animal with four toes, and dentition / digestive system that would not permit eating grass is hardly a 'horse' as we know it. One wants not to toss words around too lightly. if they lived today nobody would call them horses.

Back to your comprehension... have you studied this sort of thing?
This is barely scratching the surface of course.

Figure 3 : Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution : Nature

Your characterization of "jumping to conclusions" is grossly inaccurate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are all horses.

They're also mammals, and vertebrates, and animotes, and animals, but so are cats.

 

[Hespera]

So, it's only your job to tell us we're wrong but not to explain how. Nice cop out.

have you tried just ignoring nonsense?

 

[AV1611VET]

Antithesis? I'm guessing this is AVspeak for 'showing how my interpretation of the Bible differs from what you're claiming?'

Instant creation is the antithesis of [abiogenesis → man] evolution.

God said it -- that settles it.

We don't need to know how it works; we only need to know its antithesis.

A five-year-old child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

And I'm getting tired of explaining this to you guys.

 

[sandwiches]

Instant creation is the antithesis of [abiogenesis → man] evolution.

God said it -- that settles it.

We don't need to know how it works; we only need to know its antithesis.

A five-year-old child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

And I'm getting tired of explaining this to you guys.

I'll take that as a 'yes,' then.

 

[AV1611VET]

have you tried just ignoring nonsense?

That's good adivce, sandwiches -- if you think it's nonsense, ignore me, please.

 

[sandwiches]

have you tried just ignoring nonsense?

It's not as fun plus I've actually learned a thing or two on these kinds of debates, mostly from the people debating the religious folk, but still.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll take that as a 'yes,' then.

Calling it 'AVspeak' is rude and uncalled for.

It's basic doctrine -- whether you accept it or not.

Be a man and start ignoring me -- like Hespera does.

 

[AV1611VET]

... plus I've actually learned a thing or two ...

I disagree -- not from me, anyway -- but I could be wrong.

 

[sandwiches]

That's good adivce, sandwiches -- if you think it's nonsense, ignore me, please.

I don't think it's nonsense. I think it's unfounded as I've clearly said in other threads. I don't see why the Bible holds such as position of authority and is exempt from all form of logical and critical dissection for believers of it. For instance: Faith is all the evidence needed, circular logic is OK but only for the Bible, words have different and often opposite meanings when applied to the Bible, etc.

 

[sfs]

Instant creation is the antithesis of [abiogenesis → man] evolution.

God said it -- that settles it.

No, God didn't say it. You said it, and you have (as you often tell us) no idea what you're talking about when it comes to evolution.

A five-year-old child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

And a scientist should be able to look a five-year-old back in the eye and tell him to run along and wipe his nose.

And I'm getting tired of explaining this to you guys.

Then stop. Just stop talking about this subject. You're doing no one any good here, and you're wasting your life in the process.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it's nonsense. I think it's unfounded as I've clearly said in other threads. I don't see why the Bible holds such as position of authority and is exempt from all form of logical and critical dissection for believers of it. For instance: Faith is all the evidence needed, circular logic is OK but only for the Bible, words have different and often opposite meanings when applied to the Bible, etc.

Then get over it -- we're here, and we're here to stay.

Calling us names and laughing at us, etc. isn't helping your side at all.

Either make some kind of effort to understand what we're saying, or leave the circus -- please.