Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

Neither is God didn't do it but it's all you got.

That's funny. I got this book at home about biological evolution. It doesn't get into technical details. It discusses maybe 0.01% of available fossils. It touches on multiple large subjects, but it stays on the surface with each of them.

The book is 100s of pages.
Not once is (any) god mentioned.

So much for "it's all you got"

 

[inquiring mind]

If chimps produced anything other then chimps, or humans anything other then humans, then evolution would be falsified.
If you would actually have a basic understand of the theory that you are hellbend of arguing against, you would know that.

Not really sure what you’re getting at, but I thought evolution was all about things changing from one kind to another kind over a period of time. My comment is essentially saying they haven’t... just variations of kind is all. I don’t feel alone in the lacking of basics here.

The fact of the matter is that building a jet, isn't actually all that different from building a termite catches - like chimps do.
Or put in another way, the underlying required psychology and cognition to build anything at all is pretty much the same.
It requires planning, reasoning, gathering of materials, learning and strategy.

Sorry, you’re missing the point of the NASA SLS/Jet analogy. It has nothing to do with building them. Pitabread said, “Because other than just having bigger brains, we really aren't that unique.” My analogy is just pointing out that although NASA SLS and jets have similar components, also just bigger (some type propulsion system, electrical systems, computer systems, guidance systems, etc.), each is still very unique with different purposes (just like chimps and man are unique with different purposes).

 

[inquiring mind]

If the question asked is how humans are different from chimps, exactly, then the answer should not mention NASA or anything related to space travel.

That's not fair... they went into space before man did.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really sure what you’re getting at, but I thought evolution was all about things changing from one kind to another kind over a period of time.

I don't know what you mean by "kind", so I'll just ignore it.

Evolution is about gradual change over generations in a population, achieved by the accumulation of genetic changes through the mechanism of inheritability of DNA during reproduction, followed by natural selection.

This means that every single new born will always be of the same species as its direct parents. And it also means that after X generation, when speciation has occured (gradually, not overnight or in a single generational change), the "new" species will be a sub-species of the ancestral population.

A near-perfect analogy to this, is the development of languages.
Consider the languages French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian. All of them Roman languages. All of them derived from Latin. Let this sink in for a second and really think about it....

The distant ancestors of all french, spanish, portugese and italian speaking people today, spoke Latin.

Now consider these facts:
1. at no point in history, did a Latin speaking parent raise a spanish speaking child.
2. every child every born, ended up speaking the same language as the parents that raised it.

And yet, Latin turned into Spanish, Portugese, Italian and French.
These languages today are so different from one another, that they can no longer understand eachother.

It's the same in biological evolution.
The modern "languages" are Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Bonobo, Oerang Oetang.
All of them primates ("roman language"). Their distant ancestor was some single species of primate ("latin").

At not point in history, did a member of species Y give birth to a member of species X.
Every child ever born, was of the same species as its biological parents.

It is the exact same thing.

My comment is essentially saying they haven’t... just variations of kind is all. I don’t feel alone in the lacking of basics here.

Dude, the above is like evolution 101. It doesn't get more basic then that....

Sorry, you’re missing the point of the NASA SLS/Jet analogy. It has nothing to do with building them. Pitabread said, “Because other than just having bigger brains, we really aren't that unique.” My analogy is just pointing out that although NASA SLS and jets have similar components, also just bigger (some type propulsion system, electrical systems, computer systems, guidance systems, etc.), each is still very unique with different purposes (just like chimps and man are unique with different purposes).

But the question you were asked is to explain how humans are in fact different then chimps. Your answer should be about human traits vs chimp traits and not mention any spaceships.

 

[pitabread]

but I thought evolution was all about things changing from one kind to another kind over a period of time.

It's not. "Kind" has no biological meaning.

On top of that, the way creationists use the term "kind" implies that the extant product of one lineage should be able to evolve into the extant product of another lineage (essentially life should be able to jump over lineages). But evolution isn't about jumping between lineages. It's about extant organisms sharing ancestral relationships.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not. "Kind" has no biological meaning.

On top of that, the way creationists use the term "kind" implies that the extant product of one lineage should be able to evolve into the extant product of another lineage (essentially life should be able to jump over lineages). But evolution isn't about jumping between lineages. It's about extant organisms sharing ancestral relationships.

More than species does, since species has 14 different definitions and is useless in describing anything.

You know, like mankind.....

We just understand that it actually reflects nature, not the division by humans....

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

"Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings. We tend to assume that science is often successful in revealing these kinds; it is a corollary of scientific realism that when all goes well the classifications and taxonomies employed by science correspond to the real kinds in nature. The existence of these real and independent kinds of things is held to justify our scientific inferences and practices."

Even the experts understand, why can't you?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

" a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind."

While ignoring your own definition....

1. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

But we have already seen how you all ignore scientific definitions....

 

[pitabread]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

I'll bet money you didn't actually read that essay.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

" a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind."

While ignoring your own definition....

Are you still complaining about "species" definitions? You really are beating a dead horse here and seem hell-bent on not understanding that real-world biological organisms don't necessarily bend to the categories we impose on them. Hence, why there are multiple species definitions. But this has been explained to you over and over and you persist in not "getting it".

 

[Job 33:6]

Not really sure what you’re getting at, but I thought evolution was all about things changing from one kind to another kind over a period of time. My comment is essentially saying they haven’t... just variations of kind is all. I don’t feel alone in the lacking of basics here.
.

Because evolution occurs so slowly, on a molecular level, there is never really a time in which one kind of being or animal, gives birth to a different kind. Which is why a human would never birth something that isn't human. Unless we had a clear definition, on a molecular level, for what a human is. But of course there is no clear way to create such a thing. At best we can just describe different hominids like habilis, erectus, ergaster, nadeli, rudolfensis, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis and all the other homo species that are similar yet a bit different.

 

[inquiring mind]

At best we can just describe different hominids like habilis, erectus, ergaster, nadeli, rudolfensis, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis and all the other homo species that are similar yet a bit different.

But these generally dead-end on their 'branch-off.' Why is it so hard to find or identify the hybrids that would have to exist if the evolution process did indeed continue to march along 'the main branch' to an actual human 'branch-off'? And even if found, it still wouldn't disprove creation of man at his branch-off.

 

[Speedwell]

But these generally dead-end on their 'branch-off.' Why is it so hard to find or identify the hybrids that would have to exist if the evolution process did indeed continue to march along 'the main branch' to an actual human 'branch-off'? And even if found, it still wouldn't disprove creation of man at his branch-off.

I'm not sure I understand your question. You speak of "branching off" and "main branch" as if there were a pre-existing track inevitably leading to humans.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not sure I understand your question. You speak of "branching off" and "main branch" as if there were a pre-existing track inevitably leading to humans.

Progression doesn't seem to be linear (as I mentioned in the OP) except for a main branch that connects all the branch-offs. Visualize branches of a tree... nothing seems linear in regard to chimp to man, except some form of a hybrid that doesn’t branch off. There are all these ‘branch-offs’ from the main branch (path) that generally become extinct – a dead end. They certainly don’t lead to man; they hit the wall. The only possible explanation an evolutionist could have is that some morphing hybrid form that is not a qualifier for the other ‘branch-offs’ continues on ‘the main branch’ to another ‘branch-off,’ and another, and another, until there is a branch-off that is actually man. Why can’t these hybrids that continue on the main branch or path and don’t branch-off be found and identified? Everything found seems to be labeled as being in a particular ‘branch-off.’ I hope that makes sense.

 

[Speedwell]

Progression doesn't seem to be linear (as I mentioned in the OP) except for a main branch that connects all the branch-offs. Visualize branches of a tree... nothing seems linear in regard to chimp to man, except some form of a hybrid that doesn’t branch off. There are all these ‘branch-offs’ from the main branch (path) that generally become extinct – a dead end. They certainly don’t lead to man; they hit the wall. The only possible explanation an evolutionist could have is that some morphing hybrid form that is not a qualifier for the other ‘branch-offs’ continues on ‘the main branch’ to another ‘branch-off,’ and another, and another, until there is a branch-off that is actually man. Why can’t these hybrids that continue on the main branch or path and don’t branch-off be found and identified? Everything found seems to be labeled as being in a particular ‘branch-off.’ I hope that makes sense.

I still don't understand you. Chimps didn't evolve into men; chimps and men have a common ancestor, which is not the same thing. A "hybrid" is the offspring (generally sterile) of two different species, so I don't see how the term applies here. There is no "main branch."

Still, I will guess that you mean to ask, why can't the ancestral lineage of man be accurately categorized? The answer is, that it can only be done where genetic information is available, which only goes back so far. For the rest, only morphology is available, which does not guarantee direct ancestry.

 

[Heissonear]

I don't know what you mean by "kind", so I'll just ignore it.

Evolution is about gradual change over generations in a population, achieved by the accumulation of genetic changes through the mechanism of inheritability of DNA during reproduction, followed by natural selection.

This means that every single new born will always be of the same species as its direct parents. And it also means that after X generation, when speciation has occured (gradually, not overnight or in a single generational change), the "new" species will be a sub-species of the ancestral population.

A near-perfect analogy to this, is the development of languages.
Consider the languages French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian. All of them Roman languages. All of them derived from Latin. Let this sink in for a second and really think about it....

The distant ancestors of all french, spanish, portugese and italian speaking people today, spoke Latin.

Now consider these facts:
1. at no point in history, did a Latin speaking parent raise a spanish speaking child.
2. every child every born, ended up speaking the same language as the parents that raised it.

And yet, Latin turned into Spanish, Portugese, Italian and French.
These languages today are so different from one another, that they can no longer understand eachother.

It's the same in biological evolution.
The modern "languages" are Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Bonobo, Oerang Oetang.
All of them primates ("roman language"). Their distant ancestor was some single species of primate ("latin").

At not point in history, did a member of species Y give birth to a member of species X.
Every child ever born, was of the same species as its biological parents.

It is the exact same thing.




Dude, the above is like evolution 101. It doesn't get more basic then that....



But the question you were asked is to explain how humans are in fact different then chimps. Your answer should be about human traits vs chimp traits and not mention any spaceships.

Dogma,
People read into how evolution happens.

Evolution still lacks a concrete mechanism. What is proposed is published conjecture: no sound facts with a lot of major missing information.

Your post shows such. Ideology of what happens rather than scientific facts of a repeatable working mechanism.

And that is what the fossil record shows.

Evolution lacks facts and proposes that mutation is the base of creatures advancing in complexity through ecosystem adjustemts.

That is storybook conjecture. Sci-fi. Sound good but is not supported by evidence.

 

[sfs]

Evolution lacks facts and proposes that mutation is the base of creatures advancing in complexity through ecosystem adjustemts.

That is storybook conjecture. Sci-fi. Sound good but is not supported by evidence.

As I said before, if you have a alternative model that does a better job predicting genetic data, present it. If you don't, you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Heissonear]

Because evolution occurs so slowly, on a molecular level, there is never really a time in which one kind of being or animal, gives birth to a different kind. Which is why a human would never birth something that isn't human. Unless we had a clear definition, on a molecular level, for what a human is. But of course there is no clear way to create such a thing. At best we can just describe different hominids like habilis, erectus, ergaster, nadeli, rudolfensis, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis and all the other homo species that are similar yet a bit different.

As with Dogma's post, the explination of evolution is a storybook, not reproducible facts. A progression of natural artifacts that present conjecture - has major missing information in order to make a conclusion. Major informational gaps that can only allow conclusions based on conjecture.

What you wrote about evolution is conjecture. It is unsupported view of how life becomes more complex over time. Conclusions based on conjecture not evidence.

Why don't you present evidence inquiring mind asked for many posts back.

Evidence where a lifeform changed from having a working leg and foot (say like an alligator creature) and then we see fossils where the leg and foot transforms (by so-called evolution bit by bit morphological changes) to eventually no toes, decrepit joint on limb, ongoing change still occurring where we see a hardly-working limb sequences of stages until the limb is gone and you it changed from a leg to no leg or into a fin morphologically changed aquatic creature.

You are hiding a whole lot by inserting conjecture about molecular level events.

Proof of evolution should be plainly be shown in the fossil record.

We should be able to observe the fossil record and see the bit by bit morphological changes clearly seeing one creature transformed into another creature, and the morphological detailed changes in the fossil crestures inbetween. No conjecture needed: evolution proved by looking at the fossil sequences. Not macro-assemblages with missing inbetween creatures showing slow morphological features change from one creature into the other viably different (about Genus) creature. Where are the missing fossils.

Why do you post conjecture based molecular level conclusions.

 

[Heissonear]

As I said before, if you have a alternative model that does a better job predicting genetic data, present it. If you don't, you're just blowing smoke.

An alternate model is a weak path to proving yours.

Why are you unable to present evolution like it has happened?

It is because you miss major informational gaps.

Since such is true then state your position clearly - you lack evidence to prove evolution. State it. Lack of proof. What I believe about past life becoming more complex over time is based on conjecture.

Instead you state alternatives items that you do not what put your faith in. You faith rather is in evolutionary processes. By faith evolutionists walk, but do not like to face up to.

 

[sfs]

An alternate model is a weak path to proving yours.

I'm not proving mine. I'm demonstrating that you don't even have a model, much less one that can compare with evolution.

Why are you unable to present evolution like it has happened?

Oh, I'm quite capable of presenting evidence for evolution. (See here for example.) But that's not what I'm doing at the moment. Instead, I'm asking you why you can't explain the data I work with every day. Why is it that?

Since such is true then state your position clearly - you lack evidence to prove evolution. State it.

Sorry, but I won't lie just to make you happy.

So anyway, where's that model that does as good a job as evolution?

 

[pitabread]

An alternate model is a weak path to proving yours.

The alternative model doesn't exist. I've been asking creationists to explain creationism repeatedly and no one has any explanations.

Creationists may whine incessantly about evolution, but they clearly have nothing to replace it with.

 

[Job 33:6]

But these generally dead-end on their 'branch-off.' Why is it so hard to find or identify the hybrids that would have to exist if the evolution process did indeed continue to march along 'the main branch' to an actual human 'branch-off'? And even if found, it still wouldn't disprove creation of man at his branch-off.

Your question is analogous to...someone asking you to provide bones of your ancestors going back 5,000 years in a world full of human fossils.

Obviously it's going to be hard for anyone to pin down the specific group that is your direct ancestor. But the morphological trends that lead to your present day morphological traits, do exist.that and you contain DNA which is basically just a biological record of all the mutations that your family line has undergone. That's why there's that whole new fad with the my ancestry website and the mouth swabs

And of course there will be dead ends. Many people do not have children. But their bones still remain. So essentially what we are doing when we dig up fossils is we are sorting through the direct line and all other lineages that Co existed. But just because your grandparents neighbor was baron and never had children and is a dead end, doesn't mean that your grandparents neighbor isn't related to you, nor does it mean they we're created out of thin air without parents themselves.

And if you have 5 cousins And 20-30 second cousins. And all those cousins have cousins, on can easily see why there would be many dead ends. But again, just because there are dead ends, doesn't mean that you don't have grandparents.

 

[Kenny'sID]

have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

To some people a whole bunch of "evidence" means that some of it must be right because they have so much, when that isn't so at all..it's an assumption with no basis of fact.

A lot of non evidence that is purported as real evidence, still means no evidence at all, and always will.

It's the same old story, if one wishes to believe the evolution nonsense, there are people that work very hard to help them with that.