The evidence for Evolution.

[Kylie]

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks 1

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

What is fact :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

What is not fact:
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

1.http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/Meanings2000.pdf

Why is the mechanism for #3 any different to the mechanism for #5?

 

[Larniavc]

His area is population genetics so I think that is pretty relevant. If he had expertise in the area of evolution that would mean he was just an approved evangelist for evolution which would not interest me at all.

So you are saying you only are interested in the opinions of people without an academic background in that area?

 

[Ophiolite]

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky..

Are you seriously suggesting all Huskies are the same?

Edit: If you are a parent, are you able to identify your children in a line up? You are? Is it possible that is because they are different from the others in the line up? Are all your children identical? No? What could possibly be going on here? It seems that sexual reproduction results in variety. Who would have thought it?

 

[USincognito]

I he still babbling about Chinooks? The 100th time I saw him post the same thing was the time I finally hit the ignore function.

 

[Renee Tahass]

I will keep all you atheists in my prayers.

Thank you for your prayers, although ineffective they are much appreciated because it is after all the thought that counts.

and leave you to your evolutionary fantasies and stories.

Those 'evolutionary fantasies and stories' are the very reason you and I are here today, had it not been for them I very much doubt if there would be enough food available to allow us to be alive today.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you for your prayers, although ineffective they are much appreciated because it is after all the thought that counts.Those 'evolutionary fantasies and stories' are the very reason you and I are here today, had it not been for them I very much doubt if there would be enough food available to allow us to be alive today.

Exactly - if you compare modern maize with the teosinte grass it evolved from, it's clear to see what a few thousand years of selection can do, and how important the evolution of our crop species has been.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly - if you compare modern maize with the teosinte grass it evolved from, it's clear to see what a few thousand years of selection can do, and how important the evolution of our crop species has been.

Speaking of crops, do you know why the Israelites were to refrain from planting every seventh year?

Spoiler: NO, WHY?

It was a form of pest control.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you seriously suggesting all Huskies are the same?

Edit: If you are a parent, are you able to identify your children in a line up? You are? Is it possible that is because they are different from the others in the line up? Are all your children identical? No? What could possibly be going on here? It seems that sexual reproduction results in variety. Who would have thought it?

But those small changes change only the infraspecific taxa in the species, they do not cause new infraspecific taxa to arise. Regardless of how many Asians mate with Asians, those Asians remain Asians.

No matter how many Huskies mate with other Huskies, those Huskies remain Huskies.

The ONLY time you have ever observed something new in the species is when two infraspecific taxa mate.

So we know by observation that many infraspecific taxa within the species exist. Asian, African, Afro-Asian, etc are all different infraspecific taxa within the species. As Husky, Mastiff, Chinook, etc are all different infraspecific taxa within the species.

But then suddenly when it comes to the fossil record you choose to ignore what you observe in real life. There exists no infraspecific taxa in your incorrect classification of the fossil record. Your incorrect classifications do not match what we observe.

Just as if you had never seen a dog in real life but had only fossils of them you would incorrectly classify the different infraspecific taxa as seperate species. You would insist incorrectly that the Chinook evolved from the Husky or Mastiff simply because it would appear later in the strata. Worse yet you would classify the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook as seperate species. And be wrong!

And this is the heart of the problem, you have incorrectly classified the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species, this leads you to your incorrect conclusions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I he still babbling about Chinooks? The 100th time I saw him post the same thing was the time I finally hit the ignore function.

Because you can't face reality......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is because the article does not say what you think that it does. They found hybridization, but it does not say that all of the birds could breed with each other.

I would suggest that you look at the second to the last paragraph again.

Do not worry, I will gladly remind you or this error of yours every time that you make it.

Because you didn't read it, you don't read anything that would contradict your religious belief in evolution.

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

Even your own evolutionary biologists don't agree with you.

Sisyphean evolution in Darwin's finches

You just don't want to admit the truth to yourself so will forever hide from it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because you didn't read it, you don't read anything that would contradict your religious belief in evolution.

Ooooh! That told him!

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

Even your own evolutionary biologists don't agree with you.

Sisyphean evolution in Darwin's finches

Sorry, does any of this have any impact on the TOE?

But those small changes change only the infraspecific taxa in the species, they do not cause new infraspecific taxa to arise. Regardless of how many Asians mate with Asians, those Asians remain Asians.

No matter how many Huskies mate with other Huskies, those Huskies remain Huskies.

The ONLY time you have ever observed something new in the species is when two infraspecific taxa mate.

You ignored me last time so I'll try again.... where do these Asians originate, what "infraspecic taxa" were the earliest humans and how did they develop into the different groups we see today?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if you had never seen a dog in real life but had only fossils of them you would incorrectly classify the different infraspecific taxa as seperate species. You would insist incorrectly that the Chinook evolved from the Husky or Mastiff simply because it would appear later in the strata. Worse yet you would classify the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook as seperate species. And be wrong!

That is true, and it is quite likely that, in a few cases in the fossil record, variations within a species have been misinterpreted as separate species. But, as you are clearly aware, the example of dogs is not an example of evolution by natural selection.

The large variations in dog breeds that we see from the deliberate selective breeding of dogs by humans could only come about through evolution by natural selection if the breeds were reproductively isolated populations and their variations were existential advantages for corresponding environmental niches. If this had been the case, it would have taken very much longer for the full extent of the variations to become apparent, and the corresponding populations would rightly be considered separate species. So if we found such variation in the fossil record, we would be justified in interpreting them as separate species or sub-species.

Our distant descendants (if we survive long enough) may find fossils of today's domestic canines and perhaps remark on the extent of their variation; but they would see that this variation had arisen in too short a time for it to be the result of evolution by natural selection, that the variants were obviously not reproductively isolated, that the more extreme were quite unsuited to natural environmental niches, that they were generally associated with human habitation, and that where they were not so associated, their variations quickly regressed to a mean; so it would be clear that they were not separate species, but the products of deliberate selective breeding.

Just sayin'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you didn't read it, you don't read anything that would contradict your religious belief in evolution.

I read that article more than once. You are the one that refuses to understand what it says.

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.


This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

And that only points to some gene flow. Some is not all. You keep trying to claim "all" but that article cannot be made to say that.

Even your own evolutionary biologists don't agree with you.

Sisyphean evolution in Darwin's finches

You just don't want to admit the truth to yourself so will forever hide from it.

Yes, but even they still can see that Darwin's finches are evolution in action. I can help you understand the parts that you are too difficult for you. The reference to Sisyphus should give you a clue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I read that article more than once. You are the one that refuses to understand what it says.

And that only points to some gene flow. Some is not all. You keep trying to claim "all" but that article cannot be made to say that.

Yes, but even they still can see that Darwin's finches are evolution in action. I can help you understand the parts that you are too difficult for you. The reference to Sisyphus should give you a clue.

I don't see the problem - the abstract gives an unusually clear explanation of both what Sisyphean evolution means and what its relevance is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see the problem - the abstract gives an unusually clear explanation of both what Sisyphean evolution means and what its relevance is.

The problem is that Justa can't seem to get past just the title of articles at times. He somehow seems to think that that article helps him in his hopeless attempts to refute the theory of evolution.

ETA: And we were discussing two separate articles. He refers to one constantly that points out that some of Darwin's finches could hybridize. That particular article never claims that all of them can mate with each other. This second one seems to indicate that changing environments will throw the birds into one group again and then they start to evolve into new groups. Justa refuses to let himself see how this is evolution in action.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we were discussing two separate articles. He refers to one constantly that points out that some of Darwin's finches could hybridize.

Meh - lions and tigers can hybridize, but nobody suggests that they must be the same species or that it proves evolution wrong.

But I admire your persistence; it's a tedious job, but I suppose someone ought to do it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meh - lions and tigers can hybridize, but nobody suggests that they must be the same species or that it proves evolution wrong.

But I admire your persistence; it's a tedious job, but I suppose someone ought to do it

I know. People like Justa know enough so that they should understand evolution, it seems that they have to strive not to understand. We can see all sorts of hybridization. Lions and Tigers are an excellent example of two species that are not too far past the reproductive definition of species. There young are of greatly reduced fertility. A sign that they are no longer the same species. The "species problem" is something that the theory of evolution predicts and that we find again and again. Creationists have no explanation for the "species problem" that I have ever seen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, does any of this have any impact on the TOE?

Not in your world where two animals can mate right in front of your eyes and you can ignore the incorrect classification of them as seperate species.

You ignored me last time so I'll try again.... where do these Asians originate, what "infraspecic taxa" were the earliest humans and how did they develop into the different groups we see today?

Adam and Eve. You know it takes two to mate right? You know that after countless mutations and countless generations so that every mutation was gone through twice, those E. coli remained E. coli. They have no way to receive new genomes, so will forever stay E. coli. This is why your theory of simple to complex never works.

You start with the wrong approach. Start with two genetically perfect infraspecific taxa with all the genetic variables contained within. This way you can match what we observe, and understand why the human genome has degraded to a point where 98% of it is redundant. It is mutations which caused the 98% useless DN as it degraded over time.

You can't even get from one infraspecific taxa to the next in the real world. Only in your o wn minds does the process work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Meh - lions and tigers can hybridize, but nobody suggests that they must be the same species or that it proves evolution wrong.

But I admire your persistence; it's a tedious job, but I suppose someone ought to do it

They are the same species. They were simply incorrectly classified as separate species when people actual believed they couldn't mate and produce fertile offspring.

And what you mean to say is no evolutionist will admit to it being wrong, even though countless times species classified as seperate species found to mate and produce fertile offspring have been reclassified as the same species.

You reclassify them when you think it won't affect your evolutionary theory, otherwise refuse to.

Species and Speciation

"On the other hand, when relatively similar populations occur in different areas, it is much more difficult to decide whether to classify them as different species. For example, the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact."

Can everyone repeat: infraspecific taxa of the same species.......

The same thing you have occurring with Darwins Finches. But because Darwin used them as the prime living examples of evolution, you will never do the right thing and reclassify them. Instead continuing to make excuses to ignore it. Just as you are doing with lions and tigers, even if you know they mate and produce fertile offspring now where we didn't when they were first incorrectly classified as seperate species.

At least they had an excuse, they didn't think they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring when they classified them wrong. What's your excuse, besides letting them make up your beliefs for you instead of believing what happens in front of your eyes?

 

[Speedwell]

They are the same species. They were simply incorrectly classified as separate species when people actual believed they couldn't mate and produce fertile offspring.

And what you mean to say is no evolutionist will admit to it being wrong, even though countless times species classified as seperate species found to mate and produce fertile offspring have been reclassified as the same species.

You reclassify them when you think it won't affect your evolutionary theory, otherwise refuse to.

Species and Speciation

"On the other hand, when relatively similar populations occur in different areas, it is much more difficult to decide whether to classify them as different species. For example, the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact."

Can everyone repeat: infraspecific taxa of the same species.......

The same thing you have occurring with Darwins Finches. But because Darwin used them as the prime living examples of evolution, you will never do the right thing and reclassify them. Instead continuing to make excuses to ignore it. Just as you are doing with lions and tigers, even if you know they mate and produce fertile offspring now where we didn't when they were first incorrectly classified as seperate species.

At least they had an excuse, they didn't think they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring when they classified them wrong. What's your excuse, besides letting them make up your beliefs for you instead of believing what happens in front of your eyes?

Evolutionary biologists understand all of that full well. You go on as if it presented a serious problem for the theory of evolution, but you haven't said why.