The evidence for Evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

So you think the Milky Way is the entire universe? Science once described that as our physical reality.

If you are going to ignore the fact that science makes progress and stick to the body of knowledge of X-years ago indefinatly, you're simply going to miss the fact that we learn new things all the time.

Just because people believe something is our reality doesn't make it so.

Maybe you should tell your fellow creationists that....

Or do you still believe the Milky Way is our entire universe?

No... we actually celebrate and welcome progress.
Unlike certain other people, we don't just pick up a historical story and stick with it no matter what....

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet 96% of your cosmology is undetectable, can't be seen in any experiment

Yes, this is why we still train physicists and build machines like the LHC.... to solve the unknowns of the universe and try and get rational answers.

, and relies on the faith of the believer....

What "faith"?

Then neither are you, nor anyone else for that matter.

Indeed. That might be the reason why we don't make such claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

...+ some unique variations / mutations.

Indeed, that's all evolution is: the recombination of the genetic material of the parents PLUS a few mutations (which will be inherited in the next generation when the "recombination of genetic material" happens again - or you could just call it "reproduction", like the rest of the world....).

But those mutations do nothing. Supposedly babies get 50+ mutations at birth, yet Asians remain Asians. Africans remain Africans. Only when the Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian does variation occur in the species.

And the Afro-Asian is the same species as the Asian and African. And when the Afro-Asian mates with another subspecies in the species, say a Latino, another variation will occur. And will be of the same species as the Afro-Asian and Latino. And on and on through the dawn of time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, this is why we still train physicists and build machines like the LHC.... to solve the unknowns of the universe and try and get rational answers.

And yet LHC returned null results, as has every single experiment.

What "faith"?

Your faith that it exists despite over 12 null results. Even if any other theory has been discounted after 4 at the maximum. That's what faith. Faith in spite of the data.

Indeed. That might be the reason why we don't make such claims.

But you do. You claim that the majority of scientists believe so it must be true. So you have assigned them as the arbitrators.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you are going to ignore the fact that science makes progress and stick to the body of knowledge of X-years ago indefinatly, you're simply going to miss the fact that we learn new things all the time.

But your stating things as fact, when it may not be fact but may change. So adamantly you refuse to look for other causes despite those 12 null results.

Maybe you should tell your fellow creationists that....

I have on several occasions.

No... we actually celebrate and welcome progress.
Unlike certain other people, we don't just pick up a historical story and stick with it no matter what....

And yet despite 12 null results they still stick with it, no matter what....... refuse to consider anything else.

Discovered enough mass in the last 10 years to falsify your theories, yet still stick with them, no matter what.....

You say one thing but their refusal to abandon a theory clearly in error says another.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But those mutations do nothing

Some do. That's all it takes. For evolution to work, the effect of those mutations must necessarily be minimal. To big a change will cause problems.

Supposedly babies get 50+ mutations at birth,

That's a genetic fact, not a "supposition". It's called the "mutation rate".

yet Asians remain Asians. Africans remain Africans. Only when the Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian does variation occur in the species.

Evolution doesn't claim otherwise, so I can only wonder why you are stating the obvious.

And the Afro-Asian is the same species as the Asian and African. And when the Afro-Asian mates with another subspecies in the species, say a Latino, another variation will occur. And will be of the same species as the Afro-Asian and Latino. And on and on through the dawn of time.

Variation occurs every single time a breeding pair produces a new born.
It seems you need to brush up a bit on basic genetics.

Also, asians and africans aren't "different species".

Homo Sapiens is the species.

Eventhough the different races (asian, caucasian, aboriginal, etc) are the result of evolution due to genetic isolation.

In this global society, populations no longer are genetically isolated, so that course of evolution was "broken" in that sense.

If this genetic isolation would have remained however, it would have only been a matter of time before all these populations diverged that much from one another, that speciation would have occured. At wich point an asian person would have been genetically unable to mate with a non-asian person.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet LHC returned null results, as has every single experiment.

Well yeah.... these things are unknowns, wich means that they are still not known.
What part of "unknown" is tripping you up?

Your faith that it exists despite over 12 null results. Even if any other theory has been discounted after 4 at the maximum. That's what faith. Faith in spite of the data.

That what exists?

But you do.

I do not.

You claim that the majority of scientists believe so it must be true.

I never made such a claim. If anything, I claimed the exact opposite: that scientists do NOT know. Go back 3 paragraphes where I talk about these "unknowns".

So you have assigned them as the arbitrators.....

Nope. Although I'll take the word of scientists on their respective field of expertise over the words of random laymen on religious forums, any day of the week.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But your stating things as fact, when it may not be fact but may change. So adamantly you refuse to look for other causes despite those 12 null results.

This is the part where you explain yourself.
What things am I stating "as fact" that aren't "fact"?

And yet despite 12 null results they still stick with it

Stick to what?

Discovered enough mass in the last 10 years to falsify your theories, yet still stick with them, no matter what.....

*I* don't have any theories, nore do I have any idea what you are talking about.

You say one thing but their refusal to abandon a theory clearly in error says another.

What theory?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Some do. That's all it takes. For evolution to work, the effect of those mutations must necessarily be minimal. To big a change will cause problems.

Name one in those 50 mutations in Asians at birth that has made changes?

That's a genetic fact, not a "supposition". It's called the "mutation rate".

Yet Asians remain Asians and Africans remain Africans...

Evolution doesn't claim otherwise, so I can only wonder why you are stating the obvious.

So you believe we are the same species as apes, or the first bacteria, or fishes. So it really does say otherwise, doesn't it.

Variation occurs every single time a breeding pair produces a new born.
It seems you need to brush up a bit on basic genetics.

Variation within the subspecies, not the species. Asians produce Asians, always, unless in the past they mated with another subspecies. And those newborns wii always be the same species as their parents, which were the same species as their parents. To the dawn of time.

Also, asians and africans aren't "different species".

Exactly my point, they are subspecies in the species.

Eventhough the different races (asian, caucasian, aboriginal, etc) are the result of evolution due to genetic isolation.

And yet supposedly birds that undergo genetic isolation are separate species..... And no evolution occurred.

In this global society, populations no longer are genetically isolated, so that course of evolution was "broken" in that sense.

And yet those Finches have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, so despite being "broken" you call them seperate species. I fail to see your distinction.

If this genetic isolation would have remained however, it would have only been a matter of time before all these populations diverged that much from one another, that speciation would have occured. At wich point an asian person would have been genetically unable to mate with a non-asian person.

So you claim, yet have no proof. Those Finches despite being incorrectly labeled as separate species interbreed just fine.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well yeah.... these things are unknowns, wich means that they are still not known.
What part of "unknown" is tripping you up?

It is known, you just refuse to consider it.

That what exists?

Dark matter, it's what we have been discussing. Stay on track.

Nope. Although I'll take the word of scientists on their respective field of expertise over the words of random laymen on religious forums, any day of the week.

What expertise? You don't keep up with astronomy do you. Every article released since the space age has been a surprise. For experts you claim understand why are they surprised every time they look?

And yet those scientists are refusing to accept the outcome of their own experiments. Now they are down to looking at random noise......

 

[dad]

Sun: And you are telling me this because... Why? You don't require anything of me for this, I need not do anything different.



So you decide to try to find a way to fit everything into your preconceived ideas? Wow, that's no way to find out the truth, is it?

Jesus told us the truth and part of that was the bible. That is the way to find out. Obviously you have no clue from man's knowledge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Name one in those 50 mutations in Asians at birth that has made changes?

Ask a geneticist.

Yet Asians remain Asians and Africans remain Africans...

And homo sapiens. And primates. And mammals. And tetrapods. And....
Evolution doesn't predict otherwise.

So you believe we are the same species as apes, or the first bacteria, or fishes. So it really does say otherwise, doesn't it.

For crying out loud....
Seriously, inform yourself on the basics of the basics, please.
It's really silly to argue against a theory you obviously know close to nothing about.

Variation within the subspecies, not the species.

Que?

Asians produce Asians

Yes.
And humans produce humans. And primates produce primates. And mammals produce mammals.
But dogs don't produce cats.

, always, unless in the past they mated with another subspecies.

"asian" is not a species. Nore does an anyone breed with a "subspecies" since ancestral populations and sub-species thereof, do not live at the same time.

And those newborns wii always be the same species as their parents, which were the same species as their parents. To the dawn of time.

Every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.
Just like every newborn is raised speaking the same language as its parents.

At no point in history did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a spanish speaking child.

Exactly my point, they are subspecies in the species.

A sub-species IS a species on its own. The "sub" part reflects the context of an ancestral species.

Asian and african are not species. Sub or otherwise.

And yet supposedly birds that undergo genetic isolation are separate species..... And no evolution occurred.

Huh?

And yet those Finches have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, so despite being "broken" you call them seperate species. I fail to see your distinction.

You fail to see a lot of things, when it comes to this subject.

So you claim, yet have no proof.

It's the inevitable result of a process where changes accumulate over generations wich eventually causes a speciation event.

It's in essence not different from concluding the speed at wich a hammer will impact the earth when dropped from a height of 1 km in a vacuum, while your point of reference is your knowledge of gravitational forces coupled with a few testcases where the hammer is dropped from only 100m.

Seriously, I advice you to read up a little.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is known, you just refuse to consider it.

Good luck getting your nobel prize for succeeding where every physicist has failed so far.

Dark matter, it's what we have been discussing. Stay on track.

Dark matter is a placeholder name for a phenomena that has measureable effect and which is currently not understood or known.

The words "it exists" are not appropriate here.
The only thing that can be said to exist, is the measureable effect of *something* we know is there. We don't know what causes this effect. It is called "dark matter" in the meantime because it is a gravitational effect, which we normally expect to come from matter, and "dark" because it isn't detectable like ordinary matter.

What expertise?

Whatever expertise any particular scientist has.

You don't keep up with astronomy do you.

Not really. I'm not an astronomer. I'm a software engineer. I'll leave astronomy to the astronomers.

Every article released since the space age has been a surprise. For experts you claim understand why are they surprised every time they look?

It's called "learning".

And yet those scientists are refusing to accept the outcome of their own experiments. Now they are down to looking at random noise......

If only they would listen to random internet peeps like you ha... we would already be creating wormholes by now!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ask a geneticist.

You made the claim, it's not my responsibility to support your claim, it's yours.

And homo sapiens. And primates. And mammals. And tetrapods. And....
Evolution doesn't predict otherwise.

Always the scapegoat response when confronted with their own conflicting excuses of species. To broaden the catagory to anything but species.

For crying out loud....
Seriously, inform yourself on the basics of the basics, please.
It's really silly to argue against a theory you obviously know close to nothing about.

Standard response when someone lacks any scientific evidence to back their claims, attack the poster instead of presenting evidence....

Yes.
And humans produce humans. And primates produce primates. And mammals produce mammals.
But dogs don't produce cats.

And apes don't produce humans... notice you broaden the species when it comes to primates, but see no contradiction to narrowing it for cats and dogs. So let's be consistent, Apes don't produce humans. Cats and dogs are both mammals, so apparently you are aware of your own contradiction.

"asian" is not a species. Nore does an anyone breed with a "subspecies" since ancestral populations and sub-species thereof, do not live at the same time.

Asians are subspecies in the Homo sapiens sapiens species, as a Husky is a subspecies in the canine species. And yet their are thousands of subspecies in the species living right now.

Every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.
Just like every newborn is raised speaking the same language as its parents.

So no matter how many millions of years one goes, if each child is the same species as its direct parents, then one never becomes a new species.

At no point in history did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a spanish speaking child.

irrelavent. At no time has a cat gave birth to a kitten that barks, or tweets. Language is a manmade invention and has nothing to do with evolution. At no point in history has any human given birth to a child that speaks at all. Language is a learned event.

A sub-species IS a species on its own. The "sub" part reflects the context of an ancestral species.

Asian and african are not species. Sub or otherwise.

I beg to differ. Not sure you understand your own classification system.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs

b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species

Your contradictions are evident in that a race is a subspecies and that subspecies exist at the same time as the species else they could not successfully interbreed with them where their ranges overlapp.

It's the inevitable result of a process where changes accumulate over generations wich eventually causes a speciation event.

What speciation event? As you stated above the child is always of the same species as its direct parent, which was the same species as its direct parent. Now your saying the child is not the same species as its direct parent. Contradiction after contradiction in your beliefs.

The rest was irrelevant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You made the claim, it's not my responsibility to support your claim, it's yours.




Always the scapegoat response when confronted with their own conflicting excuses of species. To broaden the catagory to anything but species.





Standard response when someone lacks any scientific evidence to back their claims, attack the poster instead of presenting evidence....





And apes don't produce humans... notice you broaden the species when it comes to primates, but see no contradiction to narrowing it for cats and dogs. So let's be consistent, Apes don't produce humans. Cats and dogs are both mammals, so apparently you are aware of your own contradiction.




Asians are subspecies in the Homo sapiens sapiens species, as a Husky is a subspecies in the canine species. And yet their are thousands of subspecies in the species living right now.




So no matter how many millions of years one goes, if each child is the same species as its direct parents, then one never becomes a new species.

irrelavent. At no time has a cat gave birth to a kitten that barks, or tweets. Language is a manmade invention and has nothing to do with evolution. At no point in history has any human given birth to a child that speaks at all. Language is a learned event.




I beg to differ. Not sure you understand your own classification system.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs

b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species

Your contradictions are evident in that a race is a subspecies and that subspecies exist at the same time as the species else they could not successfully interbreed with them where their ranges overlapp.



What speciation event? As you stated above the child is always of the same species as its direct parent, which was the same species as its direct parent. Now your saying the child is not the same species as its direct parent. Contradiction after contradiction in your beliefs.

The rest was irrelevant.

It's like talking to a wall.

Go read a book. (a biology book, that is...)

 

[Jimmy D]

Not sure you understand your own classification system.

Repeating your demonstrably wrong ideas after they've been corrected is a sure sign of dishonesty (or something I can't accuse you of without getting banned).

"b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species"

In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name.

eg. Panthera tigris tigris / Panthera tigris altaica

So is the nomenclature different for an african or european?

NO

I'm not sure you understand the classification system.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And apes don't produce humans...

False. Humans ARE apes. When humans produce humans, apes are producing humans.
Just like humans ARE mammals. When humans produce humans, mammals are producing humans.

notice you broaden the species when it comes to primates,

"Primate" is not a species.

but see no contradiction to narrowing it for cats and dogs.

Both cats and dogs are mammals as well.
But felines and canines are seperate branches.

So let's be consistent, Apes don't produce humans.

As said: false. Humans are apes.

Cats and dogs are both mammals, so apparently you are aware of your own contradiction.

The contradiction only exists in your imagination / misunderstanding / ignorance.

Full scale view: http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/omm_v09_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg

So no matter how many millions of years one goes, if each child is the same species as its direct parents, then one never becomes a new species.

Failure to understand the accumulation of micro-changes.

Let's rephrase that sentence into something else, so you may see your error:

So no matter how many centuries/millenia one goes, if each child spoke the same language as its direct parents, then no new languages ever develop

Yet, the ancestors of those who speak Italian, Spanish, French, Portugese... spoke Latin.
But at no point throughout history did a Latin speaking parent raise a Spanish speaking child.
Every newborn was raised speaking the same language as its parents.

Let's also illustrate how accumulation works, so that you can finally understand that simple concept. Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, that every new generation is 0.001% different from its parents. That 0.001% represents the mutation rate. As you are probably (or "hopefully") aware, every newborn comes with a set of mutations in its DNA. Just like every new generation introduces changes in spoken language.

We will use generation 0 as the reference parent population, which has the 100% match with itself. As said, every new generation will be 0.001% different from the generation directly preceeding it.

Generation 1: 99.999% identical to generation 0
Generation 2: 99.998% identical to generation 0
Generation 3: 99.997% identical to generation 0
Generation 4: 99.996% identical to generation 0
Generation 5: 99.995% identical to generation 0
Generation 6: 99.994% identical to generation 0
Generation 7: 99.993% identical to generation 0
Generation 8: 99.992% identical to generation 0
......
Generation 1000: 99.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 1001: 98.999% identical to generation 0
....
Generation 15000: 85.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 15001: 84.999% identical to generation 0
Generation 15002: 84.998% identical to generation 0
...
Generation 50000: 50.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 50001: 49.999% identical to generation 0
etc etc etc


See? Generation 50000 is 99.999% identical to generation 49999. Yet, through the accumulation of the 0.001% micro-changes, generation 50000 is now just a mere 50% identical to the reference generation 0.


A difference of a mere 0.001% is not enough to consider it a new species (or a new language).

However, a difference of 50% is a whole different ballgame.
In this simplistic example, every new generation is of the same species / speaks the same language as its direct parents.


Do you understand now, what accumulation of changes inevitably leads to? I'll help you out in answering that, just to be sure: BIG CHANGES

Language is a manmade invention and has nothing to do with evolution

Evolution of languages is a perfect example of how the accumulation of micro-changes, inevitably leads to big changes. Every newborn is raised to speak the language of its parents. Yet, the ancestors of italian speaking folks, didn't speak italian.

Or were you under the impression that Latin speaking folks at some point had a meeting and decided to invent Italian overnight?

At no point in history has any human given birth to a child that speaks at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Repeating your demonstrably wrong ideas after they've been corrected is a sure sign of dishonesty (or something I can't accuse you of without getting banned).

Hence I have refrained from calling what you do by its real name....

"b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species"

In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name.

eg. Panthera tigris tigris / Panthera tigris altaica

So is the nomenclature different for an african or european?

NO

I'm not sure you understand the classification system.

YES

Homo sapiens sapiens Asian, Homo sapiens sapiens African, Homo sapiens sapiens Latino.

They have been named, you just refuse to accept it.

So your Bengal Tiger and your Siberian Tiger are distinguished by there named designation, just as are Africans and Asians.

Are no more genetically distinct than humans, are capable of interbreeding as are humans. You simply put humans in a special place and refuse to do with humans what you have done with every other animal in existence, even if you claim we are nothing but animals. Even if you do the very same thing to apes and chimpanzees -our claimed ancestors - that you refuse to do with the human race. Because you claim we are animals, then in your mind treat us as something special above animals.

Modern Human Variation: Models of Classification

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. Humans ARE apes. When humans produce humans, apes are producing humans.
Just like humans ARE mammals. When humans produce humans, mammals are producing humans.

This is the basics of your confusion. Cats and dogs are mammals, yet you understand cats do not produce dogs... you can't show me a single ape that produced a human. As a matter of fact every claimed common ancestor leading to this imaginary split from ape to human is missing in your evolutionary tree. Because it never existed.

"Primate" is not a species.

neither is mammal, so why the straw man argument above?

Both cats and dogs are mammals as well.
But felines and canines are seperate branches.

Just as apes and humans are separate branches.

As said: false. Humans are apes.

No, humans are Humans.

The contradiction only exists in your imagination / misunderstanding / ignorance.

View attachment 199712

And why do you keep showing me trees where every single claimed common ancestor linking things is missing? Take those imaginary links in your imaginary trees leading to imaginary ancestors and put it in the trash where it belongs.

Failure to understand the accumulation of micro-changes.

Failure to understand reality.

Let's rephrase that sentence into something else, so you may see your error:

So no matter how many centuries/millenia one goes, if each child spoke the same language as its direct parents, then no new languages ever develop

Yet, the ancestors of those who speak Italian, Spanish, French, Portugese... spoke Latin.
But at no point throughout history did a Latin speaking parent raise a Spanish speaking child.
Every newborn was raised speaking the same language as its parents.

Yes rephrase that so we can clearly see the error in your thought process. Yet those that spoke Latin and now speak French, are the same species as those that once spoke Latin....... rephrase it as you like, it still shows the error in your beliefs.

Let's also illustrate how accumulation works, so that you can finally understand that simple concept. Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, that every new generation is 0.001% different from its parents. That 0.001% represents the mutation rate. As you are probably (or "hopefully") aware, every newborn comes with a set of mutations in its DNA. Just like every new generation introduces changes in spoken language.

We will use generation 0 as the reference parent population, which has the 100% match with itself. As said, every new generation will be 0.001% different from the generation directly preceeding it.

Generation 1: 99.999% identical to generation 0
Generation 2: 99.998% identical to generation 0
Generation 3: 99.997% identical to generation 0
Generation 4: 99.996% identical to generation 0
Generation 5: 99.995% identical to generation 0
Generation 6: 99.994% identical to generation 0
Generation 7: 99.993% identical to generation 0
Generation 8: 99.992% identical to generation 0
......
Generation 1000: 99.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 1001: 98.999% identical to generation 0
....
Generation 15000: 85.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 15001: 84.999% identical to generation 0
Generation 15002: 84.998% identical to generation 0
...
Generation 50000: 50.000% identical to generation 0
Generation 50001: 49.999% identical to generation 0
etc etc etc


See? Generation 50000 is 99.999% identical to generation 49999. Yet, through the accumulation of the 0.001% micro-changes, generation 50000 is now just a mere 50% identical to the reference generation 0.

Yet you have not a single strand of DNA showing this is true, since you have no DNA of any fossil, you can't say when that 49.9999% difference arose, nor can you prove it's even possible since the differences between DNA in humans is .1%.

A difference of a mere 0.001% is not enough to consider it a new species (or a new language).

However, a difference of 50% is a whole different ballgame.
In this simplistic example, every new generation is of the same species / speaks the same language as its direct parents.

Which was the same species as his direct parent / spoke the same language, which was the same species as his direct parent / spoke the same language, on back up the list. And at no time did one child become a separate species or speak a different language......

Do you understand now, what accumulation of changes inevitably leads to? I'll help you out in answering that, just to be sure: BIG CHANGES

So you say, but those accumulated big changes exist only in your own mind.

Evolution of languages is a perfect example of how the accumulation of micro-changes, inevitably leads to big changes. Every newborn is raised to speak the language of its parents. Yet, the ancestors of italian speaking folks, didn't speak Italian.

And the forebearers of Italian speaking people are still the same species as the Italian speaking people. Your own example falsifies everything you say.

Or were you under the impression that Latin speaking folks at some point had a meeting and decided to invent Italian overnight?

No, but unlike you I am quite aware that because Italians may have once spoke Latin does not mean they are a separate species...... so regardless of how the language evolved over time, regardless of how pheonetically different it is from the original language, they all remained the same species.......

So when you agree that Latin speaking people were of a different species than Italian speaking people, then we will consider your example as having any merit at all. Until then it just shows how confused you really are...... since your example simply contradicts your other beliefs.

You should have no problem with this, since some birds are considered separate subspecies and even species simply because they have different song patterns (language). But when it comes to humans you won't do what you do with other animals........

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even if you do the very same thing to apes and chimpanzees -our claimed ancestors -

This takes the cake in terms of exposing how infinitesimal your knowledge is concerning evolution theory and evolutionary history. Seriously.

That's not even a rookie mistake.

How you expect to be taken seriously on matters of evolutionary biology while saying such things is... wow.