The Evolution Challenge

[Hespera]

Mankind has not lived long enough to record how the progression of forming a world wide viable ecosystem work from scratch. What we can see, which has produced an overwhelming concern and shock, something that is happenning right in front of us. Species are going extinct, not being produced.

We have not recorded all of human history either. But clearly we developed form pre literate stone age people to the present. We did watch the glaciers carve out the mountain valleys, BUT... you can see them working on it today.

Quite possibly no species would have gone extinct in the last say 5000 years except for the action of people exterminating them. Destruction is quick, creation (in a non religious sense) is slow.

Its a fact that the evolution of a new species (always good for an argument, just what a species actually is) has not occurred ... to our very limited knowledge...in front of people, to be observed. But.... so what?


As for world wide viable ecosystems, what used to be called "the balance of nature" is never really balanced. Its constantly changing.

If 99% of all life forms on earth went extinct, there would be life, and it owuld exist in some sort of viable ecosystem... tho in a highly unstable form, I suppose.

 

[Norbert L]

There is no need for humankind to be around long enough to record forming a world wide, viable ecosystem from scratch. The fossil record gives us information enough to give valid theories on how this has happened.

Besides, we are already in a viable ecosystem, so unless we'd observe it coming into existence from scratch on a different planet, we wouldn't observe it directly anyway.

And yes, we have observed new species coming into existence. Both extinction and speciation (the formation of new species) are happening right in front of us. What concerns many is the unprecedented rate of extinctions caused by humans, not that extinctions happen in itself.

There is a need for science to observe and produce visible results, else why hang around the experiment and demonstrate it's repetitive consistent results that show a conclusion? Let's take the conclusion for granted?

Besides, without observation, science would have a hard time existing in the first place.

And yes, we have observed that cross breeding has only produced a similiar species.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

It's funny that this tree that supposedly is branching off into all sorts of apes, chimps, and people, doesn't seem to be growing much.
​

AV1611VET, please DO read an article on evolution other than church pamphlets regarding the subject. Objectivity makes you smarter.

I challenge your statement: Where in evolution does it say or predict that the "tree of life" you're referring to has to grow much, fast or anything else for that matter??

And to avoid confusion, please explain your definition of 'growing' in regards to the tree of life.

Are you saying that just because you can't see species change with your own eyes in your short lifetime it means evolution can't happen ever?
Evolution is talking about millions of years. One human generation is nothing compared to that.
This is the reason why we often use fruit flies in experiments. They reproduce amazingly fast and therefore new traits occur at a much faster rate. This happens all the time already.

- Ectezus

What is funny, in a dim humour sort of way, is these senseless and utterly ignorant quips that are apparently taken by AV to be somehow deeply insightful.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, please DO read an article on evolution other than church pamphlets regarding the subject. Objectivity makes you smarter.

Sure --- and Thaumaturgy wants me to read a book on Geology.

Are you saying that just because you can't see species change with your own eyes in your short lifetime it means evolution can't happen ever?

Genera --- I was talking about genera --- not species.

Thus the reference to ape → people in my post. (Or is an ape the same genera as a person?)

In other words, where is the next genera at?

You know --- a new race, or another race, or a master race --- or whatever your computers say we will produce?

 

[Tomk80]

There is a need for science to observe and produce visible results, else why hang around the experiment and demonstrate it's repetitive consistent results that show a conclusion? Let's take the conclusion for granted?

Besides, without observation, science would have a hard time existing in the first place.

I didn't say science did not need to observe. Read my post again, for comprehension this time.

And yes, we have observed that cross breeding has only produced a similiar species.

I wasn't talking about hybridization, I was talking about speciation. The formation of one or more new species from an ancestral population. Again, read my post, this time for comprehension. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but you must at least give some indication that you actually read my post.

 

[Hespera]

There is a need for science to observe and produce visible results, else why hang around the experiment and demonstrate it's repetitive consistent results that show a conclusion? Let's take the conclusion for granted?

Besides, without observation, science would have a hard time existing in the first place.

And yes, we have observed that cross breeding has only produced a similiar species.

Crossbreeding does not "produce a similar species". It produces a hybrid.

It would be a good idea to check what the meaning of the word "species" is before using it in an argument, or in this case, a false statement.

 

[Norbert L]

I didn't say science did not need to observe. Read my post again, for comprehension this time.

It questioned the viablity within your particular scenerio, I was merely pointing out how crucial observation is to establish fact(beyond theory). It's not an option to even leave the implication that it's somehow ok to dismiss.

I wasn't talking about hybridization, I was talking about speciation. The formation of one or more new species from an ancestral population.

I had to do a quick wiki read!!! hehe... Then there was the thinkin The role speciation plays within evolution, are under debate too. I would ask the question, where is it possible to chain together the progress of speciation from a single cell to mammals? Only in one's mind, as a theory. It can't be demonstrated from beginning to end.

I would say in ones mind, it would not be beyond comprehending the possiblity that this limited observable behavior could of been created as well.

Again, read my post, this time for comprehension. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but you must at least give some indication that you actually read my post.

I'm not able to read your specific thought, to accurately interpret anothers intent, the unreadable fine print everyone has when giving a statement. I only respond to possible ways of viewing the words. Just like it's possible to view how the world was made.

 

[Tomk80]

It questioned the viablity within your particular scenerio, I was merely pointing out how crucial observation is to establish fact(beyond theory). It's not an option to even leave the implication that it's somehow ok to dismiss.

Where did I ever dismiss observation?

I had to do a quick wiki read!!! hehe... Then there was the thinkin The role speciation plays within evolution, are under debate too.

What do you mean when you say that?

I would ask the question, where is it possible to chain together the progress of speciation from a single cell to mammals? Only in one's mind, as a theory. It can't be demonstrated from beginning to end.

Why would that be necessary? There is enough evidence to establish this beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in science that requires unobtainable levels of detail, just enough to strongly support a theory.

I would say in ones mind, it would not be beyond comprehending the possiblity that this limited observable behavior could of been created as well.

But that would go contrary to the evidence, while the idea of a continued diversification of species does not.
edited to add: Or perhaps more accurate, it would require you to posit that God created and then destroyed a whole host of creatures successively in time, over and over again, in a pattern that makes it look as if there is some kind of developing diversification process at work. Perhaps this might be possible (given that an almighty God can do what he wants), but you'd have to agree that this is not extremely convincing.

I'm not able to read your specific thought, to accurately interpret anothers intent, the unreadable fine print everyone has when giving a statement. I only to respond to possible ways of viewing the words. Just like it's possible to view how the world was made.

But it might be sensible to do so after thinking?

If I say that one way of observation is not necessary to establish as certain idea if another way is perfectly valid, to respond with "observation is necessary" comes across as if you have not accurately read what I wrote. I fail to see how my post was unclear in that respect.

 

[Norbert L]

We have not recorded all of human history either. But clearly we developed form pre literate stone age people to the present.

But it's what has been recorded literately, the written words of cilivization, its' evolution so to speak. An evolution overwelmingly pasted with thoughts about life, death and the afterlife about how we fit in.

Most of the timeline was my God is bigger than your god. Now a good chunk of educated people see how ridiculous that is. After all it left the pages of history ripe with bloodshed. So this makes educated people upset too and they jump onboard to try and straighten all this mess out. But when religious people still don't buy in, the science dudes flip their middle finger of conclusions on whoever it may be. Science is now bigger than whoever's god.

And if it wasn't enough through recorded history how god fearing peoples decided to go to war against one another. One person consumed with the idea that religion is being so outrageous and ridiculous, that it has the audacity to be so presumscious to produce a people who believed they were this One God's chosen people. Which natuarlly was not his personal theory on an ideal thinking people, in his mind. He decided to convince an entire nation to disprove that erroneous mindset of a God fearing theory and show the world that the fittest actually do survive as the master race.

At this stage, if we were to step back neutrally, neither evolution or creation observably wins. Only seems to produce who's father is bigger than the other guys father, because it's certainly good to feel that you've somehow outwitted the other guy. Through great discourses of back and forth logic.

Of course that all changes when someone pulls out a gun.

 

[Ectezus]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

It's funny that this tree that supposedly is branching off into all sorts of apes, chimps, and people, doesn't seem to be growing much.

​

What is funny, in a dim humour sort of way, is these senseless and utterly ignorant quips that are apparently taken by AV to be somehow deeply insightful.

Yeah, a nice use of words can make a strong argument in itself or at least give it the impression.
I do encourage difficult questions and such however it does get a bit tedious when certain statements have no foundation at all.

 

[Ectezus]

Genera --- I was talking about genera --- not species.

Thus the reference to ape → people in my post. (Or is an ape the same genera as a person?)

AV1611VET,
Humans belong to the following genus: homo. It's latin for 'human'.

We are homo sapiens, currently the only species of the homo genus.
Homo Neanderthalensis and a dozen others have become extinct. (like 99% of all species)

In other words, where is the next genera at?

You know --- a new race, or another race, or a master race --- or whatever your computers say we will produce?

First of all, evolution does not have a plan set in stone. Whoever is best adapted to their environment will be better to produce offspring and thus pass on their useful genes.

Secondly, there is no 'master race' or anything.
There is no such thing as being more evolved.
We humans basically evolved for 3.6 billion years and single celled organisms evolved for 3.6 billion years aswell.

Creationists often claim that the single cells we see today are waaaay to complicated to have formed 'out of nothing.'
This is true. However the first single celled organisms certainly wouldn't be as complicated we see them today as they would have had 3.6 billions years less evolution compared to the present.

Much in the same way, we did NOT evolve from the apes we see today. Those apes have as much evolution as us. Go back in time and we only share a common ancestor that is part human/part ape and from there we took different paths.

Please understand that there is no evolutionary ladder that determines which species is a better one.
We humans are good at thinking, that enables us to live in our environment. Monkeys are better adapted to forest environments. Whales own humans in terms of living in the sea.

There are bacteria that can survive high levels of acidity and extremely hot temperatures. Humans wouldn't survive 1 second in those conditions.

Homo sapiens are not better, we're simply differently adapted.

Does this explain it or would you like to know more AV1611VET?

- Ectezus

 

[Hespera]

But it's what has been recorded literately, the written words of cilivization, its' evolution so to speak. An evolution overwelmingly pasted with thoughts about life, death and the afterlife about how we fit in.

Most of the timeline was my God is bigger than your god. Now a good chunk of educated people see how ridiculous that is. After all it left the pages of history ripe with bloodshed. So this makes educated people upset too and they jump onboard to try and straighten all this mess out. But when religious people still don't buy in, the science dudes flip their middle finger of conclusions on whoever it may be. Science is now bigger than whoever's god.

And if it wasn't enough through recorded history how god fearing peoples decided to go to war against one another. One person consumed with the idea that religion is being so outrageous and ridiculous, that it has the audacity to be so presumscious to produce a people who believed they were this One God's chosen people. Which natuarlly was not his personal theory on an ideal thinking people, in his mind. He decided to convince an entire nation to disprove that erroneous mindset of a God fearing theory and show the world that the fittest actually do survive as the master race.

At this stage, if we were to step back neutrally, neither evolution or creation observably wins. Only seems to produce who's father is bigger than the other guys father, because it's certainly good to feel that you've somehow outwitted the other guy. Through great discourses of back and forth logic.

Of course that all changes when someone pulls out a gun.

Hmm, ok, some of that seems off topic, but I'd agree with some of it.

Did you get what i said about species?

I 100% disagree with this:

"So this makes educated people upset too and they jump onboard to try and straighten all this mess out. But when religious people still don't buy in, the science dudes flip their middle finger of conclusions on whoever it may be. Science is now bigger than whoever's god."

Your interpretation of other people's emotions and motivation cant be demonstrated, and doesnt seem at all accurate to me. It MIGHT be how someone feels, but just has nothing to do with science or educaiton. Dont forget, there are many millions of educated people in places like China and India who really dont know or have no concern for how some Christians see things. ToE makes sense to them, they go with it, and nothing about religion is involved.

As for flipping off, really I think that is extremely mischaracterizing. I suppose a few people do take science as an excuse to do that, but its surely is not what science is about. Any more than religion is about "science can take a hike" (is that flipping off?) or saying that scientists are deluded by Satan and his demons, and their minds are controlled by same.

Personally I dont see a conflict between religion and science, or belief in (a) god, and science. If one's religion teaches that the earth sits on the back of a turtle, well, then science and common sense shows thats not so. Deal with that as one likes. Some people's interpretation of the Bible is at odds with observation of the natural world. So...i guess thaty deal with taht as they will. To me the conflict is with their intepretaion of their religion, not with science, scientists, or belief in god.

I am not the one who said "evolution wins".

I think it is stone obvious that evolution has and does take place.
Some wouldnt be convinced by anything, no matter what.

This may particularly be the case for those whose faith is fragile in the sense that the slightest change in what they believe could threaten to shastter the whole structure. For them, if the bible says Pi=3.0 then Pi is 3.0; no point is further discussion about things that need evidence, proof, data, etc.


"He decided to convince an entire nation to disprove that erroneous mindset of a God fearing theory and show the world that the fittest actually do survive as the master race" Quote

Are you talking about Darwin or what? Hitler? Please explain.

 

[Norbert L]

Where did I ever dismiss observation?

"Besides, we are already in a viable ecosystem, so unless we'd observe it coming into existence from scratch on a different planet, we wouldn't observe it directly anyway."

So observation isn't necessary? Or maybe you are saying we would have to observe it, to establish evolution's existence in the first place? OK... before we go on, you should read the last snipped quote with its' ajoining paragraph in this post first.

What do you mean when you say that?

First off you made a valid point about dealling with speciation in specific. So since I was not familiar with it, I did a 101 on it using wiki. From the explaination given to it there, scientists are debating among themselves how it works within the greater theory of evolution. I take that as they're not totally 100% sure how it fits in, probably 99% just got some details to squabble out.

Why would that be necessary? There is enough evidence to establish this beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in science that requires unobtainable levels of detail, just enough to strongly support a theory.
But that would go contrary to the evidence, while the idea of a continued diversification of species does not.

On a real life level, theorycrafting aside. If one were to fill a jury with PhDs, the evidence would likely end in a hung jury.

edited to add: Or perhaps more accurate, it would require you to posit that God created and then destroyed a whole host of creatures successively in time, over and over again, in a pattern that makes it look as if there is some kind of developing diversification process at work. Perhaps this might be possible (given that an almighty God can do what he wants), but you'd have to agree that this is not extremely convincing.

Well the short and shallow answer is, show me in the bible where is says God created the earth 6000 years ago. Religious folk have been arguing amonst themselves with theories, or in their case "interpretations". Among them are what is known as the "Gap Theory" between the first two verses in Genesis.

In a way it puts popular religious thought in the same situation faced when mankind had to look at the evidence that the sun did not revolve around the earth. In the same way man is not the center of creation, God is. What He was doing prior to "this age" alongside the angelic host, next to nothing is revealed. The bible has more about the "age to come".

But it might be sensible to do so after thinking?

If I say that one way of observation is not necessary to establish as certain idea if another way is perfectly valid, to respond with "observation is necessary" comes across as if you have not accurately read what I wrote. I fail to see how my post was unclear in that respect.

This is sort of humorous, at least for anyone who studies religious thought. When speaking with creationists, they're more than likely to see more than what is actually written. Look at some of the controversial debates within theology. For instance, where one persons sees one verse as proof that people can now eat any meat, another sees the same line proving the opposite. Where someone sees the OT law is done away with another sees it is established etc.

You may offer an explaination to everyone showing what you meant now. But 2000 yrs from this point, if someone digs up your remarks, a theist can clearly show you actually meant the opposite.

Which is sorta funny, anyhow I gtg. Thanks for the input.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does this explain it..

Not even close.

What I want to know --- and I'm under the assumption that science predicts --- is what the next level up is going to look like?

What features?

Are we going to have four ears? Antennae? Feathers? Hair? Fur? Exoskeletons? Blue skin? 60 teeth?

What?

What do your computers tell you?

 

[Ectezus]

Not even close.

What I want to know --- and I'm under the assumption that science predicts --- is what the next level up is going to look like?

What features?

Are we going to have four ears? Antennae? Feathers? Hair? Fur? Exoskeletons? Blue skin? 60 teeth?

What?

What do your computers tell you?

Ugh, did you even read my entire post? I thought I made it pretty clear that evolution does not predict how species will evolve in the future as it does not have a plan.
It does not follow certain specific rules or guidelines other than "Selecting whatever mutations/adaptations works the best for survival" principle.

Now scientists can make educated guesses on the future of humanity but it has little to do with the theory of evolution itself.

But to answer your question: "How will humans look like eventually"
Answer: it depends on the environment.

If it gets colder we might evolve to re-activate our body hair genes. (Yes, we still have the genes to become completely covered in hairs but it's deactivated)

The most likely scenario is that humans will become a space faring society. Space means zero G so unless we recreate our earth like 1 G our bones do not need to be as strong in space. As well as our muscle mass doesn't have to keep us upright to counter the gravitational forces.

So a human in space, with less gravity will become more brittle/weak sort to speak. Some Russian astronauts who have been long in space, the longest currently being 438 days, have had difficulty returning to earth because their body started adapting to another environment. (This large adaptation is mostly physical in nature though)

Also, without an atmosphere to counter it, space is full of deadly radiation. So if humanity decides to stay in space for a long time no doubt radiation resistant genes will become more dominant. There are animals on earth who already have this trait.

Also worth mentioning is that in the future with gene manipulation we can basically engineer our bodies any way we want to.
If there is no gravity you do not need legs to stand on as there is no surface. 4 arms in that case would be more helpful.
It is possible but whether we want to go down this road is another issue.

Most likely humans will recreate their earth environment quite perfectly so the adaptation rate will be slow as it's not essential for survival.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

Ugh, did you even read my entire post? I thought I made it pretty clear that evolution does not predict how species will evolve in the future as it does not have a plan.
It does not follow certain specific rules or guidelines other than "Selecting whatever mutations/adaptations works the best for survival" principle.

Now scientists can make educated guesses on the future of humanity but it has little to do with the theory of evolution itself.

Okay --- I stopped right here, Ectezus.

If you don't know --- or "predictable" science doesn't have one --- just say so.

I don't need 8 paragraphs telling me there is none.

 

[Ectezus]

Okay --- I stopped right here, Ectezus.

If you don't know --- or "predictable" science doesn't have one --- just say so.

I don't need 8 paragraphs telling me there is none.

I just gave you a perfectly good example of what might happen.
All I said was that these predictions are not relevant to the Theory of Evolution itself which seems to be the main subject in this thread.

Alright fine, don't read whenever someone gives you an explination for something you're totally clueless about. I'm sure ignoring it will make you smarter.
Don't ask questions if you don't want to know the answers.

- Ectezus

 

[Tomk80]

"Besides, we are already in a viable ecosystem, so unless we'd observe it coming into existence from scratch on a different planet, we wouldn't observe it directly anyway."

So observation isn't necessary? Or maybe you are saying we would have to observe it, to establish evolution's existence in the first place? OK... before we go on, you should read the last snipped quote with its' ajoining paragraph in this post first.

Nice job in quote mining. You do realize quote mining is dishonest, no? If you read the rest of the post, you'll note that I said that we have a different way of observing what happened, namely through the fossil record.

First off you made a valid point about dealling with speciation in specific. So since I was not familiar with it, I did a 101 on it using wiki. From the explaination given to it there, scientists are debating among themselves how it works within the greater theory of evolution. I take that as they're not totally 100% sure how it fits in, probably 99% just got some details to squabble out.

That's not what the article says. The article gives a number of different sorts of speciation, and states that which sort of speciation is most important is discussed, as well as which mechanism is important. In the end, evolution is speciation.

On a real life level, theorycrafting aside. If one were to fill a jury with PhDs, the evidence would likely end in a hung jury.

No. In real life, the evidence has long since ended in a convincing consensus in favor of the theory of evolution, both in science (the jury with PhD's) and in the real life courts.

Well the short and shallow answer is, show me in the bible where is says God created the earth 6000 years ago. Religious folk have been arguing amonst themselves with theories, or in their case "interpretations". Among them are what is known as the "Gap Theory" between the first two verses in Genesis.

I never made any assumptions on the kind of creationism. However, GAP-creationism doesn't work unless you posit a whole lot of gaps (not a single one), that somehow a number of creatures lived through the gaps and that God apparently needed a little bit of practice in the time before the gaps. Sure, it could have happened this way, but you'd have to agree that it is not exactly convincing.

In a way it puts popular religious thought in the same situation faced when mankind had to look at the evidence that the sun did not revolve around the earth. In the same way man is not the center of creation, God is. What He was doing prior to "this age" alongside the angelic host, next to nothing is revealed. The bible has more about the "age to come".

The problem is that scientific thought has already passed this station. "Gap creationism" isn't new, it was one of the first things scientists came up with after they discovered that the earth was old. However, "gap creationism" quickly became untenable given the fossil evidence, which lead to positing multiple gaps in the form of "catastrophism". In the end, scientists had to admit that that didn't work either. Seriously, science has passed the stadium you want to go back to 150 years ago already.

This is sort of humorous, at least for anyone who studies religious thought. When speaking with creationists, they're more than likely to see more than what is actually written. Look at some of the controversial debates within theology. For instance, where one persons sees one verse as proof that people can now eat any meat, another sees the same line proving the opposite. Where someone sees the OT law is done away with another sees it is established etc.

You may offer an explaination to everyone showing what you meant now. But 2000 yrs from this point, if someone digs up your remarks, a theist can clearly show you actually meant the opposite.

Which is sorta funny, anyhow I gtg. Thanks for the input.

As I showed above, you apparently only read the first sentence of my post and skipped the second. I am at a loss how you think reading only the first sentence of a post gives you an idea of the entire contents. Is that common in theology?

 

[Tiberius]

AV, read my opening post again. If you have evidence that falsifies evolution and is based on a valid understanding of evolution, then post it. You thinking of a problem with evolution doesn't count because you don't have a valid understanding of evolution. I don't want this thread to be an introduction to evolution, particularly when you've demonstrated many times that you have no interest in actually learning and correcting your incorrect ideas about the topic.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not even close.

What I want to know --- and I'm under the assumption that science predicts --- is what the next level up is going to look like?

What features?

Are we going to have four ears? Antennae? Feathers? Hair? Fur? Exoskeletons? Blue skin? 60 teeth?

What?

What do your computers tell you?

Another wrong prediction, AV -- thus maintaining your 0-for-lifetime record.