The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[DogmaHunter]

Lets go along with your claims for a moment. How does that make the scientific support for what I say wrong. For example

The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632619/

There's no scientific support for objecting to the core of evolution theory, that's just it.
Your links do not support the claim that evolution is wrong, nore does it suggest anything remotely creationistic. At all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm. Ptolemy thought his belief was science...... Just like you think your belief is..... Imagine that.

Ptolemy lived some 1700 years before 'science' as we know it, was a thing.
If your argument is that it will be hard to get to accurate answers without the help of the standardized process of science, then I'll agree to that.

But that's not your argument, is it?
No. Your argument is...well...whatever suits you in the moment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You could at least report it accurately. In a large population a mutation will never become fixed in the general population..... That a mutation might have an effect once in a blue moon.... and it becoming fized in a population are two different things.

Which is why the only paper presented by a fellow evolutionary compadre of yours required we calculate for a "static" population..... of "finite" size.....

I'll freely admit that a mutation in one of your descendants may one day (a blue moon) make a beneficial change, that will never fix itself in the general population unless the rest of the population dies off, so that your descendants are the entire population... perhaps because of a flood maybe.....

Your shortsightedness, knows no limits.

Apparantly you still don't understand population growth and how individuals have two parents.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am not disputing that the creatures with the best features for surviving in a desert are not the ones that will survive and reproduce. The point is that you are assuming that it is natural selection that selects these features in the first place.

-_- natural selection is literally the fact that organisms which have traits that benefit their survival and reproduction persist better than ones that don't. There is no evidence that this is in any way shape or form controlled by anything conscious.

That is what scientists who support the EES are saying that development processes like development bias, plasticity and inclusive inheritence and self-organising abilities with niche construction can produce suitable and well-integrated features that allow living things to adapt and survive in their environments. The issue is some think in adaptive terms for everything and make natural selection an all powerful force when it is not.

-_- natural selection is a part of evolution, not the whole thing. However, I would simply argue that certain features are just so advantageous for survival in specific contexts that they are always heavily selected for and hence tend to appear frequently. That is, there are only so many shapes that will most efficiently reduce drag in water, so selection results in a lot of similar body shapes. Pupils which are black will always be the most efficient at absorbing light, hence why even eyes from different lineages tend to have black pupils.

However, there are plenty of extinct organisms which had bodies so alien to anything that exists today that we aren't even sure what some of their body parts are. If there was a continuous bias for forms that had already occurred, why are so many Cambrian organisms vastly different from anything modern?

Because these features are well suited and integrated natural selection plays a minor role or is bypassed altogether. The enviromental pressures can trigger a creatures development system to produce the type of change they need becuase their biological systems are in tune with the environment.

This claim is demonstrably false. If it were true, then your skin color would depend primarily on where you were born rather than heritage. That is, it would be impossible to give birth to a light skinned child in the Sahara desert, no matter the skin color of the parents. After all, anyone that isn't albino does have the genes to produce both types of melanin.

And as true as it is that your skin can become darker in response to more sunlight, there are biological limits to how fast and how much it can do it. It also has absolutely no effect on the color your children are born as.

This woman was a tanning addict in the extreme, and yet, she surely never reached the darkest skin tones that humans can have

Living things can also change their enviroment to help them survive such as change soil composition, build nests, live underground, etc. These processes do not stem from random mutations to produce the variation or natural selection to select them.

Evaluations of inheritance in other animals heavily suggests that instinctual behaviors are genetic, and as long as it is genetic, natural selection can select for it as a trait. Just because it isn't something that affects their bodies outwardly doesn't mean it isn't just as much a trait as blue eyes or brown spots. Some organisms, such as humans, do learn behaviors and teach them to the next generation. How much this impacts evolution isn't known, but I'd infer that it'd make the populations likely end up having more genetic variety in the long run, since it allows organisms which would otherwise die out to survive long enough to have offspring.

That may be the case but the point is becuase Neo-Darwinism takes an adaptive and gene centred view it then gives natural selection the dominant role in how creatures adapt to their environment to survive. Many evolutionists make natural selection all powerful. Dawkins comes to mind.


It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/104/suppl_1/8597.full.pdf

-_- well duh, it would be extremely stupid to think that natural selection by itself governs the direction of evolution. In fact, it is blatantly obvious that it doesn't, because it is mutation that creates greater genetic diversity. Natural selection doesn't grant a population the traits it has to work with, mutation does. To treat any of the 4 major influences on evolution as individual things is inevitably going to make them seem inadequate. Because they are, individually. The entire paper you are referencing doesn't really agree with your assertions that natural selection is but a minor component. Furthermore, perhaps not in debates with you, I have mentioned that mutations are not purely random. For example, HOX genes and genes related to eye color mutate far less frequently than genes related to brain development and hair/fur color. However, there is no evidence to suggest that eukaryotes ever get mutations more likely to benefit the environment they are currently in over other environments, and as I have mentioned before, if the gene isn't present to be expressed, no change in gene expression can save you.

As mentioned above the EES mentions other processes that do produce variation that is biased towards a certain form over others. So in that sense, it gives direction to evolutionary change.

To an extent. For example, the paper brings up genetic drift and gene duplication as major factors that can shape a population. There are some people in the camp of considering genetic drift to be a stronger force in shaping populations than natural selection, but as of yet, the evidence isn't quite conclusive either way. It's difficult to evaluate any of the aspects of evolution individually, especially since human interference in and of itself can bias results.

This has been demonstrated and not be creationists but mainstream scientists.

No, it has not been demonstrated, look up the work of Michael Lynch on this matter as reviewed by others and they'll say his results have yet to be conclusive. But even if they were, none of the processes mentioned by Lynch are consciously controlled, and he never argues that any are intelligently directed.

The waiting time problem in a model hominin population

We show that the waiting time problem becomes very severe when more than one mutation is required to establish a new function. On a practical level, the waiting time problem greatly inhibits the establishment of any new function that requires any string or set of specific linked co-dependent mutations. For nucleotide strings of moderate length (eight or above), waiting times will typically exceed the estimated age of the universe – even when using highly favourable settings.
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population

-_- this paper is exceedingly strange. For example, you only have 4 different nucleotides that can exist in DNA sequences, and yet, this paper acts as if sequences of two different nucleotides side by side are super unlikely... even though any given one should have a 1/16 chance of existing. Also, it inflates the average length of the human gene from the actual number of 8466 base pairs to a ridiculous 50,000 base pairs. Yeesh, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling Journal needs to step up more with the peer review... although the journal exists solely for the theoretical, not stuff that has actually been tested extensively.

Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.

We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10(8) generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10(9).
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. - PubMed - NCB

Uh, I thought you didn't want to use sources from creationists? Because this one was written by Behe... in 2004, making it far too old to be considered up to date with our current understanding of genetics even if the guy wasn't well know for his biases.

One thing that stands out to me with his paper is that he assumes that simply because a given outcome is unlikely that it makes it impossible. Yet, it doesn't matter how large and varied a deck a person has, if they deal 5 cards, some combination of 5 cards will be dealt. Who knows how many possible beneficial genes could exist that never will simply because they happen to never be dealt?

Also, for whatever reason, Behe doesn't bother to account for active sites. The small portions of proteins that mostly determine function and drastically change function if they are altered at all.

Also, while population sizes of 1 billion sound very impressive I am sure (10^9) as do 10^8 generations, single celled organisms have extremely high populations and reproduce so frequently as to make his suggested "necessary" population sizes and generation numbers quite obtainable in nature for many organisms. But assuming that single base pair mutations by themselves are the only source of new gene functions worth accounting for was rather silly. And that bacteria evolution experiment that was started in the 1980s demonstrated that traits that require multiple mutations (such as citrate digestion) can occur via multiple independent mutations.

-_- not that his paper bothers to account for the fact that active genes are more prone to being exposed and thus mutating than inactive genes and non-gene segments. Seriously, it isn't even fair to try to cite a paper from 2004, our understanding of genetics is so much better now that I can't tell if Behe was omitting stuff or if it genuinely wasn't known at that time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You could at least report it accurately. In a large population a mutation will never become fixed in the general population..... That a mutation might have an effect once in a blue moon.... and it becoming fized in a population are two different things.

Which is why the only paper presented by a fellow evolutionary compadre of yours required we calculate for a "static" population..... of "finite" size.....

I'll freely admit that a mutation in one of your descendants may one day (a blue moon) make a beneficial change, that will never fix itself in the general population unless the rest of the population dies off, so that your descendants are the entire population... perhaps because of a flood maybe.....

-_- you say that as if I don't have an increasing number of ancestors the more generations back I go. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. Just by going back 12 generations, I have over 4000 ancestors, and it doubles with each generation I go back further. Plus, you seem to be ignoring regional isolation and various causes of massive amounts of death in the human population that have occurred repeatedly in the past. It's like you don't account for the massive number of people that died from the Black Plague or various wars, starvation, etc. I mean, the Black Plague by itself killed off at least 30% of all the people in Europe, with entire towns completely wiped out. You don't think that was sufficient to make the surviving traits far more prevalent than they had previously been? Did you assume that the survivors retained the distribution of traits that existed before the massive amounts of death?

Also, human populations have always been of a finite size, including now. Increasing doesn't equate to infinite. And a large population just means that it takes longer for a trait to become fixed in it, not that it is impossible for the trait to become fixed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ptolemy lived some 1700 years before 'science' as we know it, was a thing.
If your argument is that it will be hard to get to accurate answers without the help of the standardized process of science, then I'll agree to that.

But that's not your argument, is it?
No. Your argument is...well...whatever suits you in the moment.

Does that irrational belief make you feel better?

Hmmm, and yet we use the Copernican model which overturned the ptolemic model and was invented at the same time.... and yet you call science, even though it too was obtained without the "standardized" process.

So your argument seems to be to call scientific whatever suits you, and non-scientific whatever suits you at any given moment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- you say that as if I don't have an increasing number of ancestors the more generations back I go. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. Just by going back 12 generations, I have over 4000 ancestors, and it doubles with each generation I go back further.

So your claiming 200,000 years ago over 200 billion people existed on the planet?????? And you are descended from every one of them?????

Plus, you seem to be ignoring regional isolation and various causes of massive amounts of death in the human population that have occurred repeatedly in the past. It's like you don't account for the massive number of people that died from the Black Plague or various wars, starvation, etc.

You assume those traits developed by a process other than the recombining of genomes during mating.

Are you now claiming that wars caused new traits to develop?

I mean, the Black Plague by itself killed off at least 30% of all the people in Europe, with entire towns completely wiped out. You don't think that was sufficient to make the surviving traits far more prevalent than they had previously been? Did you assume that the survivors retained the distribution of traits that existed before the massive amounts of death?

I assume they kept the traits from the first pair onwards. But what does that 30% do to your claims of doubling every generation above except remove it.

Also, human populations have always been of a finite size, including now. Increasing doesn't equate to infinite. And a large population just means that it takes longer for a trait to become fixed in it, not that it is impossible for the trait to become fixed.

I agree, it's not impossible when you kill off all but a few thousand.......

At a world population of 1 billion, it would take the entire existence of the earth for such to become remotely possible. How long have modern humans been in existence even under your theory? With populations that have been isolated from one another to the extent that racial features have become set (inherited traits)?

Only in recent times has the population began to mix, and even then can you tell me how long it is going to take for the entire Asian population to inherit a gene from your family? Even if we assume one marries one of your descendants every time? Can we say Billions upon billions upon billions of years?

So we agree the starting population must be extremely small for all to share related traits.... Or you must kill off almost all in a catastrophe, say like a flood....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does that irrational belief make you feel better?

Hmmm, and yet we use the Copernican model which overturned the ptolemic model and was invented at the same time.... and yet you call science, even though it too was obtained without the "standardized" process.

So your argument seems to be to call scientific whatever suits you, and non-scientific whatever suits you at any given moment.

You should learn to read with an attention span longer then 2 seconds.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it is hard to get accurate answers without a proper standardized and well tested method of investigation.

Science as we know it, is quite a recent thing which doesn't go back much further then Newton / galilleo.

And nevertheless, people do the best they can with the info at their disposal at any given time.
That new information later down the line makes people change their understanding is a GOOD thing. It's called learning.

The likes of you like to portray it as a bad thing and I have no idea why.

Well, I do actually.... it has to do with defense mechanisms in an attempt to desperatly clinge to bronze age religious stories and myths.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So your claiming 200,000 years ago over 200 billion people existed on the planet?????? And you are descended from every one of them?????





You assume those traits developed by a process other than the recombining of genomes during mating.

Are you now claiming that wars caused new traits to develop?



I assume they kept the traits from the first pair onwards. But what does that 30% do to your claims of doubling every generation above except remove it.




I agree, it's not impossible when you kill off all but a few thousand.......

At a world population of 1 billion, it would take the entire existence of the earth for such to become remotely possible. How long have modern humans been in existence even under your theory? With populations that have been isolated from one another to the extent that racial features have become set (inherited traits)?

Only in recent times has the population began to mix, and even then can you tell me how long it is going to take for the entire Asian population to inherit a gene from your family? Even if we assume one marries one of your descendants every time? Can we say Billions upon billions upon billions of years?

So we agree the starting population must be extremely small for all to share related traits.... Or you must kill off almost all in a catastrophe, say like a flood....

Please, please, read up a bit on population genetics and dynamics.

People are trying to explain to you how you are utterly wrong in your assertions, but you don't seem to be caring at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science as we know it, is quite a recent thing which doesn't go back much further then Newton / galilleo.

Translation: science has burned its bridges* behind them?

* Flat earth, geocentrism, four elements: earth, air, fire, water (stunted the growth of science for 2000 years), Lamarckism, Phlogiston theory, Nebraska Man, Plu...

Oh wait ... you said Newton ... sorry. I got carried away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Translation: science has burned its bridges* behind them?

* Flat earth, geocentrism, four elements: earth, air, fire, water (stunted the growth of science for 2000 years), Lamarckism, Phlogiston theory, Nebraska Man, Plu...

Oh wait ... you said Newton ... sorry. I got carried away.

Random irrelevant comment is random and irrelevant

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You should learn to read with an attention span longer then 2 seconds.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it is hard to get accurate answers without a proper standardized and well tested method of investigation.

Science as we know it, is quite a recent thing which doesn't go back much further then Newton / galilleo.

And nevertheless, people do the best they can with the info at their disposal at any given time.
That new information later down the line makes people change their understanding is a GOOD thing. It's called learning.

The likes of you like to portray it as a bad thing and I have no idea why.

Well, I do actually.... it has to do with defense mechanisms in an attempt to desperatly clinge to bronze age religious stories and myths.

It’s hard to get accurate answers with the best of equipment and standardized science.

They have been searching for Fairie Dust Dark Matter for over 80 years and still won’t give up theirs epicycles, while ignoring a universe 99.9% plasma and every laboratory experiment with that state of matter.

So apparently they still haven’t learned all that much.

And evolution supporters, now they are in a class of their own.

You do got me there though, since your religious stories and myths are slightly less old than the Bronze Age. Slightly......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Translation: science has burned its bridges* behind them?

* Flat earth, geocentrism, four elements: earth, air, fire, water (stunted the growth of science for 2000 years), Lamarckism, Phlogiston theory, Nebraska Man, Plu...

Oh wait ... you said Newton ... sorry. I got carried away.

Yah they still haven’t learned from history. That every few hundred years everything they believed was true is overturned. And the Bible and the truths it contains just keeps marching on.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yah they still haven’t learned from history. That every few hundred years everything they believed was true is overturned. And the Bible and the truths it contains just keeps marching on.

Remind us, how does the bible say we should treat lepers? Then explain how that truth "keeps marching on".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yah they still haven’t learned from history. That every few hundred years everything they believed was true is overturned.

It's called learning and it's a good thing.
But we all know by now that you don't like learning.

And the Bible and the truths it contains just keeps marching on.

Because people dogmatically stick to it and keep it alive through "faith" - despite evidence of the contrary.

That's what "fundamentalism" is. Sticking to beliefs, no matter the total lack of evidence AND the evidence that contradicts it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the Bible and the truths it contains just keeps marching on.

Yup -- that's why we call them: eternal truths.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remind us, how does the bible say we should treat lepers?

By quarantining them?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Remind us, how does the bible say we should treat lepers? Then explain how that truth "keeps marching on".

Oh about the same way men treated them until recent history. And most are still shunned to this day.

But as AV said with quarantine.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what "fundamentalism" is. Sticking to beliefs, no matter the total lack of evidence AND the evidence that contradicts it.

Is science fundamental, according to your description?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yup -- that's why we call them: eternal truths.

It’s also why we have ‘truth in advertising’ laws.