What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[Almost there]

/facepalm

That populations evolve, and not individuals, is like evolution 101.

Exactly. But it is no more relevant to the "evolution" debate than the evolution of the Corvette.

If you can show that over "BILLIONS" of years, the moths went from mostly dark to mostly light, and back again time and time again, you've really proven nothing regarding the title of this thread.

i.e. it's 101 and stays at that level. IF that is the only kind of evolution that takes place, the "theory of evolution" is, ipso facto, bunk, and the debate is over.

That's the thing. We have that kind of evolution, and then we have mutation, which some like to shoehorn into some sort of other "evolution".

 

[DogmaHunter]

This "young earth" thing is where I depart from many of my Christian brethren. I confess that I believe that they could be right, since God really could do "it", to make it look old, but I've not seen a reason for Him to. Fact is, the bible is silent on a LOT of things. It gives enough information to prove His authority and power, but hanging on every "interpreted into english" word in text written thousands of years ago by a man who did not witness events is not really the right way to go about it.

I believe that just as Revelation uses a lot of euphemisms and symbolisms, so does Genesis regarding the period before recorded history.

However, all of that being said, I would not be surprised if the YEC's are correct, if only because God has all sorts of reasons for doing things that none of us are privy to.

Why would you believe non-supportable and non-demonstrably claims about anything, especially if these claims fly in the face of observable reality?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly. But it is no more relevant to the "evolution" debate than the evolution of the Corvette.

Huh? There is no "evolution of the corvette" in the sense of the word "evolution" in context of biology.

If you can show that over "BILLIONS" of years, the moths went from mostly dark to mostly light, and back again time and time again, you've really proven nothing regarding the title of this thread.

Billions of years? What the heck are you on about?

i.e. it's 101 and stays at that level.

/facepalm

The "101" part means that is fundamental to the model.
It's not a "level".

IF that is the only kind of evolution that takes place, the "theory of evolution" is, ipso facto, bunk, and the debate is over.

No. Populations evolve. Evolution is about groups. About populations, species. Not about individuals.

That's the thing. We have that kind of evolution, and then we have mutation, which some like to shoehorn into some sort of other "evolution".

Mutation is how change gets introduced.
"mutation" is not evolution. It's just one ingredient of the process.

It seems as if you could use a crash course in evolution fundamentals.

 

[Almost there]

Why would you believe non-supportable and non-demonstrably claims about anything, especially if these claims fly in the face of observable reality?

You are looking for an argument where none exists. All I said was that I would not be surprised, not that I believe it. I would not be surprised because I've experienced God's miracles. I would not be surprised if full knowlege proved that it turned out JBL had Kennedy killed, even though the evidence we have today does not support it.

I believe what evidence supports, and I "somewhat believe" what evidence "somewhat supports".

 

[Almost there]

Huh? There is no "evolution of the corvette" in the sense of the word "evolution" in context of biology.



Billions of years? What the heck are you on about?



/facepalm

The "101" part means that is fundamental to the model.
It's not a "level".



No. Populations evolve. Evolution is about groups. About populations, species. Not about individuals.



Mutation is how change gets introduced.
"mutation" is not evolution. It's just one ingredient of the process.

It seems as if you could use a crash course in evolution fundamentals.

Yes. I do admit I'm not wording it very well. I'm actually heads down in work documentation and not putting my full attention to this. In a nutshell, the spotted moth example is not "evolution" as people think of "evolution" in the "we came from monkeys" sort of context. It is traits becoming dominant. That's all. It's why people don't "evolve" back into apes on a generational basis.

And my comment about mutation is just to point out that all that has been observed is specific mutations. Any time poeple mention evolution, biologically speaking, they are discussing an hypothesis from observed mutations, not what is actually observed. What is observed is mutation.

 

[rjs330]

It's not an interpretation. It's the way it is.

As said, an evolutionary process, where all life is related, can result in only one pattern: the nested hierarchy.

And when we compare the collective genomes of all species and map the matches out on a graph, then a nested hierarchy is what we get. And that same tree pattern also matches the pattern that emerges when we use different and independent lines of evidence, like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species etc....

It's just how it is.
This pattern needs an explanation. Evolution provides that explanation.
Multiple individual and independent creation events of fully formed species, can not account for this pattern, unless by saying that the creator went out of his way to make sure this pattern was the result.



You mean, that that is your literalist interpretation of the bible.
That's all fine and dandy, but as said... it does not match the evidence of reality.



No. I don't chose my beliefs.
I just stick to the data of reality.

You have a claim about how species came about and the predictions of your claim do not match reality.

On the other hand, we have a scientific model that offers an explanation of how species came about and this one also makes a bunch of predictions... and those predictions DO match reality.

It's just how it is.

You can continue ignoring reality and sticking to your beliefs. That's fine. But be honest about it.

The scientific model you have is one of assumptions. You like the tree, but the fossil record does not support the nested heirarchy. The fossil record always has things suddenly appearing with not transitional fossils. Your genetic understanding simply points out commonalities between creatures. It is an assumption that those commonalities prove common ancestry if all things. But all it really shows is common design. It is only an assumption that it shows common ancestry and evolution. You still have no evidence that the evolutionary process ever really occurred. At best the only thing you might be able to state is that mammals descended from mammals and cold blooded creatures from cold blooded creatures and fish from fish. That's it. But again the fossil record shows no such thing. And since you cannot observe such a thing happening and you cannot test such a belief all you have left are assumptions. Let me ask you this. What is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In a nutshell, the spotted moth example is not "evolution" as people think of "evolution" in the "we came from monkeys" sort of context.

Now, it kind of sounds as if you wish to point out some imaginary difference between micro and macro evolution.

In reality, it's the same gradual process of accumulating micro changes. The only diffence is overall scale (in amount of generations, for example).

It is traits becoming dominant. That's all.

Indeed. Natural selection. The same process that powers speciation and further diverging, like with the whole "chimp and human" thingy.

It's the same process.

It's why people don't "evolve" back into apes on a generational basis.

Humans are apes.

And my comment about mutation is just to point out that all that has been observed is specific mutations.

What else did you expect? "non-specific" mutations? What would that look like?

Any time poeple mention evolution, biologically speaking, they are discussing an hypothesis

No, rather: a theory. Evolution got promoted from mere hypothesis to theory more then a century ago.

from observed mutations, not what is actually observed. What is observed is mutation.

What is observed, is the evolutionary process.
What is also observed, is the predictions of evolution theory matching reality like a glove.

No, we don't observe in real-time evolutionary timelines on a scale that takes millions of years in a single life-time.

Seems rather obvious.

 

[Almost there]

The scientific model you have is one of assumptions. You like the tree, but the fossil record does not support the nested heirarchy. The fossil record always has things suddenly appearing with not transitional fossils. Your genetic understanding simply points out commonalities between creatures. It is an assumption that those commonalities prove common ancestry if all things. But all it really shows is common design. It is only an assumption that it shows common ancestry and evolution. You still have no evidence that the evolutionary process ever really occurred. At best the only thing you might be able to state is that mammals descended from mammals and cold blooded creatures from cold blooded creatures and fish from fish. That's it. But again the fossil record shows no such thing. And since you cannot observe such a thing happening and you cannot test such a belief all you have left are assumptions. Let me ask you this. What is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates?

This hits the core problem I've had with the whole thing even before I was a Christian. I'm very skeptical when it comes to science, for the simple reason that we've discovered over and over that "modern" science, at whatever time it was "modern" was thought by lay people to be true, yet it often turned out to be 180 degrees from the truth, but it took many dogmatic scientist a generation to change their views, while others adapted to the new information quickly.

And, at the end of the day, all they really have is assumptions, regarding evolution as preached.

 

[Almost there]

Now, it kind of sounds as if you wish to point out some imaginary difference between micro and macro evolution.

Nope. What I'm arguing is that with spotted moths, there was no evolution of individual moths. Rather, some traits became more dominant, and when the environment changed again, the other traits became dominant again. Each moth was still a spotted moth and had within it the ability to reproduce the same type of spotted moth that existed a thousand generations before. The ones that survived because of their color became dominant. And when the background colors changed, making them less likely to survive, they became the minority color. And when the background color changed again, the population dominance changed again.

There was no mutation. "Evolution" depends on mutation.

 

[rjs330]

Why would you believe non-supportable and non-demonstrably claims about anything, especially if these claims fly in the face of observable reality?

Observable reality? None of what evolutionists claim happened in the distant past over billions of years has ever been observed. All you actually have is some testing and theory that is around 100 years old. Much of it even more recent. Yet you still cannot show it ever happening.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The scientific model you have is one of assumptions.

It's not.

You like the tree, but the fossil record does not support the nested heirarchy.

Except that it does.
No species shows up in a layer where it shouldn't be.
We don't fine mammals mixed with trilobites for example.

The fossil record always has things suddenly appearing with not transitional fossils.

Fossilization is a rare process. Creating a fossil is really hard.
To assume you'll find such an abundance of fossils is like assuming that you can show me a photo of your face of every second of every day since you were born.

Reality simply doesn't work that way.
And the fact remains: no fossils are found in layers where they couldn't be.

You don't find mammals next to trilobites.

Your genetic understanding simply points out commonalities between creatures.

Nested hierarchies and genetic markers point to common ancestry.
This is how, btw, we can also tell your biological brother from some random person.

DNA allows us to establish levels of relatedness.
Courts do it all the time in paternity cases or to determine relatedness in inheritance cases etc.

It is an assumption that those commonalities prove common ancestry if all things.

It is not. It is based on an understanding on how reproduction works.

But all it really shows is common design.

No. Again: nested hierarchies. Not mere "commonalities".

It is only an assumption that it shows common ancestry and evolution

It is not.
It is a demonstrable fact that an evolutionary process would result in a nested hierarchy and ONLY in a nested hierarchy.

And it's exactly such a pattern that we observe in life.

You still have no evidence that the evolutionary process ever really occurred.

Except for the fact that every single aspect of the evolutionary process is demonstrable and observable AND that all independent lines of evidence (comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, fossil record, geographich distribution of species, etc) ALL converge on that same answer and that same hierarchy.

At best the only thing you might be able to state is that mammals descended from mammals and cold blooded creatures from cold blooded creatures and fish from fish. That's it.

And that all those also share ancestors.

But again the fossil record shows no such thing.

The fossil record is completely consisted with such a thing.
We don't find mammals next to trilobites.
We also never find mammals with feathers or reptiles with inner ear bones.
Because nested hierarchy.

And since you cannot observe such a thing happening

We constantly observe it happening. In the wild, in the lab, in virusses, in bacteria, in agriculture, in breeding programs,...

and you cannot test such a belief all you have left are assumptions.

Evolution is extremely testable as it makes an inumerable amount of testable predictions. Which is one of the reasons why it is such solid and established science.

Considering the ridiculous amount of testable predictions in evolution... IF evolution is false, then demonstrating it as false should be trivial.

Let me ask you this. What is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates?

Determining that 2 species (or individuals) share an ancestor is one thing. Identifying that ancestor is another.

Let's dumb it down so that you can think clearly about it, because you have to much emotional baggage attached to your evolution denial. Let's just stick to humans for now...

Consider this hypothetical:
Suppose there is this tribe somewhere in the middle of nowhere of 1000 individuals, 200 of which are newborn babies, less then 6 months old.
For some reason, the tribe is attacked and all 800 non-babies are massacred and burned until there is nothing left.
The other 200 are sold into adoption around the world. Their place of origin not communicated and lost in the pages of history for all of time.
Let's say 2 babies are sent to New York. They are brother and sister but nobody knows that. Each gets adopted by seperate families.

Years later, both their DNA ends up in a research project for some reason.

==> now, it can be determined, based on their DNA, that they are siblings. Yet, their parents are completely unknown.

So there you have it.............
Determining common ancestry is one thing.
Identifying that common ancestor, is another.

The second, does not exclude the first.

So as for your question "What is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates?"...
The answer is simply: I don't know, but that doesn't stop us from being able to determine that they both share ancestry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope. What I'm arguing is that with spotted moths, there was no evolution of individual moths.

How many times must it be repeated that evolution is not about individuals, but about groups / populations / species?

Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.

Rather, some traits became more dominant, and when the environment changed again, the other traits became dominant again.

Yes. And this is not evolution, why exactly?

Each moth was still a spotted moth and had within it the ability to reproduce the same type of spotted moth that existed a thousand generations before. The ones that survived because of their color became dominant. And when the background colors changed, making them less likely to survive, they became the minority color. And when the background color changed again, the population dominance changed again.

So?

There was no mutation. "Evolution" depends on mutation.

No. Evolution does not depend on any single thing.
It's a process with various ingredients, all of which are important.
In this case, it's natural selection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Observable reality?

Yes. Like nested hierarchies in living things, like earth's data that shows it to be 4.5 billion years old, etc.

None of what evolutionists claim happened in the distant past over billions of years has ever been observed.

Stating the obvious? Yes, yes.... nobody was around to observe what happened a million years ago. Great.

Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an orbit either, because it's orbit actually takes longer then we have known about its existance.

Nevertheless, we know EXACTLY how long it takes to complete an obrit.

Nobody was around to witness the meteor impact of 65 million years ago either. But as you most certainly already heared once: events of the past, leave evidence that can be observed and investigated in the present.

 

[Almost there]

How many times must it be repeated that evolution is not about individuals, but about groups / populations / species?

Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.

I get that. But the fact is that the "theory" (really, it's an hypothesis) of evolution depends on a single mutation in a single, individual, that is then carried forward to future generations.

Without that, nothing has evolved. Well, except a population. You know, like the population of the US is different than it was five hundred years ago. But nobody evolved. i.e. mutated.

 

[Speedwell]

I get that. But the fact is that the "theory" (really, it's an hypothesis) of evolution depends on a single mutation in a single, individual, that is then carried forward to future generations.

Without that, nothing has evolved. Well, except a population. You know, like the population of the US is different than it was five hundred years ago. But nobody evolved. i.e. mutated.

No. Evolution proceeds by phenotypic varation followed by natural selection. Mutations contribute to that variation but are not the sole cause of it.

The notion that everything stays the same until a mutation is expressed in a single individual is arrant creationist nonsense.

 

[pitabread]

Because the population evolved, not the individual moths.

...

But that is how evolution works. Populations evolve, not individuals.

Not seeing your objection here.

 

[rjs330]

It's not.



Except that it does.
No species shows up in a layer where it shouldn't be.
We don't fine mammals mixed with trilobites for example.




Fossilization is a rare process. Creating a fossil is really hard.
To assume you'll find such an abundance of fossils is like assuming that you can show me a photo of your face of every second of every day since you were born.

Reality simply doesn't work that way.
And the fact remains: no fossils are found in layers where they couldn't be.

You don't find mammals next to trilobites.



Nested hierarchies and genetic markers point to common ancestry.
This is how, btw, we can also tell your biological brother from some random person.

DNA allows us to establish levels of relatedness.
Courts do it all the time in paternity cases or to determine relatedness in inheritance cases etc.



It is not. It is based on an understanding on how reproduction works.



No. Again: nested hierarchies. Not mere "commonalities".



It is not.
It is a demonstrable fact that an evolutionary process would result in a nested hierarchy and ONLY in a nested hierarchy.

And it's exactly such a pattern that we observe in life.



Except for the fact that every single aspect of the evolutionary process is demonstrable and observable AND that all independent lines of evidence (comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, fossil record, geographich distribution of species, etc) ALL converge on that same answer and that same hierarchy.




And that all those also share ancestors.



The fossil record is completely consisted with such a thing.
We don't find mammals next to trilobites.
We also never find mammals with wings or reptiles with inner ear bones.
Because nested hierarchy.


We constantly observe it happening. In the wild, in the lab, in virusses, in bacteria, in agriculture, in breeding programs,...



Evolution is extremely testable as it makes an inumerable amount of testable predictions. Which is one of the reasons why it is such solid and established science.

Considering the ridiculous amount of testable predictions in evolution... IF evolution is false, then demonstrating it as false should be trivial.




Determining that 2 species (or individuals) share an ancestor is one thing. Identifying that ancestor is another.

Let's dumb it down so that you can think clearly about it, because you have to much emotional baggage attached to your evolution denial. Let's just stick to humans for now...

Consider this hypothetical:
Suppose there is this tribe somewhere in the middle of nowhere of 1000 individuals, 200 of which are newborn babies, less then 6 months old.
For some reason, the tribe is attacked and all 800 non-babies are massacred and burned until there is nothing left.
The other 200 are sold into adoption around the world. Their place of origin not communicated and lost in the pages of history for all of time.
Let's say 2 babies are sent to New York. They are brother and sister but nobody knows that. Each gets adopted by seperate families.

Years later, both their DNA ends up in a research project for some reason.

==> now, it can be determined, based on their DNA, that they are siblings. Yet, their parents are completely unknown.

So there you have it.............
Determining common ancestry is one thing.
Identifying that common ancestor, is another.

The second, does not exclude the first.

So as for your question "What is the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates?"...
The answer is simply: I don't know, but that doesn't stop us from being able to determine that they both share ancestry.

No you do not have any evidence of it ever occuring. None. You assume it occurred. The fossil record does not show evolution from a common ancestor. In the rock layers all that is shown are things fully formed. It shows no transitional fossils. Nested heirarchy and DNA only show commonalities they do not show evolution. It shows common design. In the lab all you can show are things adapting and changing but remaining what they have always been. Evolution from a common ancestor states that all life came from one thing. Yet all observable verifiable data shows in that all things remain in the same family or group they belong to. Viruses remain viruses and bacteria remain bacteria. They don't change into something they were not in the beginning.

And you analogy proves my point. All those babies, are still humans even if we don't know who their ancestor was. Their ancestor was a human being. Their ancestor was not some sort of monkey.

Nested heirarchy and phylogenetic trees are nothing but assumptions based upon the belief in evolution. Yet no evidence of it ever occuring has never been shown.

uncommondescent.com/darwinism/taxonomic-nested-hierarchies-dont-support-darwinism

 

[Almost there]

No. Evolution proceeds by phenotypic varation followed by natural selection. Mutations contribute to that variation but are not the sole cause of it.

The notion that everything stays the same until a mutation is expressed in a single individual is arrant creationist nonsense.

If something changes, it is by definition a mutation. If it is not a mutation, it has not changed. I keep thinking about the blue vs brown eyes thing as I type my posts.

And I'm not talking about non-mutation changes like chopping off a finger. No, that will not result in fingerless offspring.

The bottom line is I think we can establish that we all believe in the kind of evolution that some have described as "micro". Though I hate that word because it is a completely different thing from "macro" evolution.

Biology is fascinating. And the facts we know and learn are fascinating. Heck, even the theories and hypotheses are fascinating. I don't understand why there is even an argument, until people start getting into the weeds about the origin of species based on no science whatsoever, but only hypotheses.

We agree more than we disagree. It's the conclusions that need work.

 

[Speedwell]

In the rock layers all that is shown are things fully formed. It shows no transitional fossils.

Clearly we are not on the same page as to what a transitional fossil is. In particular, I am not sure what you mean by "fully formed." Are not all living creatures fully formed?

 

[Almost there]

...

But that is how evolution works. Populations evolve, not individuals.

Not seeing your objection here.

That is a figure of speech. The spotted moths are still the same thing. Not one single moth evolved. And after many generations, not one single moth evolved. The traits are still there. That is why they go from predominantly dark, to light and back to dark again. The ones with the traits that survive are more successful at procreating. Sure, an attribute can go away completely over time, but that is different from something brand new coming into existence that was not there before, and becoming a dominant trait in the species. Sure, there is a lot of hypothesizing on it. There are even theories on it, but none have been proven, though some have argued that they are theories because they should be provable via the scientific method.

And that "new" thing that comes about is a mutation, by definition.