What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[doubtingmerle]

The key is that they didn't "prove" mutation took place. Rather, they concluded that it "almost certainly" must have.

If you deny an event that almost certainly must have happened, then you are almost certainly wrong

 

[Speedwell]

Here is one we agree on. This may also explain why cars evolve, but life often "de-evolves". i.e. the mutation is WORSE.

Of course. Each new generation of a species presents a randomly distributed (think "bell curve") range of variants to the environment for selection. Some, of course, will not be selected. In a stable environment that will be both tails of the distribution. In a changing environment it would be one tail. The fortunate tail and most of the middle of the distribution will survive to breed and when they do the next generation will again present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, only this time the central tendency of the distribution will be shifted in the fortunate direction. And so on.

 

[sfs]

so you consider any change as evolution basically?

Since that's exactly the opposite of what I just said, you should know that the answer is "no".

 

[xianghua]

There is a reason no one else uses that analogy. Machines are not analogous to living things.

if they are able to reproduce with variation, why not?

 

[xianghua]

Cars change because engineers change the drawings.

no. they can be change by a natural process too (a rust for instance).

 

[xianghua]

Since that's exactly the opposite of what I just said, you should know that the answer is "no".

so why the moth case is example of evolution rather then variation?

 

[Almost there]

If you deny an event that almost certainly must have happened, then you are almost certainly wrong

There you go again - "almost", "must have" - either it did or didn't. If it did, the experiment successfully proved it. If it didn't, the experiement successfully proved that it didn't. There is no "almost". At least, there isn't in the scientific method. It's quite binary.

 

[Almost there]

Of course. Each new generation of a species presents a randomly distributed (think "bell curve") range of variants to the environment for selection. Some, of course, will not be selected. In a stable environment that will be both tails of the distribution. In a changing environment it would be one tail. The fortunate tail and most of the middle of the distribution will survive to breed and when they do the next generation will again present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, only this time the central tendency of the distribution will be shifted in the fortunate direction. And so on.

That's an interesting theory you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

 

[Speedwell]

That's an interesting theory you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Yes, it is interesting--it's called the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection. Aren't you here to make something happen to it?

 

[Almost there]

That's the theory of evolution. Aren't you here to make something happen to it?

Hey, I was just having fun with a favorite gangster phrase.

I suppose it was a bit off topic. I just kinda like to have fun in these threads. Not one single person in this thread knows for sure, which sort of makes the whole thing just a bit comical that people get so feisty in these evolution v ID threads, you have to admit.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because the population evolved, not the individual moths.

It's like saying the evolution of the Mustang is proof of evolution. Or the shifts in the dominant race in north America in the last 600 years is proof of evolution.

Do you understand the number of times people clarify that "populations evolve, not individuals"?

 

[Speedwell]

Hey, I was just having fun with a favorite gangster phrase.

I suppose it was a bit off topic. I just kinda like to have fun in these threads. Not one single person in this thread knows for sure, which sort of makes the whole thing just a bit comical that people get so feisty in these evolution v ID threads, you have to admit.

Knows what for sure? At least some of us know what the theory of evolution claims for itself, right or wrong. Most of the time we seem to wind up arguing with creationists about what the theory of evolution actually says, not whether it is right or wrong. That was the occasion of my post.

 

[sfs]

Until it is proven through scientific experimentation it is a theory. If one can't come up with an experiment to prove or disprove it, it is an hypothesis. The key is that they didn't "prove" mutation took place. Rather, they concluded that it "almost certainly" must have.

So many confusions, so little time. . .
First, science doesn't require experimentation; observation works just fine too. All that it needs is empirical data. That's why astronomy is a science. Second, a well-supported theory is as good as it gets in science -- and that's a lot better than a mere hypothesis. Third, concluding that something is "almost certainly true" is also as good as it gets. Science never proves things in the sense you mean.

Scientific rules are really, absurdly simple. If you don't follow them, what you are doing may be really cool and useful (like a lot of stuff Tesla did), but if you don't follow the scientific method, it's not science.

Hint: one of us is a scientist.

 

[Almost there]

Do you understand the number of times people clarify that "populations evolve, not individuals"?

Yes. I simply thing they are ignoring HOW populations evolve. They evolve via changes in individuals. That is, if real biological "evolution" is taking place within a population, a subsequent generation from a single set of parents will have a difference from the parents that the parents don't have. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but you get my drift.

 

[sfs]

so why the moth case is example of evolution rather then variation?

Because it was a case of a heritable trait whose frequency changed in the population over the generations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes. I simply thing they are ignoring HOW populations evolve. They evolve via changes in individuals. That is, if real biological "evolution" is taking place within a population, a subsequent generation from a single set of parents will have a difference from the parents that the parents don't have. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but you get my drift.

In humans, each child born has 40-60 mutations not shared with their parents. People are born with traits their parents don't have, it's just not usually a drastic change. It's a little bit at a time, sir, a little bit at a time. Heck, some pretty drastic internal changes can be overlooked if they don't affect outward appearance, such as rib number. Sure, most people have 12 pairs of ribs, but some people are born with extra ribs or are born with some missing.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. I simply thing they are ignoring HOW populations evolve. They evolve via changes in individuals. That is, if real biological "evolution" is taking place within a population, a subsequent generation from a single set of parents will have a difference from the parents that the parents don't have. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but you get my drift.

That sounds about right, except that the differences will be qualitative rather than quantitative in most cases, and taking the population as a whole will form a random distribution. There is another interesting feedback loop besides variation/selection which has recently be discovered. In times of continuing stable selection criteria the standard deviation of the distribution will actually shrink, producing more individuals near the mean. When the selection criteria begin to change, the standard deviation will increase again. In a constant environment, producing wide "tails" which will inevatibly be deselected is an unnecessary expense to the species, but in a changing environment they are necessary to insure that there will be sufficient individuals to take advantage of the new conditions.

 

[Skreeper]

There you go again - "almost", "must have" - either it did or didn't. If it did, the experiment successfully proved it. If it didn't, the experiement successfully proved that it didn't. There is no "almost". At least, there isn't in the scientific method. It's quite binary.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes but not science.

 

[xianghua]

Because it was a case of a heritable trait whose frequency changed in the population over the generations.

so you consider any such variation as evolution. but again: its just a variation, so why call it evolution?

 

[Astrophile]

Or maybe no fossils were created at the time. You know as well as I do the fossil record does not show all creatures that may have lived during the time. The record is sparse when it come to how many or what existed. I am using the same argument you like to use. You say since we have no mammals in the fossil record they didn't exist. Then you say we have no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor in the fossil record but it still happened. You can't have it both ways.

Thank-you for your reply.

First, I said that there are no fossil mammals dating from the time that trilobites existed (i.e. the Palaeozoic era, more than 250 million years ago); I didn't say that there are no mammals in the fossil record. In fact there are fossil mammals dating back to the Triassic period and huge numbers of fossil mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) going back to the Permian period (250-300 million years), and there are great numbers of fossil mammals in Cenozoic rocks (less than 65 million years ago). In fact, it is the large numbers of Cenozoic fossil mammals that makes it difficult to believe that mammals could have lived during the Palaeozoic era without some of them being fossilised.

Second, there are many transitional fossils, both among vertebrates and among invertebrates - see List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia . Also there is genetic evidence for the descent of living things from common ancestors. The succession of fossils from the Cambrian period (542 to 488 million years ago) to the present day shows that living things have changed dramatically over that time. With well studied groups, such as horses - Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia - the anatomical changes from the earliest forms to the living animals can be followed in detail, with the ancestral and descendant genera or species being identifiable. Again, the existence of such detailed fossil records makes it difficult to believe that mammals could have lived during the Palaeozoic era without at least a few of them being fossilised.

I admit that, so far as I know, the fossil record cannot be traced back far into the Precambrian, let alone to the origin of life in Hadean times, but the fossils from the Cambrian period onwards provide a record that is sufficiently complete to demonstrate the history of the evolution of the main groups of vertebrates, and of some invertebrates.

If humans have existed for millions of years as you believe then trillions of people have died during all those years. Where are all those fossils?

In fact, Homo sapiens has probably existed for only 200,000 to 300,000 years, although the genus Homo has existed for about 2.58 million years. It depends on what you are willing to call human. However, until about 10,000 years ago, at any one time, the average human population was probably about 15,000. If the average life-span was about 35 years (typical for a chimpanzee), the total number of members of the genus Homo who lived between 2.58 million and 10,000 years ago was about 1.1 billion (15,000 × 2.58 million/35).

Most of these hominins lived in Africa, where the hot climate probably leads to rapid decay of fossils, and where there are many predators and scavengers to dispose of dead bodies and bones. Nevertheless, plenty of fossils of Homo species have survived; according to List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia there are about 130 known, dating between the Lower Palaeolithic (2.58 million to 400,000 years) and the Holocene (<10,000 years). This is a sparse record, but it is probably enough to establish the broad lines of human evolution and migration since the first appearance of the genus Homo.