Why do people believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

Evolution Definition: The ORIGIN of the SPECIES
Postulate: Natural Selection
Natural Selection: The Spanish introduced cattle into Texas abt 1700. A portion of those cattle were left to roam until abt 1850 and through natural selection produced a distinct new Breed of cattle, the Texas Longhorns.
Not a New Species..the Breed of Cattle, Texas Longhorns, were expressions of genetic code inherent in all cattle.
So selective breeding is not evolution. Origin of Species does not occur through natural selection.
I am not going to argue Natural Selection. It always occurs within species and is easily demonstrated through centuries of selective livestock breeding.
Natural Selection Is Not Evolution
Evolution is the Creation of Species. That has never happened through natural selection because the naturally selected genes must be present in the selected animal. Those animals must have the ability to interbreed, which is the very definition of Species..one unique species.
Postulate: Genetic Mutation
So we have Mutation as the mechanism of evolution or the Creation of Species.
Mutations are random and so far as we know, invariably destructive to the organism and/or the ability to survive.
There is the new theory "Mitochondrial Eve" whereby it is claimed that there was a genetic shift in the DNA about 200,000 years ago which "switched" ape to human.
However the more research that is done, the more muddied the waters.
So that is interesting BUT so far, evolution does not have a postulate other than "probably a random mutation that happened just because.
Evolution does not predict anything because evolution depends on a random mutation that may or may not happen or happened, who knows when or why.

It's not evolution that is flawed here; the issue is clearly your understanding of it.

If you'd like to improve your understanding of evolution, there are some free courses available here: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

To wit:

So selective breeding is not evolution. Origin of Species does not occur through natural selection.

Evolution, generally speaking, is simply a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This does occur in selective breeding so by definition selective breeding is a form of biological evolution.

Mutations are random and so far as we know, invariably destructive to the organism and/or the ability to survive.

Vast majority of mutations are neutral. You have at least a few dozen novel mutations yourself.

There is the new theory "Mitochondrial Eve" whereby it is claimed that there was a genetic shift in the DNA about 200,000 years ago which "switched" ape to human.

That's not what Mitochondrial Eve is at all. Mitochondrial Eve is simply the last common ancestor on the female side for humans.

And technically speaking, we are still apes (specifically hominidae, aka the "great apes").

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution Definition: The ORIGIN of the SPECIES
Postulate: Natural Selection
Natural Selection: The Spanish introduced cattle into Texas abt 1700. A portion of those cattle were left to roam until abt 1850 and through natural selection produced a distinct new Breed of cattle, the Texas Longhorns.
Not a New Species..the Breed of Cattle, Texas Longhorns, were expressions of genetic code inherent in all cattle.
So selective breeding is not evolution. Origin of Species does not occur through natural selection.
I am not going to argue Natural Selection. It always occurs within species and is easily demonstrated through centuries of selective livestock breeding.
Natural Selection Is Not Evolution
Evolution is the Creation of Species. That has never happened through natural selection because the naturally selected genes must be present in the selected animal. Those animals must have the ability to breed, which is the very definition of Species..one unique species.
Postulate: Genetic Mutation
So we have Mutation as the mechanism of evolution or the Creation of Species.
Mutations are random and so far as we know, invariably destructive to the organism and/or the ability to survive.
There is the new theory "Mitochondrial Eve" whereby it is claimed that there was a genetic shift in the DNA about 200,000 years ago which "switched" ape to human.
However the more research that is done, the more muddied the waters.
So that is interesting BUT so far, evolution does not have a postulate other than "probably a random mutation that happened just because.
Evolution does not predict anything because evolution depends on a random mutation that may or may not happen or happened, who knows when or why.

You are conflating and mixing all sorts of terminology. Technically evolution is merely:

" In population genetics, the term evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of an allele in a population. Frequencies range from 0, present in no individuals, to 1, present in all individuals. The gene pool is the sum of all the alleles at all genes in a population."

Population Evolution | Boundless Biology.

So let's look at the longhorns. Are they a population? Yes. Have their gene alleles changed so that they are identifiable from other populations of cattle? Yes. Then they have evolved.

 

[pitabread]

I am what evolutionist and creationist refuse to admit exists..the person who reviews the theory, the evidence and rejects the theory.

At this point, I think it's safe to say the above is not true. It doesn't sound like you've put any real effort into learning what the theory of evolution actually says.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh? I asked you earlier in this thread if you understood calculus, quantum mechanics, the theory of General Relativity etc. You said no. So what "other scientific stuff" do you understand?

Whatever simple stuff that makes sense to me, and is demonstrable. Concrete hardening for example. Although I don't understand the chemistry the evidence is pretty convincing.

 

[QvQ]

You are conflating and mixing all sorts of terminology. Technically evolution is merely:

" In population genetics, the term evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of an allele in a population. Frequencies range from 0, present in no individuals, to 1, present in all individuals. The gene pool is the sum of all the alleles at all genes in a population."

Population Evolution | Boundless Biology.

So let's look at the longhorns. Are they a population? Yes. Have their gene alleles changed so that they are identifiable from other populations of cattle? Yes. Then they have evolved.

Have the longhorn's gene alleles changed from other cattle? OR are the longhorns merely expressing a "box of alleles" common to all cattle. It should be possible through selective breeding of X breed of cattle to re-establish the breed which has been done with some breeds of horses, for instance.
The Spanish Mustang is interesting as the Spanish Jennet was a descendent of the Sorraia, a primitive horse possibly related to Tarpans. The Spanish Mustang is a reversion apparently to this primitive, which is "evolution" in reverse. It is historically thought the Spanish brought Andulasians to Mexico, hence the reversion to the Sorraia is more remarkable. However, so far as I can discover, the only classic horse so far genetically linked to Sorraia are Lusitano which is Andulasian again.
There isn't enough information. Genetics I thought would clarify but it merely muddies. I doubt there is much information about alleles for any species as yet.
I am considering that Mitochondrial Eve, 200000 yrs ago, Humans in Europe 150,000 years ago (large geographical spread) There was a bottleneck 70,000 yrs ago whereby there were fewer than 10,000 people over a huge geographical area, although migration out of Africa later but what about those blue eyes? Supposedly the Africans do not have that gene?
So muddy water.... I don't believe evolution because I don't see it as a useful or scientific discipline. It is more history. On the other hand, Physics, useful, predictible, provable.

 

[pitabread]

I don't believe evolution because I don't see it as a useful or scientific discipline. It is more history. On the other hand, Physics, useful, predictible, provable.

The modern theory of evolution is an applied science. Companies have even patented applied methodologies based on it.

 

[QvQ]

The modern theory of evolution is an applied science. Companies have even patented applied methodologies based on it.

Genetic research. However artificial manipulation of genes is not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Genetic research. However artificial manipulation of genes is not evolution.
I haven't heard that any genuinely new species has been created through genetic manipulation.

What do you mean by "genuinely new species?" Because of your extensive research I assume that you know that speciation has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. Why do you reject those observations?

 

[pitabread]

Genetic research. However artificial manipulation of genes is not evolution.

I wasn't talking about manipulation of genes.

Though I do find it interesting that you immediately jumped to a "nuh uh!" response. Predictably, one of the common responses whenever I bring up applied evolution is immediate denial from creationists.

You're right though that evolution is applied in genetic research. For example, it underpins methodologies in comparative genomics: Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

There are examples in genomics whereby evolutionary relationships of species (e.g. phylogenetics) are directly applied.

 

[QvQ]

What do you mean by "genuinely new species?" Because of your extensive research I assume that you know that speciation has been observed both in the wild and in the lab. Why do you reject those observations?

Speciation ..list please

 

[dlamberth]

So muddy water.... I don't believe evolution because I don't see it as a useful or scientific discipline. It is more history. On the other hand, Physics, useful, predictible, provable.

Evolutionary principles are used in the medications that we take. In another field that directly effects evolution, that being the science of geology, knowledge of a very old earth changing over time helps geologist find the minerals and oil that we consume.

 

[Speedwell]

Speciation ..list please

Has speciation ever been observed in nature?
Laboratory experiments of speciation - Wikipedia

 

[QvQ]

I wasn't talking about manipulation of genes.

Though I do find it interesting that you immediately jumped to a "nuh uh!" response. Predictably, one of the common responses whenever I bring up applied evolution is immediate denial from creationists.

You're right though that evolution is applied in genetic research. For example, it underpins methodologies in comparative genomics: Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

There are examples in genomics whereby evolutionary relationships of species (e.g. phylogenetics) are directly applied.

I say No, because I studied comparative genomics. The reasons why I reject some of the conclusions, indeed, some of the actual research, are complicated. And too long and involved for this forum.
But your immediate jump to the conclusion that I rejected it immediately without careful study and reason, you believe proves that i am a creationist...how about, I have spent more time studying some of this than you have and I have reached conclusions long since.
You are more interested in heresy and finding heretics against your favorite flawless perfect theory than in this discussion.
I

 

[QvQ]

Has speciation ever been observed in nature?
Laboratory experiments of speciation - Wikipedia

Ah, the fruit flies..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have the longhorn's gene alleles changed from other cattle? OR are the longhorns merely expressing a "box of alleles" common to all cattle. It should be possible through selective breeding of X breed of cattle to re-establish the breed which has been done with some breeds of horses, for instance.
The Spanish Mustang is interesting as the Spanish Jennet was a descendent of the Sorraia, a primitive horse possibly related to Tarpans. The Spanish Mustang is a reversion apparently to this primitive, which is "evolution" in reverse. It is historically thought the Spanish brought Andulasians to Mexico, hence the reversion to the Sorraia is more remarkable. However, so far as I can discover, the only classic horse so far genetically linked to Sorraia are Lusitano which is Andulasian again.
There isn't enough information. Genetics I thought would clarify but it merely muddies. I doubt there is much information about alleles for any species as yet.
I am considering that Mitochondrial Eve, 200000 yrs ago, Humans in Europe 150,000 years ago (large geographical spread) There was a bottleneck 70,000 yrs ago whereby there were fewer than 10,000 people over a huge geographical area, although migration out of Africa later but what about those blue eyes? Supposedly the Africans do not have that gene?
So muddy water.... I don't believe evolution because I don't see it as a useful or scientific discipline. It is more history. On the other hand, Physics, useful, predictible, provable.

Quick answer. The alleles are different. That means given DNA from a herd of cattle one could tell whether they were longhorns or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, the fruit flies..

Two sources were given. One had nothing to do with fruit flies.

 

[pitabread]

I say No, because I studied comparative genomics. The reasons why I reject some of the conclusions, indeed, some of the actual research, are complicated. And too long and involved for this forum.

Try me. I've got the time. Describe what you've researched.

But your immediate jump to the conclusion that I rejected it immediately without careful study and reason, you believe proves that i am a creationist...how about, I have spent more time studying some of this than you have and I have reached conclusions long since.

Given that you've been getting some of the basics wrong suggests you haven't really studied this stuff at all. Now if you truly have been studying this stuff, then surely you can post what some of what you've researched, what sources you've used, etc.

If you can't, then we have no reason to take anything you're saying at face value.

 

[QvQ]

Quick answer. The alleles are different. That means given DNA from a herd of cattle one could tell whether they were longhorns or not.

That is what makes the Spanish Mustang interesting. Whether those alleles are different from the primitive Sorriaias. IF the genetics are derived from the Andulasian/Lusitano breeds which are historically thought to have been exported from Spain, Then If the Spanish Mustang is reverting to the Tarpan primitive model, it is not retaining any alleles from the intermediate breeds...As far as I can discover, the Spanish Mustangs are not showing the alleles of the "in between breeds"Andulasians/Lusitano.
I don't have access to much information about these genetic studies nor the time to pursue but the question is..would the same breed of cattle in similar conditions drift into Longhorns? Could a Longhorm be created from the same breed of cattle by selective breeding
OR is the genetic makeup of any creature subject to the laws of physics whereby change on the molecular level creates change on the macro level so the pattern in slowly changing but always never the same?
Hawkings says it is Newtonian Determinism, I say it is random kaleidoscope.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, the fruit flies..

"Fruit flies" are not species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what makes the Spanish Mustang interesting. Whether those alleles are different from the primitive Sorriaias. IF the genetics are derived from the Andulasian/Lusitano breeds which are historically thought to have been exported from Spain, Then If the Spanish Mustang is reverting to the Tarpan primitive model, it is not retaining any alleles from the intermediate breeds...As far as I can discover, the Spanish Mustangs are not showing the alleles of the "in between breeds"Andulasians/Lusitano.
I don't have access to much information about these genetic studies nor the time to pursue but the question is..would the same breed of cattle in similar conditions drift into Longhorns? Could a Longhorm be created from the same breed of cattle by selective breeding
OR is the genetic makeup of any creature subject to the laws of physics whereby change on the molecular level creates change on the macro level so the pattern in slowly changing but always never the same?
Hawkings says it is Newtonian Determinism, I say it is random kaleidoscope.

Once again with the unsupported Hawking claim

Many populations cannot be made by selective breeding. Variation is part of evolution and cannot be stopped. Mutations unique to the population will arise in any isolated group of organisms. Longhorns will have mutations in their genome that makes them unique. Man does not isolate well, but we can still tell quite a bit of where the ancestors of specific Americans came from by their individual genomes.